An idea I had viewed in earlier, much earlier posts, and which I would agree with, is the concept of dynamic civ naming, what means that, by chronological criteria, a civ would change its name, eg Lothringen --> Burgundy (by 1300 AD), Norse --> Danes (by Swedish spawns), Holy Roman Empire --> Brandenburg (by 1650 AD) --> Prussia (by 1750 AD). This way, the mod would attain some more historical accuracy, without losing any of gameplay fun.

Is it technically possible? What do you think about that?

Currently in vanilla RFC, dynamic city names happen as a function of:

1) Civic (normally government civic)
2) Era
3) Vassal (and if of someone specific)
4) Religion (specifically Islamic countries get different names)
5) Size of empire

I think it probably works pretty well if we keep the same basic structure-- with the additional benefit that existing civs have a lot of the names already started. Not all combinations/cases are covered. It's a bit tricky to explain how exactly it works -- if I have time later I'll post a detailed example of one Civ from RFC.

We don't currently have eras implemented, but will be doing this, and it probably makes most sense to have the names change at these era boundary marks. I think the first three eras are well established as:

Early Medieval: 500 - 1000
High Medieval: 1000 - 1300
Late Medieval: 1300 - 1500

And it's less certain if we want to break up the end of the game into several eras or not. "Early Modern" would be fine for the whole period 1500 -1800, or we could call the whole period "Renaissance", or we could do:

Renaissance: 1500 - 1600
Early Modern/Age of Enlightenment/Something else: 1600 - 1800

Civ, of course, has five eras.

The "Civ Discussion Thread" definitely mentions some suggestions for name evolution. I think a good way to begin is to start with complete lists of names we'd like to commonly see each Civ go through, and from there we can see if the current model of cases fits these names well. We can certainly repeat/duplicated names so not every Civ needs a separate name for every cases. We'll also have to come up with some "fantasy" names of course, for alternate histories.

Currently in vanilla RFC, dynamic city names happen as a function of:

1) Civic (normally government civic)
2) Era
3) Vassal (and if of someone specific)
4) Religion (specifically Islamic countries get different names)
5) Size of empire

I think it probably works pretty well if we keep the same basic structure-- with the additional benefit that existing civs have a lot of the names already started. Not all combinations/cases are covered. It's a bit tricky to explain how exactly it works -- if I have time later I'll post a detailed example of one Civ from RFC.

We don't currently have eras implemented, but will be doing this, and it probably makes most sense to have the names change at these era boundary marks. I think the first three eras are well established as:

Early Medieval: 500 - 1000
High Medieval: 1000 - 1300
Late Medieval: 1300 - 1500

And it's less certain if we want to break up the end of the game into several eras or not. "Early Modern" would be fine for the whole period 1500 -1800, or we could call the whole period "Renaissance", or we could do:

Renaissance: 1500 - 1600
Early Modern/Age of Enlightenment/Something else: 1600 - 1800

Civ, of course, has five eras.

The "Civ Discussion Thread" definitely mentions some suggestions for name evolution. I think a good way to begin is to start with complete lists of names we'd like to commonly see each Civ go through, and from there we can see if the current model of cases fits these names well. We can certainly repeat/duplicated names so not every Civ needs a separate name for every cases. We'll also have to come up with some "fantasy" names of course, for alternate histories.

Civ has seven eras, I think (Ancient, Classical, Medieval, Renaissance, Industrial, Modern, Future). Future can be represented by Industrial, so six eras are quite appropriate for the mod.

As for the RFC naming concept, I have somehow understood it (further explanations are always welcome). I remember playing as Japan and being myself a People's Republic. Mali was renamed to French West Africa when a French vassal, and to Mali Tributary States when a Chinese one. Spain was a Chaliphate when Islamic.

I haven't searched yet for civ-appropriate names, though I will do it and submit a list before Friday.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7299359&postcount=3

Some sort of list of dynamic civ names would indeed be appropriate. Should Kingdoms and Empires be represented by different civics or when an empire grows large enough?

Civ has seven eras, I think (Ancient, Classical, Medieval, Renaissance, Industrial, Modern, Future). Future can be represented by Industrial, so six eras are quite appropriate for the mod.

As for the RFC naming concept, I have somehow understood it (further explanations are always welcome). I remember playing as Japan and being myself a People's Republic. Mali was renamed to French West Africa when a French vassal, and to Mali Tributary States when a Chinese one. Spain was a Chaliphate when Islamic.

I haven't searched yet for civ-appropriate names, though I will do it and submit a list before Friday.

Just to help you with your list. Here's one for Cordoba based very roughly on historical dates.

