There should be more architecture sets

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
1

First of all, I am really thankful to the devs who are introducing regional monks, more monasteries, elite unique unit skins and unique castles. I thought these would all remain my dreams and never become the reality.

They are most likely adding 5 East Asian civs, making the East Asian architecture set the most cluttered with 10 civs. 20% civs are going to use this set.

8 civs use the Mediterranean set and 6 civs use the Eastern European set.

The developers should add the following architecture sets to represent the uniqueness of cultures in the game better:

A Chinese-based set for Chinese, Koreans, Jurchens, Khitans, Vietnamese and Dali.

A Tibetan-based set for Tibetans, Mongols and Tanguts.

A Byzantine-based set for Byzantines, Georgians, Armenians and Bulgarians.

13 Likes
2

Totally agreed!
Adding civs is not all need be done, represent them well is also important.

5 Likes
3

I think there are a few hints that they might be adding a Nomadic/Steppe architecture set.

The Shamanist Shrine skins for the Monastery would look extremely out of place next to East Asian Mongols or Central European Huns.
It fits none of the existing architecture sets honestly.

This new architecture could be used for the Huns, Cumans, Mongols and some of the new civilisations.
So there won’t be 10 East Asian civs.

6 Likes
4

Just reding the title - Yes, I second this.

*8 civs - Byzantines, Spanish, Italians, Portuguese, Sicilians, Romans, Armenians, Georgians.

Make a nomadic set instead for Mongols, Huns, Magyars and Cumans. And if Khitans is added, they should also get nomadic set.

5

It’s a typical Mongolian shrine, still exists currently.

This is impossible, because all steppes all build their important buildings(castle, TC, academy, academy) in styles of nearby civs, Turks learn from Persians, Mongols learn from Chinese and Tibetans, Huns learn from Slavs, rather than sharing a same style.
However, for none important buildings(house, market, barracks), they could share one style.

6

Magyars lived in actual houses in most of Middle Ages. They also had very strong fortifications vs Mongols and Turks.

They basically built big stone castles to defeat the Mongols.

So no, Magyars shouldn’t switch sets.

2 Likes
7

The Castles are already unique now anyway so there is no architecture set specific Castle anymore.

I didn’t suggest civs like Turks and Magyars because they stopped being nomadic.

Huns did not learn for the Slavs, we don’t even know if they ever interacted with Slavs. The Huns didn’t build anything anyway.

In AoE4 the Mongols also have tents for buildings and it looks pretty cool so why not in AoE2 too?

3 Likes
8

Mongolian in AoE4 use tents for buildings is a good design, because AoE4 civs each has their own architecture set, but if you apply those tents to other nomadic civs in AoE2, it will cause problems. Though all nomadic they are, they didn’t build tents in same way.

9

Of course they didn’t but Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese and Japanese don’t have the same houses either but they do have the same in AoE2.

Yurts for Huns, Cumans and Mongols will be less wrong then what they have now.

1 Like
10

I prefer they use yurt for houses, barracks, stables, etc, and use current architecture for TC and university.

11

This would not fix the Huns though because Huns don’t have houses.

12

Why not let Huns be the unique one to have all yurt buildings, while others like I said?

13

I think they could get some to represent their nomadic root. Ideally I’d want 2 nomadic set in the future. One for Asian steppe, and another for Huns, Magyars and Avars.

14

Magyars are supposed to be settled relatively early, Hungary christianised around 1000 AD. They shouldn’t have an architectural style that looks anywhere near nomadic in the castle & imperial age.

Maybe you meant Cumans who should have a nomadic style.

1 Like
15

Because then we have 10 civilisations with the East Asian set.

16

At least with each civ now having unique castles, can we hope for unique architectural styles for all civs in the forseeable future ?

Anyway let’s wait to see the official civ list to know how to split them. Perhabs some toward Central Asia could also get the central asian style (Uyghurs maybe ?).

17

We dont know the architecture sets of the new civs yet

18

How is it ok to have mali and eithopia in the same set while incas have a aztec set?lets not even look at the north and south india buildings.

This is a game not a historical xyz thing that needs to have everything fixed.

1 Like
19

I mentioned both.

Anyway, I’m convinced Magyars shouldn’t get Nomadic architecture. But there should be two different set of nomadic architecture.

20

I think it’s fine, since they did in real life.
If there will be one in another group, it should be Japan.