Culture (Unit + Quarter) Speculation Thread

Who will you play first?

  • Assyrians

    Votes: 2 2.9%
  • Babylonians

    Votes: 5 7.2%
  • Egyptians

    Votes: 5 7.2%
  • Harappans

    Votes: 12 17.4%
  • Hittites

    Votes: 2 2.9%
  • Mycenaeans

    Votes: 5 7.2%
  • Nubians

    Votes: 3 4.3%
  • Olmecs

    Votes: 6 8.7%
  • Phoenicians

    Votes: 10 14.5%
  • Zhou

    Votes: 9 13.0%
  • Random

    Votes: 10 14.5%

  • Total voters
    69
As mentioned before, cities will not automatically rename themselves as you change cultures. This is part of showing the history of the cities and civilizations. Bot just thematically, I think it also helps with gameplay: Let's say in the medieval age you meet a new neighbor, and he controls Babylon and Axum, then you will be able to tell his past cultures without having to yoom in on his cities and check the city centers and emblematic quarters.

However, as the player, you are able to rename your cities.
 
I do like that you're putting a big focus on cities history. But if there will be no renaming outside of what the player does, The Soviet Union leading from the city of Tyre while Moscow remains a fairly unimportant sattelite settlement will be frequent right? Unless of course theres going to be some way to make later settled cities catch up with the early ones.

It's fine and all it's alternate history and part of the fun but it would be nice if cities could change name somehow maybe if a city undergoes a large amount of development underneath a certain culture the game could offer to change its name from one of the active civs names because its had such an impact on it.
 
I do like that you're putting a big focus on cities history. But if there will be no renaming outside of what the player does, The Soviet Union leading from the city of Tyre while Moscow remains a fairly unimportant sattelite settlement will be frequent right? Unless of course theres going to be some way to make later settled cities catch up with the early ones.

It's fine and all it's alternate history and part of the fun but it would be nice if cities could change name somehow maybe if a city undergoes a large amount of development underneath a certain culture the game could offer to change its name from one of the active civs names because its had such an impact on it.

There’s also the fact that if a city’s name is changing every era they’re going to be hard to keep track of for the player!

I appreciate the desire from a history simulation perspective, but I’m not sure it’s worth the confusion of having yours and your neighbours’ cities change name constantly throughout the game!
 
God, Axum is such a sexy city name...

But I'm with Catoninetales here - clarity for the player should be the priority in this instance.
 
Yes, I'm just curious how it will play out itself. Since yes, it can result in really strange situations. Guess, we'll see how it turns out and know more about it when we get to play :)
 
its fine I can understand it as player clarity although cities seem to be more on the quality than quantity side in this game so them changing names on occasion (not nessisarily every era) doesnt seem like it will confuse players much. Perhaps there will be an option to start at a later era so at least there is a chance to see those other city names there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: j51
I do like that you're putting a big focus on cities history. But if there will be no renaming outside of what the player does, The Soviet Union leading from the city of Tyre while Moscow remains a fairly unimportant sattelite settlement will be frequent right? Unless of course theres going to be some way to make later settled cities catch up with the early ones.

It's fine and all it's alternate history and part of the fun but it would be nice if cities could change name somehow maybe if a city undergoes a large amount of development underneath a certain culture the game could offer to change its name from one of the active civs names because its had such an impact on it.

Historically, the Industrial Age was the "catch-up and even eclipse," period for such cities. I would hazard a guess in some way it would be the same here.
 
It would certainly be great if a historical 4x game could capture that huge growth in the industrial age but I've think I'm yet to play a 4x where mid-late expansions really become significant players in your empire.

It's certainly possible, Britain had many towns fade into obscurity as others accelerated to powerhouses this could be achieved in game through powerful new districts unlocked in the industrial age that are easier to apply to undeveloped settlements. Perhaps the United States in the industrial age will be specialised in building cities very fast.
 
I wonder what Rome and Persia will be then?
I'm betting Expansionist. We haven't had Expansionists for this era yet.
 
Maya - builders. How fitting!

It's unfortunate the Andean civilization continuum gets automatically shafted for New World representation by the Mesoamericans, again, as ALWAYS to be the case with these, except a RARE few cases where they co-exist. The Andean civilization continuum is such a rich and intriguing, but often overlooked, historical and archaeological horizon, and would be even more ideal here if they're glazing over lack of linguistic attestation - BUT NO, everyone loves the pyramids and snake statues everytime, instead... :p
 
It's unfortunate the Andean civilization continuum gets automatically shafted for New World representation by the Mesoamericans, again, as ALWAYS to be the case with these, except a RARE few cases where they co-exist. The Andean civilization continuum is such a rich and intriguing, but often overlooked, historical and archaeological horizon, and would be even more ideal here if they're glazing over lack of linguistic attestation - BUT NO, everyone loves the pyramids and snake statues everytime, instead... :p
I think Amplitude are prioritising the most famous and iconic cultures from history for the base game. I wouldn't give up hope for the Moche in a DLC or expansion down the line though!
 