700 -920 The Emirate of Cordoba
920 -1040 The Caliphate of Cordoba
1040 -1500 The Islamic Kingdom of Cordoba (fictional)
or just the Kingdom of Cordoba if a vassal of Spain or Portugal

Nice one, though I would propose these names for Islamic civs:
1) Chaliphate (when and not run any Monarchy)
Seeing your list, a 2) Islamic Kingdom option would be good if running any of Monarchies.

Christian civs are more difficult. That is what I have currently made up:
1) Prefix Holy when religious civic is Theocracy or State Religion (?)
2) Tribe when Government Civic is Despotism, Republic when Government civic is Electorate or Republic, and Kingdom for any else.

Generic Empire naming if any of Imperialism or Colonialism adopted.

Vassal naming:
Exarchate of ... for Byzantines, Autonomous State of... for Britons, Khaganate of... for Bulgarians, Kievan, Muscowites, Emirate of... for Ottomans, Arabs, Cordobans, Duchy of... for anyone else.

A list with changes like Eastern Roman---> Byzantine will come up later.

Any proposals welcome.

It depends how much we want to reproduce history. In the case of Cordoba we're only talking up to 1031 when the Caliphate of Cordoba broke up into rival city states called "taifa" states. Then came the fundamentalist Almoravid and Almohad dynasties ruling from North Africa until the early 1200's when they reverted back to little emirate city states which were conquered one by one by the Christians until the fall of the Kingdom of Granada in 1492. For our game purposes "Emirate" then "Caliphate" then "Kingdom" should be enough for Cordoba.

For the Arabs the history is much more complicated with all the different Sunni and Shia Caliphates, the Seljuks, the Ottomans, the Mamelukes, various Persian dynasties etc. In the later stages both the Arab and Ottoman dynasties tended to be ruled by Sultans rather than Emirs or Caliphs so Sultanate is good term for us to use for the later empires. So "Emirate", "Caliphate" and "Sultanate" should work for the Arabs and the Ottomans. We should try to keep it fairly simple in choosing dynamic names for these or we'll just get bogged down in the dozens of factions and regime changes that went on throughout the period of our mod.

Arab civ could only come as Arabs and Mameluks, name change at 1200 AD.
I agree with the Sultanate proposal, since it is more appropriate and accurate than Islamic Kingdom(dropped). In these terms, Cordoba, Arabia and Ottoman Turkey should become Sultanates when adopting either Constitutional or Divine Monarchy (fiction history in Cordoba case, real in both).

Arab civ could only come as Arabs and Mameluks, name change at 1200 AD.
I agree with the Sultanate proposal, since it is more appropriate and accurate than Islamic Kingdom(dropped). In these terms, Cordoba, Arabia and Ottoman Turkey should become Sultanates when adopting either Constitutional or Divine Monarchy (fiction history in Cordoba case, real in both).

As much as I like the concept of dynamic civ names (which I do.) don't you think there are lots of more important work that has to done in other areas to get this mod playable? Civ names, like flags and ethnicallly-diverse units are pretty cosmetic compared to bugs and game-play issues, don't you think?

I agree, but working on many fronts at a time will make the mod ready quicker. I know it is a secondary-importance-thread, I would have no problem the idea to be implemented in 2014. It is just for proposals right now.

As much as I like the concept of dynamic civ names (which I do.) don't you think there are lots of more important work that has to done in other areas to get this mod playable? Civ names, like flags and ethnicallly-diverse units are pretty cosmetic compared to bugs and game-play issues, don't you think?

Brainstorming for dynamic civ naming doesn't require much specialization in coding or similiar skills while art discussion does. Besides, we already have separate threads for RFCE art, dynamic civ naming, play-test feedback and bugs. Surely we can allow conversation to take place in other threads than the ones with the most important issues for change, don't you think? :p

Brainstorming for dynamic civ naming doesn't require much specialization in coding or similiar skills while art discussion does. Besides, we already have separate threads for RFCE art, dynamic civ naming, play-test feedback and bugs. Surely we can allow conversation to take place in other threads than the ones with the most important issues for change, don't you think? :p


I agree with both of you, of course. It's only that'd I'd hate to see us take our eyes off the ball in trying to get the mod to beta stage ASAP. Which means getting the gameplay and balance issues worked out first. And I do
feel that 2014 is a tad pessimistic even for me.:D Merry Xmas.

I agree with both of you, of course. It's only that'd I'd hate to see us take our eyes off the ball in trying to get the mod to beta stage ASAP. Which means getting the gameplay and balance issues worked out first. And I do
feel that 2014 is a tad pessimistic even for me.:D Merry Xmas.

Of course balance and gameplay issues should be given proper attention. It's just that the number of people who can contribute to balance issues is ever so limited and that kind of people need something else to do, too. I'd love to help but the most I can do is fiddle around with XML and I'm sure the development team has more need for coders than people who can do "just" that. :D

Merry Xmas, though. :) I have to say I love this holiday layout.

