When the historical game forum censors historical figures xDDD.
BTW. If you know who dictator and what totalitarian system is censored, then why is there no censorship for even greater criminals such as Stalin and Mao Zedong, and their communism???
Either censor all the bad guys or none of them.
Rule of thumb, killing millions is ok if you slaughter your own people.
In that sense the Goths lived on in Aquitania and Spain and Ukraine.
Personally the best fit would be a architecture change when they reach castle age into Western European architecture.
They had already entered the Roman Empire by the start of AOE2, Iâd rather see them drifting toward a roman architecture as they replaced the roman administration in Spain and Italy. The Western European style however is Frankish, it wouldnât fit them (the Franks quickly kicked them out of southern Gaul).
Feudal : basic germanic architecture
Castle : pillaged roman architecture
Imperial : restored roman architecture
But considering that complicates things, another tricky example would be the Magyars, starting with a Nomadic style then getting closer from the Central European style as they settled and christianised. Lithuanians same, a âpaganâ style then (looking at pics of the old town of Vilnius) maybe a new Baltic style shared with the Poles ?
Goths civ should be in brand new Nordic / or North European Architecture Set - with Vikings civ. The Nordic / North European Architecture Set would of course not be made for free. It would be added to the game (as free content for Vikings and Goth civs) as part of the Scandinavian DLC (brand new civ in this DLC: Swedes civ & Danes civ). Vikings civ would change their name to Norwegians civ.
BTW. Then Huskarl would become a regional unit shared between Britons civ, Danes civ and Goths civ.
Britons are the post-1066 English, no more huscarls for them. The closest thing from Anglo-Saxons are the Goths (who can be used as your usual germanic invader).
Also although the Vikings also had huscarls, it would be a change too radical for an original AOK civ. I wouldnât expect a rework as was done for the Indians, who were newer and needed an in-depth rework.
Some Goth churches still exist in Spain and Italy, e.g. in Ravenna â but I guess their other buildings were probably quite different.
Meanwhile, some English Gothic Revivalists suggested simply calling it âEnglish architectureâ, supposedly believing it was built by Anglo-SaxonsâŠ
Do you know whatâs going on with the Western European Imperial Age architecture? For Britons it looks both anachronistic and weird, but maybe itâs based on something in France?
The castle is the central part of an english castle, but as for the other buildings, the construction style is often seen in northern France. For example the center of Troyes :
The slate roofs that we see in buildings that change in the Imperial Age (Town Center, UniversityâŠ), also used in late-medieval and renaissance french buildings. Hereâs Chambord, built by King François I :
So this architecture style indeed fits France, though it varies from region to region. In some towns in Normandy, the architecture is unsurprisingly very close from South England.
Makes me think the Burdungians would be very tricky to make, as they are split in 2 between Burgundy (a style very similar to France) and the Low Countries that have a distinctive flemish architecture.
Stalin wasnt as bad as the austrian painter. The Austrian painter wanted thst you and alk your fellows Slavs cease to exist so the Germans could manifest destiny all over eastern Europe and created an industrial operation that led to the death of 10+ millions jews and Slavs. Stalin purged around a million people and caused horrible famines because of his poor administration but he still still didnt have nearly as terrible goals.
Either way Genghis and Tamerlane were also horrible mass murderers and we are fine with them here so targetting the Austrian painter is more about targetting his ideology
The famines were intentional (he kept exporting massively, ordered to take the grain by force, and deliberately tried to hide the situation from the rest of the world) and partly motivated by a desire of punishing a region that opposed him during the civil war, plus donât forget his gulag system in which he sent anyone who disagreed with his unnatural system that made everyone slave to the State.
Anyway when your body count reaches those numbers, Iâd say youâve maxed out how evil itâs possible to be.
(talking about that on a threat about architecture, it drifted off-topic quicklyâŠ)
Thats a commonly believed myth but Stalin didnt intend for that to happen. We can see from the Soviet archives that Stalin thought the farmers would be able to handle it thanks to collectivization. But collectivization failed terribly
And the moat affected areas were just the rural areas since Stalin sent the grain to cities for the industrialization. Thats why Kazakhstan was hit the harfest, since Stalin forced them to settle and that transition made them the most fragile to the ongoibg drought.
Hes still a monster, and one of the greatest mass murderers of all time, and even without the greay purge he would still be an absolutely terrible person but the Austrian painter is inherently more evil
Either way, I think easy architecture swaps should be done if possible but at the same time theres so many AoE2 civs with oncorrect architecture its hard to just put priorities for them. Ethiopians and Incas are prob the examples that annoy me the most but I dontbthink they have priority over anyone
One thing they should really do is make the style of the Monastery (and also the monk please) independent of the architecture set.
Make Catholics have Catholic churches and Orthodox have Orthodox ones.
And even more so for civilisations with completely different religions, Hindus, Muslims and Buddhist should not have the same Monastery.
But back to the main topic. Even without new architecture sets I think Bohemians and also Poles should be changed to Central European architecture. It doesnât matter how many civilisations already use a certain set, better to have it shared between many then it being completely wrong.
It would be nice to have 1 or 2 new architecture sets to clean up the mess.
Iâm thinking about a Norse/Early Mediaeval set and a nomadic set.
Yeah they are very wrong but they would need unique sets.
I think many people would complaint that their favourite civilisation didnât get a unique set instead.
That would also give Mali a unique set too.
But I think those regions could use some more civilisations anyway and that would justify new architecture sets.
I totally disagree with all of that for gameplay.
I think it is to differentiate them from Teutons for the Zizka campaign.
they should have central-european architecture !!!
This is my personal favorite of your proposals.
Proposal A seems nice. The only challenge would be balancing the celtish and viking architectures.
Maybe taking inspiration from parts of Ireland and Scotland that were controlled by the Northmen at some point ?
Thanks! I was specifically meaning the buildings that change for Imperial Age actually, sorry if that was unclear. I think the Feudal and Castle Age buildings are very accurate for Britons (providing you donât take them too seriously as specific time periods, and you donât mind the thatched roofs disappearing completely).
The half-timber walls construction and straw roofs was very common in this part of Europe, it also fits more rural areas.
An example in Normandy
Thatâs EXACTLY (no joke) how i thoght about it 
love the idea
and every civ should have a unique castle at this point