It's unfortunate the Andean civilization continuum gets automatically shafted for New World representation by the Mesoamericans, again, as ALWAYS to be the case with these, except a RARE few cases where they co-exist. The Andean civilization continuum is such a rich and intriguing, but often overlooked, historical and archaeological horizon, and would be even more ideal here if they're glazing over lack of linguistic attestation - BUT NO, everyone loves the pyramids and snake statues everytime, instead... :p
There are some likely reasons of why mesoamerican factions usualy overshadow andine ones on historical based strategic games:
- Geographically mesoamerica is located at the middle of both Americas.
- Mesoamericans have the popular image of the "apocalyptic" civilization, when Andean is more like the "mystic" civilization.
- With all the debate about the pre-columbian population of the Americas, what most researchers agree is that Mesoamerica was by far the most densely populated region.
- Mesoamerica is Mexico, and Mexico is the most populated and known hispanoamerican country.
 
As mentioned before, cities will not automatically rename themselves as you change cultures. This is part of showing the history of the cities and civilizations. Bot just thematically, I think it also helps with gameplay: Let's say in the medieval age you meet a new neighbor, and he controls Babylon and Axum, then you will be able to tell his past cultures without having to yoom in on his cities and check the city centers and emblematic quarters.

However, as the player, you are able to rename your cities.
I don't know if this is too much work to be viable, but what if cities changed name to a more "linguistic fit" for the current culture, while still being the same core name - much the way the names of long-established cities have changed throughout history as they came under the control of different cultures? I know Paradox titles have something like this in play where province names change as they come under the control of different cultures.

As a real-world example, London is believed to have been called something like Lowonidonjon during pre-Roman times, then Londonium, then Lunden, and now London.

Obviously, if each culture has to have a full set of names for every other culture that might be cumbersome with the huge amount of permutations of having 60 cultures in the game, but they could be grouped in certain ways - eg Germanic cultures all have the same name-grouping for Nubian city names.
 
I think a simple way to handle it is just the capitals change names when a player switches cultures. That way if you or the AI switch from Egypt to Maurya the capital will change from Memphis to Pataliputra. To me, having something like Assur be the capital of Germany is what would be the most annoying, for example.
 
Last edited:
I don't know if this is too much work to be viable, but what if cities changed name to a more "linguistic fit" for the current culture, while still being the same core name - much the way the names of long-established cities have changed throughout history as they came under the control of different cultures? I know Paradox titles have something like this in play where province names change as they come under the control of different cultures.

As a real-world example, London is believed to have been called something like Lowonidonjon during pre-Roman times, then Londonium, then Lunden, and now London.

Obviously, if each culture has to have a full set of names for every other culture that might be cumbersome with the huge amount of permutations of having 60 cultures in the game, but they could be grouped in certain ways - eg Germanic cultures all have the same name-grouping for Nubian city names.

Agree, in fact there is a Mod for Civ called "Rosetta Stone" that when you capture a city translates its name to the language of your civilization.

That beeing said, I think it is a bit too hard to implement when we are talking about 60 cultures (eventhough many of them will share languages)...

I think a simple way to handle it is just the capitals change names when a player switches cultures. That way if you or the AI switch from Egypt to Maurya the capital will change from Memphis to Pataliputra. To me, having something like Assur be the capital of Germany is what would be the most annoying, for example.

If there is an option to rename the cities that would not be a problem, as long as you manually rename Assur to Berlin when you advance eras an pick Germany as your culture.

It would be cool if the AI can play when city names as well, somewhere in the middle between manual (only the human player will rename its cities) and automatic city renaming (where the trace of all cultures would be in a great manner lost after the players advance eras and change culture). Maybe there could be some sort of "city project" to rename your city (I remember there was some sort of city project to build a new palace and move your capital in an older Civ), with its costs (so you can not do it for every city every time you change cultures) and some incentives to it in the long term (could be related to fame).
 
A good „moving the capital“ mechanic would certainly solve the immersion beaking experience of having Assur be the capital of Germany. Good in the sense of regularly used, as in fact you can move your capital in civ V as well, it just has no benefit and mostly even hurts you. Civ V is a board game, not a history simulator after all.

But we have to wait and see - I‘m hoping for some more gameplay information soon.
 
Top Bottom