EDIT:
"Just" meaning just XML, referring to myself. As much as I'd love to help I doubt I could do much but I have some ideas. :) I'm sure it's not just me who feels like one can contribute by sharing ideas for others to be implemented or considered. Right now we're doing just that - if we can help some other way, please do tell us of such way. :D

Members like I can work on these little details like dynamic civ names, as many of us can't use Python or XML or whatever you guys use in creating this mod. You people can say "this thing here is unbalanced, so I altered these paragraphs here and switched some numbers and now it works", while people like I can only say "this thing here is unbalanced, could someone please fix it?" Brainstorming these names is one of the rare things where everyone can help you guys at least a bit. :)

Finally come up with a list, given sedna's proposal for eras.

Eastern Roman (500-1000 AD) ---> Byzantine (1000 AD and so on to the bitter end)
Frankish (500-1000 AD) ---> French (1000 AD and so on)
Burgundian (500 or 850 - is there still debate for the spawn?- to the end)
Arab (620 -1000 AD) ---> Mamluk (1000 AD-the bitter end)
Bulgarian (steady ones, no change)
Cordoban (same as above)
Castillan (720-1500 AD) ---> Spanish (all remaining years)
Norse (780 AD-1500 AD) ---> Dane (1500 AD-1800 AD)
Venezian (no change too)
Kievan (884-1300 AD) ---> Crimean (1300 AD -1800 AD)
Magyar (900 AD-1000 AD) ---> Hungarian (1000 AD-end of history)
German (940 AD-1600 AD) ---> Prussian (Only Enlightment)
Polish (972 AD-1300 AD) ---> Polish-Lithuanian (to the end)
Genoan (all timespan)
Muskowan (1000 AD-1500 AD) ---> Russian (the 300 years left)
English (1066 AD - battle of Hastings as spawn date? - to 1600 AD) ---> British (1600 AD and everything else)
Austrian (1172 AD-1500 AD) ---> Habsburg (1500 AD-1800 AD)
Ottomans (no name change)
Dutch (same as above)
Swedish (same, no time to change name:D)

The suffixes-prefixes are as in post 6 and 8.
Once again-this is not a high priority thread. Any proposals welcome.

Finally come up with a list, given sedna's proposal for eras.

Eastern Roman (500-1000 AD) ---> Byzantine (1000 AD and so on to the bitter end)
Frankish (500-1000 AD) ---> French (1000 AD and so on)
Burgundian (500 or 850 - is there still debate for the spawn?- to the end)
Arab (620 -1000 AD) ---> Mamluk (1000 AD-the bitter end)
Bulgarian (steady ones, no change)
Cordoban (same as above)
Castillan (720-1500 AD) ---> Spanish (all remaining years)
Norse (780 AD-1400 AD) ---> Union of Kalmar (1400 AD-1500 AD) --> Denmark (1500 AD-end of game)
Venezian (no change too)
Kievan no change needed, Crimea was ruled by a Tatar khan, if Kiev wasn't conquered they wouldn't have most likely altered their name
Magyar (900 AD-1000 AD) ---> Hungarian (1000 AD-end of history)
Holy Roman Empire, there was no nation called Germany before 1871, and most likely Germany/HRE will have a bigger area than Prussia controlled
Polish (972 AD-1300 AD) ---> Polish-Lithuanian (when Poland controls Poland and Lithuania)
Genoan (all timespan)
Muskowan (1000 AD-1500 AD) ---> Russian (when Muscovy has at least X amount of cities)
English (1066 AD - battle of Hastings as spawn date? - to 1600 AD) ---> British (when England controls British Isles)
Austrian (1172 AD-1500 AD) ---> Habsburg (1500 AD-1800 AD)
Ottomans (no name change)
Dutch (same as above)
Swedish (same, no time to change name:D)

The suffixes-prefixes are as in post 6 and 8.
Once again-this is not a high priority thread. Any proposals welcome.

Bolded my suggestions of changes.

My idea for these three.

Emirate of Cordoba (720-900) > Caliphate of Cordoba (900-1250) > Marinid Sultanate (1250-1500) > Idrisid Sultanate (1500-1800).

Ummayad Caliphate> (630-900) > Abbasid Caliphate (900-1250) > Mamluk Sultanate (1250-1800)

Kingdom of Leon (720-900) > Crown of Castille (900-1500) > Kingdom of Spain (1500-1800)

Revamped list, two major changes
1) Incorporated changes proposed by both of you (to fit sedna's era timeline, I suited them)
2) Names only change by eras.

