Petition: Fix architecture styles of the Spanish, Byzantines etc.

[Cats. Just Cats.]

I've just read in the "Future Patch Plans" that the developers will continue to monitor the forums for the wishes of the users (i.e. our wishes) to be included in future patches.

There is this one topic that has been bugging me for a while, so I'll make a proposition here: Change the architecture for some civs which received the wrong building sets. Make these changes optional (by use of graphic mods) so that people can decide on their own which civs they want to switch. See the box below for the details of my plan.

If you support the idea, LEAVE A SHORT REPLY in this topic. So this thread works like a petition with a list of subscribers. When the developers see that a lot of people demand it, they might actually consider implementing it. The topic has been ignored for years and I hope to finally gain some momentum.

I've been watching the discussions around this topic for a while, and I noticed something:

The developers wrongly assume that people are asking for the option to mod all 31 civs individually. That is actually not the case. The vast majority of people don't want to introduce new graphics, they simply want to switch some civs to ANOTHER existing architecture style because they feel that their civ received the wrong cultural allocation. (!)

- Spain -> change to Mediterranean buildings?
- Huns -> change to Eastern European (= Slavs)?
- Berbers -> change to African?
- Vietnam -> change to East Asian (= Chinese)?
- Byzantine -> change to something "non-Arabic looking without a mosque"?

The disputed civs are only 5 out of 31. They appear in almost every discussion. I agree with some of the proposed changes. Why not leave it to the user to change these 5 civs if they want to? Personally, it's driving me mad that Spain and Portugal have different buildings; these two sister countries should definitely have the same. Also, the Huns came from the East and should have the Eastern European set. Both of these cases, the Spanish and the Huns, have the wrong architecture because they were introduced in the Conquerors when the appropriate architecture styles weren't created yet. The correct architecture sets came with The Forgotten and should be made available for these two civs.

As for Byzantine, I think it should keep its current buildings except for the cloister which should be exchanged for a Christian church.

Give these 5 civs an individual graphic set, so people can change them with mods. The purpose is to open up the possibility to switch them to other building sets. It already worked for India which has its own set of graphic files; the rest of the controversial countries deserves the same option.

Yes, I know some people complain that the Spanish shouldn't receive the Italian set because the real buildings in Spain look nothing like in Italy. But the Italian set needs to be replaced by a higher quality version anyway! At some point in the future, we still need a higher quality version of the poorly photoshopped Italian and Slavic buildings, to blend better with the rest of the game. When the Italian set is newly designed, Spanish elements can be mixed into it so that it fits Italy, Spain and Portugal.

EDIT: To further clarify what I mean, because there seems to be some confusion - I ask that these five civs receive their own SLP graphic files in the same way like India received its own copy of the Middle Eastern graphic files. That way, the original graphics will not be changed, but a path will be opened to change these five civs through SLP mods without touching data mods.

In other words: We receive a few more "official mods" similar to the "Indian architecture mod" that people can activate if they like them. They stay optional.

[the cup]

I literally never play Byzantium because I hate their archetecture so ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ much, ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ ugly, give me more of that sexy Italian ♥♥♥♥.

[Saint_Michaels_]

The only problem is that the Developers have already stated several times over the course of 2-3 years that they will not straight-up change any of the architectures for the original AoC civilizations. Not just "All 31", but specific ones in particular like the Byzantines & the Spanish. It's a big reason why I made the Independent Architecture mod in the first place. Honestly, I don't think their stance has changed and I don't think it's going to happen.

It wouldd be more realistic, easier, true to the Developers wishes and just better overall to instead ask the Developers to use the same "Duplicate" SLP system that they used for the Indians for the most requested civilizations. If you don't remember, the Indians used the Middle Eastern Architecture set, but the SLP's they used were completely different from the other civilizations. That was why people were able to mod the Indian Buildings completely seperately. I use the exact same system for my mod.

[Cats. Just Cats.]

Originally posted by Saint_Michaels_:

It wouldd be more realistic, easier, true to the Developers wishes and just better overall to instead ask the Developers to use the same "Duplicate" SLP system that they used for the Indians for the most requested civilizations. If you don't remember, the Indians used the Middle Eastern Architecture set, but the SLP's they used were completely different from the other civilizations. That was why people were able to mod the Indian Buildings completely seperately. I use the exact same system for my mod.

That's exactly what I'm proposing. Duplicate the current graphic files (SLP) for these 5 civs and give them each an invididual set of files so that it can be edited. Sorry if that didn't come out clearly. The idea is that owners of The Conquerors (without the expansions) will most likely decide not to change the Spanish, while people who bought The Forgotten will choose to change the Spanish to keep them consistent with the Italians.

The Spanish and Huns should clearly have been changed with the introduction of The Forgotten, as soon as the new architecture styles became available. It's not so much a matter of customization, it's more a matter of fixing the game and making it more logically consistent. The Byzantines having a mosque is another logical error.

