City Names Feedback Thread

[Leoreth]

You're right, but I still find it preferable for the Messana tile to exist because it serves as a canal between Italy and Sicily.

 

[Alexius08]

More place names for Finland and nearby areas:

1. Keep Kajaani as the local (Finnish) name, rename to Kajana under Swedish control
2. Replace Kuhmo with Kuhmoniemi, reintroduce the shorter name only on Global Era onwards
3. Introduce Koutero as non-Russian (Finnish) name for Kovdor
4. Introduce Ukva as non-Russian (Komi) name for Ukhta
5. Not sure what to use as the non-Russian name for Kandalaksha. Maybe the Finnish version (Kantalahti)?
6. Introduce Čuuppu as non-Russian (Karelian) name for Chupa
7. Introduce Vojatsu as non-Russian (Finnish) name for Nadvoitsy
8. Introduce Vienan Kemi as non-Russian (Finnish) name for Kem
9. Introduce Kontupohja as non-Russian (Finnish) name for Kondopoga
10. Introduce Aunus as non-Russian (Finnish) name for Olonets

Perhaps Finnish could be split off into a separate language for the city name languages file that's available only for the Swedish?

 

[Krieger-FS]

Another batch of city names, this time for Mesopotamia, along with some suggestions for settler values. Compared to previous suggestions, this list includes somewhat more substantial changes, particularly regarding the placement of some cities along the Euphrates and Tigris and renaming some tile base names. I imagine that certain locations, such as Assur, were adjusted for gameplay reasons, but in other cases I am suggesting some shifts. As always, any feedback is welcomed!

Spoiler :

Please note that the highlighted tiles/cities are those for which I suggest an increased settler value, and those that already have high values are not included.

Babylonia

• Akkadê – As the capital of the Akkadian Empire, it deserves a slightly higher settler value. Settler Value: 5
• Uruk/Eridu – Uruk was very important during the Sumerian, Akkadian, and later Babylonian periods. With the proposed changes, it could coexist with Babylon and could appear on both signed tiles. Settler Value: 5

Assyria

• Uruk – For the same reasons as above, I would argue for a slightly higher settler value here, since Uruk remained the chief southern Mesopotamian city even during the various Assyrian empires. Settler Value: 5

Hittite

• Washukanni – As the Hurrian and Mitanni capitals, it was also an important regional center under the Hittite Empire. Settler Value: 5

Greece

• Antiokheia – Given its importance during the Hellenistic Era, particularly under the Seleucid Empire, it would be interesting to include it. Settler Value: 5
• Seleukeia – Similarly, as the capital of the Seleucids and sharing a tile with Babylon, the city that Alexander intended to make his capital, it merits a high value. Settler Value: 8

Phoenicia

• Sidun – Given its importance in Phoenicia and its recent addition, I would argue for an increased chance of being settled. Settler Value: 5

Persia

• Samosata/Edessa – Both served as capitals of Helleno-Iranian local states (Commagene and Osroene) that acted as buffer and client states between Rome, Parthia, Sassanid Persia, and Armenia. Settler Value: 3
• Hatra – A regional capital under the Parthian and Sassanid empires, as well as the center of the Arab Kingdom of Hatra. Settler Value: 3
• Arbela – A satrapal capital during various Persian empires. Settler Value: 5
• Opis – Another important regional center, located on the Persian Royal Road. Settler Value: 3
• Al-Hira – A capital of the Arab Lakhmid Kingdom, a vassal state under the Sassanid Empire. Settler Value: 2

Rome

• Antiochia – One of the largest cities in the empire, and also an unofficial capital for the eastern part of it for some time. Settler Value: 5

Arabia

• Samarra – An important town during and, for a time, the capital of the Abbasid Caliphate. Also the site of the Spiral Minaret. Settler Value: 3
• Wasit – An important town during both the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates. Settler Value: 3
• Kufah – Another major town under the Umayyads and, briefly, a capital of the Abbasid Caliphate. Settler Value: 3
• Basra – The most important city in southern Mesopotamia from early Islamic times onward. Settler Value: 5 or 8

Turkey (Ottomans) and Iran

• Basra – For the same reasons as above for both Turkey and Iran. Settler Value: 5
• Baghdad – For some reason, Iran currently has no settler value for this tile. Although Baghdad will appear in most games, I suggest assigning it a value to ensure that any Middle Eastern civ has the possibility of founding it, giving the importance of all the cities in this tile. Settler Value: 5

 

[Leoreth]

Yes, Assur is where it is to fit as a capital.

 

[Krieger-FS]

More city names, this time for Arabia, as attached in the txt file. I have to say that I’m happy to add a lot of new names, particularly from the pre-Islamic and medieval periods, since many tiles currently have only a single modern city name associated with them. It took a good amount of research, but I feel it has made the region more complete and more in line with other regions about city names and translations.

Also, some suggestions for tweaks on settler values:

Spoiler :

Babylonia: the Neo-Babylonian Empire, at its peak (under king Nabonidus), extended south as far as Medina. Thus, I’d add some higher settler value (3 or 5) to Tayma and Medina (known back then as Yathrib), which were the most important centers of the region. Additionally, a slightly higher value for Dilmun (2) may be added. Besides their economic-political ties with Mesopotamia, they had foreign dynasties associated with the Babylonians (both Akkadian and Kassite kings) and were vassals from the Neo-Assyrian and the Neo-Babylonian empires, according to Mesopotamian inscriptions.

Persia: all the ancient Persian empires controlled parts of Arabia, most notably the Sasanians, who extended their rule over much of Oman, Yemen, and the Persian Gulf. Accordingly, Mazun and Hagar/Gerrha served as regional capitals and could be assigned higher settler values (3 or 5). Additionally, the war value for Yemen could be increased to reflect its conquest in the late 6th century CE.

Ethiopia: it is one of the few civs that have higher settler values on Arabia currently, in Aden (10). Historically, the main cities on Aksumite Yemen and in Hymar (a Yemenite kingdom that was ruled by an Ethiopian king shortly before its collapse for Sasanians) were Sanaa and Zafar, whose settler values could be increased (5). On the other hand, Aden could be decreased (3) – it is a nice spot and makes a very nice transition for later Yemen, however Aden only became clearly the main port in the region during the British Protectorate (19th century).

Arabia: unsurprisingly, it is the civ with the highest settler values in the region. My only suggestions are to increase the values (5) for Medina, Al-Hasa (ancient Hagar/Gerrha), and Sohar, since those were very important regional centers in the medieval era.

Swahili: mostly as an easter egg, given they could arguably represent the later Omani Empire, with some settler value in Muscat (3).

Ottomans: surprisingly, at least for me, the Ottomans don’t have almost any settler values in Arabia. So, considering regional capitals or cities that flourished under them, would increase the values for Mecca (5), Medina (3), Hofuf (ancient Al-Hasa), Hodeida, Mokha/Mocha and Sanaa (2).

Portugal: I think the Portuguese have significant war values on the region, but it may be interesting to add some settler value to Muscat (5), which was one of their main ports on the Indian Ocean.

England: considering the British protectorates in the region, would give some settler value for Aden and Muscat (5), as well for the main Trucial States towns, Abu Dhabi and Dubai (5).