View Full Version : Input requested - faction naming
Hello, EB fans. I am interested in your feedback regarding a question of aesthetics.
As you know, our naming convention is defined so that we get as close to we can to real, period names. In the case of faction names, we have several choices. The faction can be referred to as a people or a political unit with direct references, in many cases. For some factions that are monarchies or empires sharing a similar cultural identity with other factions, the choice is clear. For others, it is not so clear.
For instance, "Carthage" may be called by the Punic name for its people, Tsorim (or Ponnim), or the Punic name for its political unit, Safot Softim biQarthadast. Or, if "Rome" were a single, united faction, it could be called Romani for its people, or Senatus Populusque Quiritum Romanorum (please forgive any Latin or Punic mistakes, I speak neither).
As you can see, "Tsorim" flashing by every turn is much more clean than "Safot Softim biQarthadast." However, both are appropriate and accurate; one is simply the name for a people, the other for a political unit. (Tsorim = Tyrians, Safot Softim biQarthadast = "The Rule of the Softim in Carthage")
This basically boils down to preference, and so I for one am interested in your thoughts. I'm interested in hearing what you have to say.
Byzantine Prince
06-07-2005, 08:09
The more acurate to what it's accurate historical name is the better for me. It adds another dimension to the game, and fans of history will apreciate it. :bow:
Well, this is the point; we have found accurate names for both the people and the nation. They are both accurate. It is the difference between saying "United States of America" or "Americans." Both are valid, but one refers to how we call our country, the other how we call ourselves as a people.
I would go for the political unit, but thats just me. After all, when you conquer a nation you don't kill all the people. You vanquish their political power, and subsume them (Rome did anyway). But if it results in long, awkward and unpronouncable names then it probably should be avoided. KISS people. :)
Well, you can see the specific Carthaginian example above. We will of course provide pronunciation guides, but the question remains. Based on the example above, would you go with "Tsorim" or the longer "Safot Softim biQarthadast?"
Productivity
06-07-2005, 09:02
I would go with how the people are called.
ie. We have defeated the American forces
We have defeated the forces of the United States of America
We have defeated the Chinese forces
We have defeated the forces of the Peoples Republic of China
While the second variation is more accurate, it also less commonly used today. I would guess (and I have no historical backup here, but a few logicala reasons (efficiency, characterising another group as an enemy/inferior people)) that this would hold true throughout history.
Krusader
06-07-2005, 09:03
I myself would definetly go with Tsorim.
But what about "mixing" in some special cases like that one above. I find Tsorim much easier and cleaner than Safot Softim biQarthadast.
Well, you can see the specific Carthaginian example above. We will of course provide pronunciation guides, but the question remains. Based on the example above, would you go with "Tsorim" or the longer "Safot Softim biQarthadast?"
You can't just call it "Carthage" (or the Punic equivalent of the city name) on the strat map for brevity, and then include the full name in the faction description at the beginning for historical accuracy, immersion, etc?
I would prefer the political unit as the name, if available. I think Temple made a good point:
I would go for the political unit, but thats just me. After all, when you conquer a nation you don't kill all the people. You vanquish their political power, and subsume them (Rome did anyway).
I think the name of the people could be included too, like if the province ever goes rebel (ie, "Lesbian rebels"... so "Tsorim/Ponnim rebels" or something)
SwordsMaster
06-07-2005, 10:36
IMO you will use the people's denomination to refer to troops, etc composed by citizens of that faction. To refer to a faction as a political power it feels more reasonable to use their political name.
Go with the names as a people coz all the names in your previews sounded good and plus i guess if you named them as a political unit the names would be very long as you put in the example for Carthage and Rome...
cunctator
06-07-2005, 12:04
I prefer to have the names of political units. It adds more imersion in the diplomacy screens, one of the few occasions the full faction name apears in the game.
"Lesbian rebels"
Hehehehe...
Sorry about that. Couldn't help myself. Last time, I swear..
I voted political unit. since the an 'empire' (dont start again plz) like Alexanders was refered to as "the empire (i know, i know) of alexander" but teh people living in those city's didnt refere to themselves as 'alexanders' people, or whatever. the tought of themselves as people of their city.
Dunno if its the same ebverywhere, correct me if I'm wrong.
