CIV name change over time in BNW?

[El Caballerion]

So... here's a suggestion I would like to see in BNW.

I get kind of annoyed by how the CIV names do not change over time in the game, which obviously does not reflect reality. I think BNW should have a feature that allows CIVs to naturally change their name as the game progresses according to the era it enters. Some examples:

America: America- United States (upon entering Industrial era)
Babylon: Babylon- Iraq (upon entering Modern era)
Arabia: Arabia- Saudi Arabia (upon entering Modern era)
The Celts: The Celts- Ireland (?)
Inca: Inca- Peru (upon entering industrial era)
Aztecs: Aztecs- Mexico
Rome: Italy
etc.

Upon name change, the Civ will also get a new flag icon (i.e., Aztec flower symbol becomes Mexican flag). This will make modern wars more appropriate.

Of course, I know this doesn't always reflect the cultural difference between old and civs (Aztecs are culturally different than Mexico), but it will reflect what happened geographically. I also know that some CIVs were integrated into countries (i.e., Iroquois tribes), so these can stay the same throughout the game.

Ideas?

 

[Guandao]

idk about this...
There is an incredibly long gap between Babylon and Iraq. Plus what would Assyria change its name to?

Maya will become Guatemala?
Would Byzantine stay the same?
Carthage becomes Tunisia?
Huns becomes Hungary?
Songhai becomes Mali?

England becoming UK makes sense.

 

[Arachnofiend]

A lot of these don't make much sense. The Aztec Empire and the state of Mexico are entirely different even though they fall into the same geographical area. Not even the same people running the joint.

 

[Zango]

Byzantium has entered the Renaissance era!

Byzantium is now "The Ottoman Empire!"

Suleiman has declared war on Suleigirl!

 

[Petiscator]

Byzantium has entered the Renaissance era!

Byzantium is now "The Ottoman Empire!"

Suleiman has declared war on Suleigirl!

I laughed a lot when I read this

On topic, I'm not sure this would work... I mean, what would Brazil be called until 1500? Not only Brazil, but regarding all the civilizations, changing their names upon reaching a new era to the actual country/geographical region they currently are would be very weird, suggesting they "became" the current state, when they could have been conquered (as in Suleigirl, lol) or destroyed (as in Carthage). Like they said, would Byzantium turn into Turkey? They have completely different cultures, basically only the region in common. I prefer it the way it it, but it's just my opinion

 

[nunor]

I had already thought about this, but it doesn't really work, and it's not for a game like Civilization. Civilizations in this game do not intend to faithfully represent a historically accurate evolution of real nations throughout the ages, they're just there to add some diversity and uniqueness which makes the game more interesting to play.

Because, if you start to reason like that, what will you make of leaders? Shouldn't there be different leaders for different epochs too? If it disturbs you to have Assyria fighting England, isn't it even more bizarre to have Washington leading America in 300 BC or Boudica leading the Celts in 1800 AD? (or Ashurbanipal fighting Kamehameha? )

This kind of game mechanic would possibly work on games with intentions of historical accuracy, like Rise of Nations or Empire Earth. Not Civilization.

 

[Sikandar]

Civilization has never been about historical determinism.

 

[El Caballerion]

haha, yes, a lot of problems with this approach. I guess it just bugs me that Rome never becomes Italy especially when you have Great War Infantry running all over England against "nations" like The Celts and The Huns.

 

[Arachnofiend]

Well, think of it this way: If the Romans had never been overrun by barbarians/collapsed under the weight of their empire, we'd still have Rome and the Romans would still be speaking Latin. That's what happens in Civilization.

 

[AriochIV]

What would this suggestion add to the game? Not realism. The changing name would be inappropriate at least as often as it would be appropriate. Babylon, Aztecs, Maya, Assyria, etc. didn't "change" into another civilization -- they were conquered(or wiped out) and replaced by a different one.

Suleiman has declared war on Suleigirl!

That's "Suleiwoman" to you.

 

[Glassmage]

please no...

 

[Heart Break Kid]

Doesn't really make sense since Iraq and Babylon are not the same civilization.

If we were going by your example, what would even be the point of Rome being called Rome when you're selecting what Civ to play? Might as well just select Italy.

 

[Biologist]

The Rhye's and Fall mod for Civ IV comes closest to doing this, and even that is different from the approach suggested in the OP. Civ start times are staggered to reflect the historically accurate times at which those civs arose.

Keeping a civ alive beyond its historical lifespan is a serious challenge in many cases. Civs don't "morph" into other civs that happen to share the same region, either; they splinter or crumble and entirely new civs take their place. You might have a splinter civ named "Italy" rise from the ashes of Rome, for example, but at that point the Roman player has already lost the game.

 

[VossPL]

IMHO makes no sense. Why Carthage should become Tunisia? Babylon should become Iraq? Why?

Celts represent Bretons, Welsh, Cornish and Scottish people as well, not only the Irish.
Roman Empire was more than Italy itself, so no reason for it to become "Italy".

 

[Koshered]

I think civilization is about creating your own history, so we shouldn't be so... proper, I suppose. Besides we have to remember that dose ancient civilizations like Rome are different than modern civilization of Italy. I mean, of course they have cultural similarity etc, but Roman Empire it's still something waaay different than Italy per se.

 

[Tinker]

That really makes no sense, as quite a few civilizations didn't exist in the Ancient Era either. Hell, the Netherlands as a geological country didn't even exist.

 

[poom3619]

Me : *read at the topic name* Yes, I am for this. I am happy it have its own thread.
*read your example* Err... Wait, WHAT?

 

[Securion]

Viking ---> Svitjod ---> Sweden?
or
Viking ---> Denmark?
or
Viking ---> Norway?
or
Viking ---> Scandinavia?

or....?

 

[johnny139]

I remember a Civilization IV mod that did something similar, but it was dependent on what civics you chose. So if you were Russia and picked Monarchy, you'd be "Kingdom of Russia" but if you stuck with Barbarism you'd be "Russian Tribe." If you picked the right combination of civics you could become "Soviet Union."

They do something similar with titles in Civ V, and I'd rather they expand on that than try and shoehorn nation state - civilization overlap.

 

[El Conquistador]

Like RFC?