Eastern Roman Empire (500-1000)---> Byzantine Empire (1000-1800)
Frankish Kingdom (500-1000)---> French Kingdom (1000-1800)---> French Empire (when controls historical territory as in UHV)
Burgundian Kingdom (500-1300)---> Duchy of Burgundy (1300-1800)
Ummayad Chaliphate (630-1000)---> Abbasid Chaliphate (1000-1300)---> Mamluk Sultanate (1300-1800)
Bulgarian Chaganate (620-1000) ---> Bulgarian Tsardom (1000-1800)
Emirate of Cordoba (720-1000) ---> Chaliphate of Cordoba (1000-1300)---> Marinid Sultanate (1300-1800)
Leon Kingdom (720-1000) ---> Castillan Crown (1000-1500) ---> Spanish Kingdom (1500-1800) ---> Spanish Empire (when completes territorial UHV)
Norse Union (770-1300) ---> Kalmar Union (1300-1500) ---> Dane Kingdom (1500-1800)
Venezian Republic (780-1800)
Kievan Tsardom (884-1800)---> Russian Tsardom (when holds core area of both Kiev and Muscowy)
Magyar Chaganate (900-1000) ---> Kingdom of Hungary (1000-1800)
Holy Roman Empire is a debatable name. It included both Germany and Austria, so the name ''German Kingdom (940-1800)'' seems the most appropriate, even if it is alt-history. Moreover,HRE was politically dead after 15th century.
Polish Kingdom (972-1800) ---> Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (by area held)
Republic of Genoa (1027-1800)
Vladimir-Suzdal Principality (1000-1300) ---> Grand Duchy of Moscow (1300-1800) ---> Russian Tsardom (same as Kievan)
Kingdom of England (1066-1800) ---> British Empire (when territorial UHV completed)
Portuguese Kingdom (1100-1800)
Kingdom of Austria (1172-1800) ---> Habsburg Empire (when territorial UHV completed)
Ottoman Sultanate (1300-1800)
Kingdom of Sweden (1500-1800) ---> Swedish Empire (by territorial UHV comnpleted)
Dutch Republic (1550-1800)

Once more proposals welcome.

The name of a civ in RFC is a direct function of era, religion, civics and vassal state. Era is technology based, i.e. we need to split the tech tree into blocks to have different eras. We can replace the eras by fixed years or simply religion/civic/vassalage.

Suppose we pick to use religion + government civic. We need to cover all possibilities, i.e. Pagan/Islamic/Christian, Despotic/Monarchy/Republic types of government. Not everything needs to be unique:
Pagan + Despotic: Bulgarian Khanate
Islamic + Despotic: Bulgarian Khanate
Christian + Despotic: Bulgarian Knyajestvo
Christian + Monarchy: Bulgarian Tzardom
Islamic + Monarchy: Bulgarian Khanate
Pagan + Monarchy: Bulgarian Khanate
Any Religion + Republic: Bulgaria

Just an example. This needs to be coded both XML and C++, but it should not be too had.

This thread is really dying. Are any changes going to me made to the current names? "Frankia" throughout the whole game is kinda annoying.

This thread is really dying. Are any changes going to me made to the current names? "Frankia" throughout the whole game is kinda annoying.

I totally agree. The mod looks better and better but this could add a nice historical touch to the game!!

Wouldn't Francia be better? It's closer to France, maybe even West-Francia and East-Francia of Germany.

Seems like the Ottomans were simply "Turkey" in this new version. That seems historically inaccurate to me.

Wouldn't Francia be better? It's closer to France, maybe even West-Francia and East-Francia of Germany.

It would look better sometimes, but I think France is best, atleast for the colored wording on the right of the screen. Maybe Francia could at one point be its dynamic name, but not permanent, because then Spain would be Espana, Germany would be Deutscheland, so on...

It's really strange to see messages like "Toledo has been conquered by the Spain!" and such because the "full name" of Spain would just be Spain, instead of the "Kingdom of Spain" or whatever. Frankia seems a bit anachronistic once you hit 1800 and messages still appear reading "Amsterdam has been conquered by the Frankia!"

It's really strange to see messages like "Toledo has been conquered by the Spain!" and such because the "full name" of Spain would just be Spain, instead of the "Kingdom of Spain" or whatever. Frankia seems a bit anachronistic once you hit 1800 and messages still appear reading "Amsterdam has been conquered by the Frankia!"

Good point. The short civ descriptions should be named as they are known modernly. The term Byzantine Empire wasn't born until the 18th century, yet the civilization's adjetive and short description are "Byzantine". France's current name was born earlier than that, yet it's short desciption is "Frankia" in this mod.

I'm more than welcoming to include Frankian civilization in the game but as nothing more than as a dynamic name. Byzantium's short description should be kept the way it is for the sake of easiness. Besides, be Frankia named Kingdom of Frankia, Kingdom of France or the French Republic, it's most often going to be called by its short name. It's not like France is going to be some other empire if it was named otherhow and the French people have been French for centuries now, not "Frankian". But, this brings upon the dispute should be Moscowians be Moscowians or Russians.