Shrapnel
06-07-2005, 15:44
I would go for the way that they call themselves as people, it would be like saying 'I'm going to play as Spain' or 'I'm, going to play as the Spanish'.
bodidley
06-07-2005, 16:42
In some cases the name of the people is preferable because it is easier to say. In other cases, the political body controls far more than one people. In the cases of the Seleukid Empire and the Roman Empire, the subjects and citizens were not all one people. In the case of federations or confederations of tribes, one wouldn't want to imply that all of the people were from one tribe.
Big_John
06-07-2005, 17:09
i voted political unit, simply because when i play this type of game, i tend to see myself as playing the empire, not the people, per se. e.g., i like ponnim and tsorim, but safot softim biqarthadast sounds more important or.. epic or something.. to me. regardless, either convention is a vast improvement to the immersion, so it's not that big a deal to me.
There are many different instances where this applies - in general we'll be adjusting the display text as need be. That is, all the text about "Tsorim city" or "you have defeated a Tsorim army," that sort of thing. However, I am specifically referring to the name of the faction which displays when you click on the faction icon, which shows up at the top of the screen when it is that faction's turn, and in the diplomacy screen.
Then change my vote to the opposite. Plz. ~;)
Spendios
06-07-2005, 19:37
I voted for the political unit for the same reason as Temple :when you conquer a nation you don't kill all the people. You vanquish their political power, and subsume them.
IMO, hence my vote, Political since People's name is too specific. In the ancient world, I don't the borders are well defined as well as people's affiliation. ~:)
(However on very popular factions like Carthage. I'd rather have plain Carthage because it is an instantly identifiable terms today.)
Then change my vote to the opposite. Plz. ~;)Done.
However, I am specifically referring to the name of the faction which displays when you click on the faction icon, which shows up at the top of the screen when it is that faction's turn, and in the diplomacy screen.
In that case, DEFINITELY use the political unit.
Steppe Merc
06-08-2005, 00:29
Just to play devils advocate, it isn't always the government that would be best. For example, the Sarmatians weren't the "Group of Tribes that are Sarmatians" you know? Sometimes it was a distinct ethnic group that they were known as. Mongols weren't the "Empire of Chingiss Khan", they were Mongols. The people that they absorbed became know as Mongols as well, even though they were say Turks or Kipchaqs or whatever.
Personally, I believe that it should be a mix, where applicable. The Empire of Selukids as opposed to the Aeudi.
QwertyMIDX
06-08-2005, 00:31
The Aedui would be more approiatly called the Aedui Condederation than the Aedui. I do agree that is a question that should be handled on a faction-by-faction basis rather than according to some ironclad rule.
sharrukin
06-08-2005, 00:40
I think QwertyMIDX and Steppe Merc are correct. In the case of Carthage I think the name of the people makes more sense. For other factions it is going to be different because they were not all nation states as we have today. Each was different in their own way and how they saw themselves.
QwertyMIDX
06-08-2005, 00:52
Either one works for me, as long as it's consistent throughout all factions.
I think the point is that it shouldn't be consistent, certain groups thought of themselves as a people first and a political entity second (or third or whatever) while for others it was reversed. I feel that EB should try to reflect this.
The Aedui would be more approiatly called the Aedui Condederation than the Aedui. I do agree that is a question that should be handled on a faction-by-faction basis rather than according to some ironclad rule.Actually, "The Aedui" is redundant. Aedui is (sorry if I get this wrong, Ran) "the Aedu" in Gallic.
Edit: And really, I'm trying to solicit opinion on "Tsorim," etc. first. I don't know that we can be completely consistent here as I do think that different peoples referred to themselves in different ways.
Teleklos Archelaou
06-08-2005, 01:45
I think the vote in both places is showing that taking each name on a per faction basis is a safer way to proceed. And now we have evidence that a hard line either way is probably not a good idea.
QwertyMIDX
06-08-2005, 04:29
Actually, "The Aedui" is redundant. Aedui is (sorry if I get this wrong, Ran) "the Aedu" in Gallic.
I know Khel, it's the same as in Latin (just like lots of things in Gallic), I was just using the article for the sake of keeping the arguement simple.
anonymous_joe
06-08-2005, 18:06
So long as the names are easily recognisable it's fine. The Tsorim one's a bit dodgy, because most of us mere mortals only know it as Carthage.
Well, we aren't trying to make the names recognizable, we're trying to make them as close to what the people called themselves as possible. We have that exactly, for the Carthaginians. I'm a mere mortal as well, and Punic is just as foreign to me as it is to you.
anonymous_joe
06-08-2005, 18:49
Hmmm. For simplicity's sake I'd argue Carthage, but, for accuracy...