[kud13]

+1 for the idea, but not your implementation.

I would prefer the devs took the kind of work St_Michaels_ is doing (separating the SLP for the civs), and implemented it into the base game, giving everyone the option to mod individual buildings as they see fit themselves. (because for instance I don't really mind the Byz set, except for the mosque that I replaced with a mod, but it feels weird using the red-brick set for the Slavs, but I also see it as fitting for the Magyars, so I'd like both to be in the game).

Then we get the best of both worlds, with the devs not needing to the do any more creative work (civ design), but ensuring the users get maximum freedom to mix and match as they see fit.

@ cats: I disagree. There's plenty of people who do want to "mod like crazy" (which is why there's many separate architecture sets in the Workshop). The Independent Architecture project is full of requests for multiple civs. The more options the better.

[Cats. Just Cats.]

Honestly, I would also prefer to give all 31 civs individual SLP files, but I try to find a middle ground so that the developers don't have to make so many changes. I'd be content with the controversial 5 civs. The chance that the idea is approved is higher if we don't demand too much, I think.

And my line of thinking is that the game is actually broken and needs a fix. Maybe that argumentation will fly with the developers. It would be hard to argue the same for all 31 civs... although I understand the wishes of artists to beautify their favorite civs.

[Shu97]

I support this idea! I also understand the politic of not changing the original game, but if it would be optional - everybody will be happy. Developers allready did it one time with Indian architecture- it was oficial mod in workshop - it was very nice! It will be great if developers make some more architecture mods that would fit in game design. Some fix for the mediterranean architecture will be also great- a lot of players asking for it!

[Putin Huilo]

Yeah Change Byzantine architecture from that ugly muslim culture

[dymfq]

Ok I'm Spanish and as I have stated on some mods pages:

Nowhere in Spain that so called "mediterranean" architecture can be found. Despite Spain being a "mediterranean" country that doesn't mean they have to receive that set and I thank the Forgotten's developers for not having made the huge mistake.
That architecture does not belong to medieval Spain. The "aragonese architecture" mod is actually a very very accurate one and if the developers ever consider review the architectures, they should take it into account.

In fact, if I had to choose between the current architecture Spanish have and the mediterranean set, I would choose to keep it as it is because except for the castle, the rest of the buildings are somewhat ok, at least when compared with the mediterranean (whose castle is even worse btw).

A quick search about "Alcazar de Segovia" (which should have been the Wonder btw) or "spanish castles" on google images can easily prove this.

Originally posted by Cats. Just Cats.:

it's driving me mad that Spain and Portugal have different buildings; these two sister countries should definitely have the same.
The correct architecture sets came with The Forgotten and should be made available for these two civs.

Wrong. Portugal has a very different medieval architecture than Spain. Another search can prove it. While in the case of Portugal you can somewhat see that the roofs and houses look very "mediterranean"-like, this is not true for Spain. Reasons despite being neighbours? Don't know exactly, but may have some relation with the fact that whilst Spain is vast and very cold in its mountainous interior, the portuguese were more sea-oriented during the middle ages and maybe that has a relation in how the buildings evolved, despite the fact that this doesn't hold true for the aragonese area anyway...

Compare this portuguese town:
http://www.karenbrown.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/itin-portugal-medieval-monuments-Obidos_77c-1.jpg

With this spanish one:
http://blog.kudoybook.com/wp-content/uploads/images/Albarracin_16084.jpg

The problem here is calling it "mediterranean" architecture when it should be more like "sea-oriented trade countries" architecture.

[Cats. Just Cats.]

Nowhere in Spain that so called "mediterranean" architecture can be found. Despite Spain being a "mediterranean" country that doesn't mean they have to receive that set and I thank the Forgotten's developers for not having made the huge mistake.

I think you are completely missing the point of the architecture styles in AoE2. They are not meant to look as realistic as possible. So, you're arguing that real buildings in Spain are more similar to French buildings than to Portuguese buildings and therefore they should have the British/French style.

The problem with that argumentation is that the buildings in AoE2 have more of a symbolic meaning than how they actually looked like. Many of the buildings are highly artificial and constructed. That whole African set is an invention (which never existed in reality) and it can be argued that the Ethiopians had buildings that looked very different in reality. Why do they have the African set? Because they loosely share an "African culture" with the Malians. I am from Germany and in most parts of the country, we don't have red roofs at all (which are more of a Skandinavian/Viking thing) but I am still not complaining. Why? Because we share the Germanic roots with the Vikings and so we received the same buildings.

You know what? I also like the French/British buildings better for Germany. They are more accurate for us. I still don't want the Teutons to have them. Why? Because we belong together with the Vikings and Goths (culturally). The idea is to group the countries together culturally. Clearly, Spain is culturally closer to Italy and Portugal than to Britain and France. To symbolize that the countries belong together, they should share the same buildings. That's how it has always been in AoE2. Why should Spain be the exception?