:aargh: Civilizations would be so much easier to manage if they were city-states only.

:aargh: Civilizations would be so much easier to manage if they were city-states only.

Actually a good reason to live in ancient Greece :D

a few points on France.

The adjective is Frankish not Frankian.
The people are Franks not Frankians.
The most appropriate name at start for the nation in RFCE IMHO is Francia, in medieval Latin, because it represents only the French part of the Frankish nation. Frankia is an invented term AFAIK.

a few points on France.

The adjective is Frankish not Frankian.
The people are Franks not Frankians.
The most appropriate name at start for the nation in RFCE IMHO is Francia, in medieval Latin, because it represents only the French part of the Frankish nation. Frankia is an invented term AFAIK.

When I was first coding the nations in, I had only the wiki to go with. The wiki listed a nation Frank Empire (which is fine since in 500AD there is no France). I made a google search and found the reference "Frankia" and used it; it was the best I could come up with.

What I am trying to say is, "Frankia" should be debated/changed and someone more knowledgeable than me should say what the correct version is.

Ive brought this up before but I think dynamic names should also be tied to location, a Cordoba that is pushed mostly into northern Africa should be Berber dynasty or something like that.

On top of this I think a feature that could really set this mod apart would be a feature that when a civ is historically obsolete, they can rise again replaced by the successor state that succeeded them. for example if the byzantine empire falls late in the game, if they rise again they become Greece, they are the byzantine civ for all purposes accept their capitol is now Athens and the area of the core they take with them when they rise is centered in Greece itself not Anatolia.

the same could be done for Morocco as Cordoba, Germany as Prussia (spawning with Berlin as capital but sharing the same basic core) and anything else anyone can think of, this would be interesting because it would create new civs out of old ones ad add more variability as the game progressed.

I love the idea, that would be really cool if it could be coded. Civs that rise more than once could be Byzantine/Greece like your example, Kingdom of Asturias (that spawns same as last version) and Spain which would spawn at Toledo. Frankia (Aachen)/ France (Paris), HRE (Frankfurt)/Prussia (Berlin).

I love the idea, that would be really cool if it could be coded. Civs that rise more than once could be Byzantine/Greece like your example, Kingdom of Asturias (that spawns same as last version) and Spain which would spawn at Toledo. Frankia (Aachen)/ France (Paris), HRE (Frankfurt)/Prussia (Berlin).

I like the concept too. It was discussed when were talking about respawning. Like Cordoba respawning as the Almohad or Marinid dynasties in Morocco if it collapsed, for example. Though Burgundy respawning as ??? in 1600 might be less believable. It might only work well for some civs of course.

It's possible. Somebody coded it for RFC BtS in this forum.


But with the dynamic names part, are you trying to follow history as close as possible, or do you want some alternate history in there? All the names you are planning on using were real, but I see none that are fantasy. So these date names are good, but if going for alternate history is not a problem, there should be names according to religion and civics. I don't know a lot about European history, so I have to examples, but hopefully you know what I mean.
Revamped list, two major changes
1) Incorporated changes proposed by both of you (to fit sedna's era timeline, I suited them)
2) Names only change by eras.

Eastern Roman Empire (500-1000)---> Byzantine Empire (1000-1800)
Frankish Kingdom (500-1000)---> French Kingdom (1000-1800)---> French Empire (when controls historical territory as in UHV)
Burgundian Kingdom (500-1300)---> Duchy of Burgundy (1300-1800)
Ummayad Chaliphate (630-1000)---> Abbasid Chaliphate (1000-1300)---> Mamluk Sultanate (1300-1800)
Bulgarian Chaganate (620-1000) ---> Bulgarian Tsardom (1000-1800)
Emirate of Cordoba (720-1000) ---> Chaliphate of Cordoba (1000-1300)---> Marinid Sultanate (1300-1800)
Leon Kingdom (720-1000) ---> Castillan Crown (1000-1500) ---> Spanish Kingdom (1500-1800) ---> Spanish Empire (when completes territorial UHV)
Norse Union (770-1300) ---> Kalmar Union (1300-1500) ---> Dane Kingdom (1500-1800)
Venezian Republic (780-1800)
Kievan Tsardom (884-1800)---> Russian Tsardom (when holds core area of both Kiev and Muscowy)
Magyar Chaganate (900-1000) ---> Kingdom of Hungary (1000-1800)
Holy Roman Empire is a debatable name. It included both Germany and Austria, so the name ''German Kingdom (940-1800)'' seems the most appropriate, even if it is alt-history. Moreover,HRE was politically dead after 15th century.
Polish Kingdom (972-1800) ---> Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (by area held)
Republic of Genoa (1027-1800)
Vladimir-Suzdal Principality (1000-1300) ---> Grand Duchy of Moscow (1300-1800) ---> Russian Tsardom (same as Kievan)
Kingdom of England (1066-1800) ---> British Empire (when territorial UHV completed)
Portuguese Kingdom (1100-1800)
Kingdom of Austria (1172-1800) ---> Habsburg Empire (when territorial UHV completed)
Ottoman Sultanate (1300-1800)
Kingdom of Sweden (1500-1800) ---> Swedish Empire (by territorial UHV comnpleted)
Dutch Republic (1550-1800)

Once more proposals welcome.