Hmmm, I'd go with the historical ones.
Translating all the Gaelic unit's names into Irish will provide me at least ten minutes of amusement. So, go with the accuracy! It seems to be the EB spirit.
There aren't that many really, and some grammar and such have changed, but if you're fluent, you should probably get at least most of them, though some use words no longer in use except in isolated local dialects (like 'guirran').
a houston chronicler
06-08-2005, 19:17
khelvan - being the lazy-a*s i am, i would go with whatever is easiest to read and takes up less space, whether it's the political name or the "ethnic" name. but you guys aren't lazy-a*ses, so......
i know you guys want to be consistent, but i don't think anyone wants Safot Softim biQarthadast showing up too often. i think everyone will start calling it carthage if you do that.
anonymous_joe
06-08-2005, 19:18
Unfortunately, I'm not fluent. I'm doing higher level Irish, but I'm only hoping for a low B.
I think the point is that it shouldn't be consistent, certain groups thought of themselves as a people first and a political entity second (or third or whatever) while for others it was reversed. I feel that EB should try to reflect this.
What he said.
Option one would give a whole lot of factions called 'the Greeks' wouldn't it?
Big_John
06-08-2005, 20:08
What he said.
Option one would give a whole lot of factions called 'the Greeks' wouldn't it?i was thinking the same thing, lol.
Simetrical
06-09-2005, 06:28
As I said over at TWC, I favor the use of the state's full name for the faction selection screen, the diplomacy screen, the turn order, the faction screen, etc., but a shortened, informal version of that name used attributively for purposes where it shouldn't be so long. So, for instance:
Qarthadasht Diplomat
Roma Army
Sweboz [insert diacritics, I'm too lazy] Capital
The following faction has been defeated: Sepot Sopetim Beqarthadasht.
Battle results:
Hannibaal, Sepot Sopetim Beqarthadasht, X casualties, Y kills
Lucius Aemilius Paullus, Res Publica Romanus, X casualties, Y kills
I would use attributive nouns and not adjectives because it's just weird, somehow, to adopt another language's adjectives. So "Tsori Diplomat," "Romanus Army"—those just seem wrong to me, particularly since both languages use postpositive adjectives. As for "Tsorim Diplomat," "Romani Army," just translate that—"Carthaginians Diplomat," "Romans Army"? It doesn't make much sense.
-Simetrical
Interesting proposal, but for some factions, particularly Carthage, we don't know what a an appropriate (e.g. Punic) abbreviation would be - it would be a pure guess.
eadingas
06-09-2005, 12:27
Hmm can we do such distinction, though? I don't remember how the files look like right now, but I had the impression that the game uses one "faction name" variable for all messages, except army/unit tooltips? Or do I remember wrong?
If we can do it, i'm all for it. Still more immersion!
Naw, there is plenty of flexibility in the display text. You should check my posts more often!
caesar44
06-09-2005, 22:23
in the campaign map you should call the factions like in a modern map , that is , the political name
even that is very hard
let us take rome as an example , these are the options -
1. rome (the city itself in english)
2. roma (the city itself in latin)
3. senatus popolusque que romanum (the senate and the roman people in latin , a political term)
4. imperium romanum (all the territories that were under roman control - roman empire)
5. quirites (after the first roman king , romulus-quiritus)
6. just romans
7. the res publica or roman republic (we should remember that rome was a rebublic until 44 or 27 bce)
etc'
so again , in modern political maps we see political names and that should be the choice (for examples - french republic and not the land of the french , us of a and not the americans territories , the state of israel and not the jewish state etc')
I agree with Simetrical that the more formal aspects (diplomacy) of the game should use the Political name, while less formal ones like armies and stuff should use the people.
This is a really hard question to have an ironclad rule though for, as many people have pointed out, so I would say unless you do something along Simetrical's lines (rough base) I would say the people's names in general for gaming ease. If you have tons of long names in foreign languages, people won't really care too much and just use the current name. Eg if you use that long carthage name instead of Tsorim, I'll just think of them as Carthage. As of now even when playing vanilla, I'm hyped enough that I already think of carthage as Tsorim. So for aesthetic reasons I would say the people's names (from what I know)
I hope this thread ain't all out of date and this was a waste of typing.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.