If a new set is designed that mixes Italian, Spanish and Portuguese styles, then the Spanish architecture can be represented better than in the current Italian set that you don't like. Surely, a compromise can be found. Besides, you don't have to activate a mod that you don't like. It's optional.

[Brick Slayer]

I'm sure the building sets for those civs can easily be modded, no need for an update

[Cats. Just Cats.]

Originally posted by Devran from Turkey:

I'm sure the building sets for those civs can easily be modded, no need for an update

Currently, it can only be done with a data mod which is very inconvenient. Most people refuse to play with data mods in multiplayer.

Only some civs like the Indians have their own graphics and can be fully modded. What I'm asking for is to make the same thing possible for five other civs, WITHOUT breaking the multiplayer. So everyone can decide for himself which graphics he uses and the game is still multiplayer-compatible.

[Catbarf]

This is certainly a long overdue change in the game's data. Devs, its time to make it happen. Saint Michael has started the work for you with his mod series, perhaps you can consider incorporating (after due diligence) his modifications into the next patch.

Obviously it would be great to see all civs have unique SLP number that can be modded, however given that it is a time investment some of the above mentioned civs are certainly in more dire need of modding freedom than others (although Mongols and Huns belong in the list).

To all those making the arguement about 'x and y architecture is no more appropriate than the vanilla' please keep in mind, all we are asking for here is the CHOICE. Give people the option, through mods, to change these architecture sets as they please in a way that is multiplayer compatible. Its choice we are asking for, so the is quite literally no reason for anyone in the community to no support this.

I have a Byzantine mod in progress on AOKHeaven, but as a MP gamer I wont be able to experience the benefit of my own work until this mistake in the base game is finally fixed. Back in 1998, a reduced number of SLPs was probably necessary due to the limitation of PCs at that time, although I also beleive simple cost cutting by Ensemble was also a major factor. Now, the limitation of PCs is no longer a factor, and there is already a modder (Saint Michael) who has started the work for the devs in a systematic way.

This is the sort of change that will help the game survive another 10 years, through enrichment of modding possibilities.

@cats - i think you could make the orginal post a bit clearer on the point that you are asking for the option to individually mod these civs, not to force the change on anyone.

[Cats. Just Cats.]

Originally posted by Catbarf:

Now, the limitation of PCs is no longer a factor, and there is already a modder (Saint Michael) who has started the work for the devs in a systematic way.

This is the sort of change that will help the game survive another 10 years, through enrichment of modding possibilities.

Because neither the financial cost nor the effort is a real issue here, the only explanation I can come up with why the developers are still opposing the idea is a sense of "Let's keep the game simple and elegant". It feels like a design choice to me.

So, if they really want to keep the civs systematically grouped into Western European, Mediterannean, Middle Eastern and so on and they dislike the idea of dissolving these groups, then the system should at least be LOGICALLY CONSISTENT. That is why I am arguing within the system to allow for correcting the civs which are logically inconsistent ever since The Forgotten.

But yeah, allowing for all 31 civs to be customized would be even better and could be a huge selling point for the game in the next 10 years. That's a very good point.

[Catbarf]

Originally posted by Cats. Just Cats.:

Because neither the financial cost nor the effort is a real issue here, the only explanation I can come up with why the developers are still opposing the idea is a sense of "Let's keep the game simple and elegant". It feels like a design choice to me.

I disagree there, I think it is definately the cost and effort. The design point was historically made by the HD devs, however it is a completely hollow arguement given that people are asking for the choice to mod as they please, not changes to the base game design. Fortunately, I have not seen this point raised by them for about 2 years, so hopefully they have abandoned this view.

Cost and effort therefore must be the key factor. I imagine that the team runs on fairly tight margins, particularly where the work is not linked to a DLC that will derive revenue immediately. This sort of change would generally be expected to come in a free patch (although personally I would pay a full DLC price for this alone), and therefore there is effectively limited budget to acheive it. The time it would take should not be underestimated in the context of a small development team.

That said, this is something the community would be willing to help with. For example, Saint Michael's work could be incorporated into official data.

On the other hand, this would be an enormously valuable update to the games 'modability', which in turns extends the lifecycle of the game and extends sales oppurtunities for both the base game and the DLCs. You could therefore argue that from the commercial point of view this would be a sensible time investment for them - by extending the life cycle of their product.

[Cats. Just Cats.]

Originally posted by Catbarf:

Cost and effort therefore must be the key factor. I imagine that the team runs on fairly tight margins, particularly where the work is not linked to a DLC that will derive revenue immediately.

...

That said, this is something the community would be willing to help with. For example, Saint Michael's work could be incorporated into official data.

Hm, if it's really a question of cost and effort, then it could be a reasonable first step to make 5 out of 31 civs customizable. The effort to do this would be comparatively low.

Then, wait for the feedback of the community and follow with the other civs later.

They should make sure to establish an orderly file naming scheme which can later be extended to all 31 civs.