Coding the civ names based upon geography can potentially slowdown the game too much. We will have to be constantly keeping track of everyone's geographical situation (i.e. consider all the map tiles).

On theory we could make it so that when someone respawns, they get a different name. We have to come up with a lit of criteria for changing the names:

Original RFC criteria:
- Civic
- Era
- Vassalage

For our mod, I propose we remove the vassalage and add religion. We could also use fixed time intervals, but not all games would proceed in the same way, so changing someone's name in 1000AD might be too early/too late.

I suggest we use:
- Civic: based upon Republic vs Monarchy type of government (Kingdom of France vs Republic of France)
- Era: change the names for later eras (Franks in the early middle ages, French afterwards)
- Religion: Bulgarian Khanat for Paganism vs Bulgarian Tsardom (Tsarstvo) for Orthodoxy vs Bulgarian Kingdom for Catholicism.

That would give us 2 civics x 4 eras x 5 religions = 40 possibilities for each civilization. Naturally many of those would overlap, i.e. the names of most civs wouldn't change for different eras. Also some names would be irrelevant since there would never be Netherlands in the early middle ages.

Any comments?

I agree. Religion and govt. type would seem to be the most relevant criteria. Era less so except maybe in the case of respawning. An example I cited earlier was Cordoba. It should start as The Emirate of Cordoba and become the Caliphate of Cordoba with Monarchy. But if it collapses and respawns in Morocco it would have to be the Marinid Caliphate of Morocco (or Fes?).

It's possible. Somebody coded it for RFC BtS in this forum.


But with the dynamic names part, are you trying to follow history as close as possible, or do you want some alternate history in there? All the names you are planning on using were real, but I see none that are fantasy. So these date names are good, but if going for alternate history is not a problem, there should be names according to religion and civics. I don't know a lot about European history, so I have to examples, but hopefully you know what I mean.


You switch from "______ Kingdom" to "Kingdom of _______"
I suggest if the dynamic name is a kingdom we use the second option. I think the first sounds a bit akward especially for names like "Leon Kingdom".
@3miro: I like the idea of religion being a factor but couldn't we use four factors? I still think vassalage is important. You can't really be a kingdom when your just a small protectorate of your neighbor. I'd miss names like "Autonomous Community of" or "Spanish/French/British _________(Geographic location, like, West Africa for Mali).

Also I don't like the idea of judging wether or not a civ is an empire through the UHV. (We really wouldn't be seeing many "empires") What if we have it as whenever a civ expands beyond their traditional territory? Like if Portugal has settlements in Africa or on the Azores/Madeiras, they are the Portuguese Empire. If Spain has cities in Italy, Sardinia, whatever, they are the Spanish Empire.

If names depend on UHVs they would be harder to code. Currently the C++ part of the code is unaware of the UHVs.

Also what would happen if Portugal later looses those colonies.

We can either "connect" the UHVs in the Python and C++ (a lot of coding) or introduce the geographical condition (which will slow the game).

Also, the Byzantines were calling themselves an "Empire" even when they were stripped down to Constantinople only.

We could include the Colonial projects as an "Empire" condition (if you have more then 2 colonies you get to be called an empire). Also if you have two vassals you get to be called an empire. Or something along those lines.

If names depend on UHVs they would be harder to code. Currently the C++ part of the code is unaware of the UHVs.

Also what would happen if Portugal later looses those colonies.

We can either "connect" the UHVs in the Python and C++ (a lot of coding) or introduce the geographical condition (which will slow the game).

Also, the Byzantines were calling themselves an "Empire" even when they were stripped down to Constantinople only.

We could include the Colonial projects as an "Empire" condition (if you have more then 2 colonies you get to be called an empire). Also if you have two vassals you get to be called an empire. Or something along those lines.

Yes that colony part sounds good, for the vassals... I really haven't seen that happen very often, but still I love the idea.

you could just make it so that the name shift only is assessed on respawn and or large events (such as a UHV) therefore the game wont have to be constantly checking for a name.

while the name change wouldn't be as dynamic, it would in some ways represent dynasties better in that a civ that is not experiencing any major changes will probably be under the same rule.

