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.

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?"

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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)

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...

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheep

"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.

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'.

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.

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. ~;)

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.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

Then change my vote to the opposite. Plz. ~;)

---

Done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khelvan

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khelvan

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.

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.