Yeah same here. I tried to add custom objects that modify the “foundation terrain” (I called it, “Terrain Placer”) but, it turns out, that only certain terrains override/replace other terrains. It ruined it for me so, I just left it at that.
1 Like
Here are some low effort suggestions for things I would like to be added. By “low effort”, I mean these wouldn’t require new assets – they either reuse, or slightly modify, existing assets.
Forest types. A while ago I made a topic about this – some new forest types using existing trees in different ways, e.g. separate forest terrains for olive, cypress, and Italian pine; non-snowy dead forest; summer oak forest with just green trees. I’d especially like a forest terrain with trees A–L:
Assets from Event Mods. Some event mods have non-silly assets, or assets that wouldn’t need much modification to make them useable in a normal map. For example, here’s a black knight and Aztec man-at-arms standing on some lush terrains:
The pineapple bushes would be good if they were recoloured to be a bit more natural-looking:
I’d also like polar bears, but without the penguin knight riders. This would surely be fairly trivial, since they’re just recoloured versions of the usual brown bear:
Blossoming trees. There are some of these attached to one of the Buddha statues – I’d like to see them separated to be useable as actual choppable trees:
8 Likes
Your forage bush suggestion reminds me of an idea I had for an Oceania expansion that would add banana plants as a replacement for forage bushes. It would require a new model, of course, but it would be interesting.
5 Likes
Are the guardian “dogs” a separate asset in this game? Cus if not I want that too. I feel like there are a lot of assets that can be broken up.
An interesting idea that I just got is a tree you can garrison in so you can make scenarios with surprise attacks. It would also be funny to see villagers trying to chop trees and get slaughtered,
1 Like
Some very similar ones are. There’s 3 different designs.
It will look off as you would be gathering from under the tree.An apple tree would make more sense.
We have orange bushes as well that can be directly added to the game.
Since there is a Scythian cavalry unit ingame now it would be a good chance to reskin the scythian scout hero unit and other scythian cavalry units in the first two missions in attila campaign.
There really shouldn’t be any “Scythians” in Attila to begin with but we can pretend they’re Sarmatians.
Sarmatians were closely related to the Scythians and were called Scythians by everyone back then.
Though the Huns were called Scythians by the Romans too.
Ah! The old “just lump all the Steppe Nomads together” trope.
1 Like
It always takes people so long to get used to a new name that there is already a new group of steppe nomads so they were often called by the name of whoever came before them.
Which is kinda funny.
But even older names also sticked around for a while too so you have the same group of people being called by 3+ different names by different people at the same time.
So I think the use of the word Sythian is not really wrong on the Huns campaign and also using Chronicles units like the Sythian cavalry would probably make more sense then “Knights” and “Hussars”, right?
Tell that to the greek historians.Besides this game has umbrella civi names so having scythians ingame is not that bad they can be both european and asian at the same time.
Romans and Byzantines called everyone from Goths to Slavs Scythians so maybe we can do better?
Otherwise yes of course everyone is everyone, Sarmatians were a Scythian offshoot but Sarmatians are an umbrella itself as it contains specific groups like Roxolani and Iazyges but no one’s gonna argue to be that pedantic.
Sarmatians would be good enough since Scythians is too wide, it would be like calling the Huns Mongols, the Scythians were around since the 10th century BC and Wikipedia says they got absorbed by Sarmatians and Goths migrating to the pontic steppe between the 1st and 3rd century AD and by that time they weren’t nomadic anymore anyway but settled as farmers.
Huns would in turn merge with Sarmatians and proto Bulgars and other Hunnish tribes (Onogurs, Kutrigurs etc) absorbed what was left of Sarmatians around 500 AD.
If anything it makes less sense that they are portrayed as Mongols with east Asian buildings when they could be at least Bulgars or Cumans.
Celts joined the discussion with woad raiders.
A little bit off topic but I think Chronicles should have Scythians as a civ but I don’t think it also needs Sarmatians. They are similar enough.
1 Like
They could add Picts (existing from 300 AD to 900) whose name is the Latin for “painted” since they used to paint their bodies. Woad raiders would find an appropriate medieval civ and Celts could be renamed to Scots with a more appropriate UU.
I agree, Sarmatians wouldn’t probably have enough material to be a civ not even in aoe2.
In the campaign I am making, I kept them as Mongols, but only for consistency with Attila and to give them bonuses to Steppe Lancers and Cavalry Archers to make them more difficult.
For their buildings I only used yurts, to make sure the East Asian buildings didn’t look glaringly out of place.
The original mod had Scythians as a civ.
1 Like
If Chronicles ever introduce a new Nomadic civ then it should act like AOE4 Mongols. Where you can move and unpack military buildings. It can actually bring a new room for more unique civ design which we cant do thanks to engine limitations rn. Its doable actually. Because alpha AOE2 had a better way to pack/unpack building instead of not being able to set the building in grid points.
Did the same for Gokturks. Honestly Mongols isn’t that bad for them imo, at least better than Turks. I guess Tatars maybe.
If you add the Alans and make them also represent the Sarmatians, there will be enough material.
2 Likes