In keeping with my fait accompli approach to modding, I've written up proposed dynamic names for RFC Europe. It uses the old schema, modified to change the vassals and remove dynamic names for advanced governments. They are in the attachment because the document is long. Please discuss changes if you have good ideas.

Very good, proposed changes:
1) Southeast France to Bourgogne (for Burgundy)
2) Exarchate of Hungaria to Exarchate of Sirmium (for Hungary)
3) Duchy of Savoy-Piedmont to Savoie (for Genoa)
4) French Netherlands to French Batavia (for Netherlands)

OT What does fait accompli mean?

Good ideas

OT What does fait accompli mean?

It's a done deal!

The dynamic names will be in the language of the country? (Bourgogne). In that case, the Bysantine Empire should be Imperium Romanum. I think that the dynamic names should be in English, since I wouldn't like to see any dynamic names in any other languages other than Latin, French, English, or German (anything I can't pronounce annoys me).

Several points on Panopticons list:
1) Eyalet maybe isn't a good term for Ottoman vassals, as it explicitly refers to subdivisions within the empire. Better terms are Beylerbeylik/Emirate for Islamic and non-kingdom vassals or Principality for non-Islamic kingdom ones.
2) Islamic kingdom is a silly name, especially when Sultanate has very similar usage. I think Sultanate should replace the various Islamic Kingdom names, whilst vassals to the Arabs or Cordoba are called Emirates or Wilayah (province) with the exception of the Ottomans which would be a Beylik.
3) Eyalet of Istanbul >> Principality of Thrace
4) Norse <something> makes better linguistic sense than Nordic <something>, the former meaning 'belonging to t the Norse' whilst the latter would mean having Norse properties.
5) The English make whole countries into counties now? Again Principality or Duchy makes much more sense.

The dynamic names will be in the language of the country? (Bourgogne). In that case, the Bysantine Empire should be Imperium Romanum. I think that the dynamic names should be in English, since I wouldn't like to see any dynamic names in any other languages other than Latin, French, English, or German (anything I can't pronounce annoys me).

1. It's not a hard rule, just what is flavourful.
2. The late Byzantine Empire used Greek, not Latin.
3. Many people can pronounce other languages.

Several points on Panopticons list:
1) Eyalet maybe isn't a good term for Ottoman vassals, as it explicitly refers to subdivisions within the empire. Better terms are Beylerbeylik/Emirate for Islamic and non-kingdom vassals or Principality for non-Islamic kingdom ones.
2) Islamic kingdom is a silly name, especially when Sultanate has very similar usage. I think Sultanate should replace the various Islamic Kingdom names, whilst vassals to the Arabs or Cordoba are called Emirates or Wilayah (province) with the exception of the Ottomans which would be a Beylik.
3) Eyalet of Istanbul >> Principality of Thrace
4) Norse <something> makes better linguistic sense than Nordic <something>, the former meaning 'belonging to t the Norse' whilst the latter would mean having Norse properties.
5) The English make whole countries into counties now? Again Principality or Duchy makes much more sense.

Thanks for these. I'm sure you have noticed that much of the nomenclature I used is ported directly from standard RFC. On 4, it would be useful if the Norse were explicitly defined as Denmark, rather than the melange it currently represents. On 5, it depends. County is actually not inaccurate; despite sounding minor, several counties were created during the early expansion of England throughout Britain. Lots of vassals of England might have been Counties Palatine rather than Principalities or Duchies.

Except that England here in RFCE represents the post Norman centralised state rather than the era of county formation...

Not really, it begins around 1066, which means it begins in the age of the House of Normandy.

Well, when LH thing will get to work, we will have William I to represent the Normanish era, and Elizabeth for the post-Hundred Year War one.

Getting the first and second LH's implemented should be the priority for the next version. Dynamic civ names, like ethnically-flavoured units, can easily wait until the first Beta version. There's too many more important changes to make before then, I think.

Implementing _these_ dynamic names (because they use exactly the same structure as base RFC) is quite fast and easy. Lot's of people seem to really enjoy this aspect of RFC, so I plan to put this list (with some of the few modifications as suggested) in for the next version. Certainly we may want to change the criteria at some point, but at least we'll have something in.

Implementing _these_ dynamic names (because they use exactly the same structure as base RFC) is quite fast and easy. Lot's of people seem to really enjoy this aspect of RFC, so I plan to put this list (with some of the few modifications as suggested) in for the next version. Certainly we may want to change the criteria at some point, but at least we'll have something in.

That's what I suspected, having looked at your CvRhyes files.

Here is an updated list featuring some changes as suggested and revisions by me.

