I don’t have much to say about that, it could be cool and more historically anchored
Highly unlikely, mate. Their aim was to transfer AoE1 campaigns onto AoE 2 engines. That’s pretty much about it.
They changed the architecture set of a bunch of other civilisations though.
No reason to jot also change the Assyrians.
But I guess they are cursed like the AoE2 Persians and somehow some people in the dev team really don’t want them to have the correct architecture set for some reason.
Yeah this is what I think it is. Just stubbornly won’t change them.
What’s weird is that in original AoE1, Assyrians had the correct buildings. But during DE, they and Sumerians got given the Egyptian one, because the Egyptians were the only ones with it, and it made each architecture set have 3 civs each with it.
I don’t understand why there was a need to make that of all things “balanced”. Architecture is architecture, civs should have the one that matches closest, and that’s the end of it.
Assyria is right next to Babylonia. How on EARTH are their buildings different!? Hell, their civ watermark is a freakin’ Lamassu!
Nope it was already wrong in the original AoE1. AoE1DE didn’t change any architecture sets.
Yeah that really annoys me. People want some civilisations to look wrong just to make numbers look good.
Like how some people think they should add no new civilisations because the civ picker grid is will aligned now.
It’s especially annoying now that there are lamassus on the Mesopotamian gate, and yet the Assyrians can’t build them.
Hmm, not in my original copy of AoE1.
I’m generally not a fan of overloading architecture sets (e.g. the AoE2 Mediterranean and Eastern European ones), but four civs with the same one is definitely fine – and the Return of Rome devs obviously agree, since some of them are used by four civs.
Perhaps I remembered it wrong. Been a while since I played it.
They did, check the wiki
Furthermore, why Phoenicians have the Greek instead of the Egyptian (the most accurate from the available, positively populating it); they can also move Macedonians to the Greek to repopulate it. And why the Hittites have the Egyptian instead of the Mesopotamian (the most accurate from the available).
The whole thing overpopulates the Mesopotamian tho, but it is what it is imo.
Hittites as either Greek or Egyptian is the most accurate one frpm what I have seen
I think both the Hittites and Assyrians should get Mesopotamian architecture. Egyptian architecture would be better used if they added Nubians, Aksumites, or Garamantes in a DLC patch.
It’s very unlikely that Nubians/Kush will be added, because Egyptian tech tree already considers them in.
This might sound weird, but if an Israelites civ were added, it could use the Egyptian architecture.
What do you mean by that?
It means that Egyptian have some units in their tech tree because Nubians and Kush are already considered currently as part of Egyptians.
The war elephants at least could be a reference to Meroitic war elephants, I suppose. Though Ptolemaic armies would also import elephants via Nubian intermediaries as well. Of course, the Ptolemaic army would probably have been more Hellenistic than native Egyptian, but that doesn’t mean the game couldn’t have folded the Ptolemaic dynasty into the Egyptian civilization as well.
Wiki confirms the correction that Assyrians have always had Egyptian architecture. Also, Sumerians originally had Egyptian architecture, until DE changed it to Mesopotamian.
Already suggested a systematic scheme. Not going to repeat it.
Acording to the wiki it was Return of Rome that changed Sumerians (Egyptian → Mesopotamian) and Hittites (Mesopotamian → Egyptian), as you said, Assyrians never changed, they have always had the Egyptian one
If there’s a civ that should have Egyptian architecture aside from the Egyptains is the Hittites tho, they are the ones that had the most contact with Egypt
Yeah, you’re right, it was Return of Rome that changed it. It did also change Hittites to Egyptian.
My main gripe is Macedonians having different architecture to the Greeks.