Perhaps there should be a Jewish name too? Judaism is a rare religion for the AI to adopt, and in overall sense officially adopting Judaism in medieval Europe would be even more crucial than adopting Islam. It's my dream to see something like Jewish Kingdom of Denmark.

Perhaps there should be a Jewish name too? Judaism is a rare religion for the AI to adopt, and in overall sense officially adopting Judaism in medieval Europe would be even more crucial than adopting Islam. It's my dream to see something like Jewish Kingdom of Denmark.

Judism is supposed to be a small religion. So certainly not a state-religion. So it's useless making jewish names because the AI will never use them. And as a player you probably won't use it because it's useless to have Judism as state-religion. (only 1 city in the whole empire) It might be impossible to have Judism as state religion. (If not, it is a good feature IMO)

Yes it will be both historical to not allow players and AI to switch to Judaism as a state religion and gameplay-fitting as nobody in their right mind would do it (unless maybe they want to annoy the other civs and only have 1 city with Judaism and no other religions?).

I had seen Norse and Ottomans with Judaism, albeit in an old version. I thought of it when posting that.

I seem to recall two books of the Old Testament named "Kings", so I'm sure the Christian names are fine for Jewish civs.

I seem to recall two books of the Old Testament named "Kings", so I'm sure the Christian names are fine for Jewish civs.

There AREN'T jewish civs. So we don't need Jewish names.

There AREN'T jewish civs. So we don't need Jewish names.

I know that. It's nonetheless true.

The current model for Dynamic names is somewhat odd. I will have to change some of it so that we will fit it well with the "C++ implemented Python Controlled" scheme. Right now, dynamic names are all in C++.

The current model for Dynamic names is somewhat odd. I will have to change some of it so that we will fit it well with the "C++ implemented Python Controlled" scheme. Right now, dynamic names are all in C++.

That's a good idea if it's not hard. There's a bunch of stuff hard-coded in that section of the C++.

If you take a look at the SVN, you'll see I edited the C++ in the renaming code a bit and compiled a new dll, just to test out the XML as I was entering the dynamic names and make sure everything was working. But I support moving that decision tree into Python.

That's a good idea if it's not hard. There's a bunch of stuff hard-coded in that section of the C++.

If you take a look at the SVN, you'll see I edited the C++ in the renaming code a bit and compiled a new dll, just to test out the XML as I was entering the dynamic names and make sure everything was working. But I support moving that decision tree into Python.

There is the process name function that gets called from different events (switch religion/government/year...) My idea was to create a link-list of conditions for every nation and it would be loaded from Python. Then the name module would process the link list of the form: France + Monarchy + Christianity + before year X: Frank Empire. France + Republic: French republic. I believe it is the most flexible setting without creating the huge arrays of names for every civ under all possible circumstances.

Dynamic names would be great. As would 2nd. LH's and respawnings. As micbic has outlined in his very comprehensive list. Any chance of at least starting to implement them, please.:)

There is the process name function that gets called from different events (switch religion/government/year...) My idea was to create a link-list of conditions for every nation and it would be loaded from Python. Then the name module would process the link list of the form: France + Monarchy + Christianity + before year X: Frank Empire. France + Republic: French republic. I believe it is the most flexible setting without creating the huge arrays of names for every civ under all possible circumstances.

The most flexible code would allow a combination of two processes. The first is a generic process for renaming civs (which may be what you are describing above). This could involve sticking together some strings so that you get generic names e.g. 'French' + 'Republic' and 'German' + 'Republic' for republics and 'Exarchate of' + 'Vienna' and 'Exarchate of'+'Spain' for vassals of Byzantium.

The complication to this is that we should allow special cases as well. So if a civ doesn't have an XML entry for <CIV_Republic_Name> then we use the generic name above, but if it does, we use the special name. This way, for instance, England with a Republic can be called the "Commonwealth of England" instead of the 'English Republic'.

I was thinking something along the lines of:

struct rule{
int iReqCivic, iReqRel, iReqTurn;
string name;
rule *next;
};

Then in the renaming module:

if ( hasCivic( p -> iReqCivic ) && gameTurn > p -> iReqTurn .... ){
setName( p -> name );
};

Add the details. The rule list would be set via Python.

I was thinking something along the lines of:

struct rule{
int iReqCivic, iReqRel, iReqTurn;
string name;
rule *next;
};

Then in the renaming module:

if ( hasCivic( p -> iReqCivic ) && gameTurn > p -> iReqTurn .... ){
setName( p -> name );
};

Add the details. The rule list would be set via Python.

I'm afraid I don't quite understand this code, but the idea of applying Python-written rules is good, so I approve. "Currently" (i.e. RFC and Panopticon's list) the renaming is done on Civic, Turn (or age), Religion, Vassal status, and number of cities, so these would be the useful variables to have in a rule struct.