Expanded Dynamic Civ Names (EDCNs)

[Wondering Kid]

Leoreth already added that.

Yay.

 

[iOnlySignIn]

New update. Highlights:

elif iPlayer == iMongolia:

bMandateHeaven = False
if utils.getMaster(iChina) == iMongolia: bMandateHeaven = True # Vassalize China
if (not gc.getPlayer(iChina).isAlive()): bMandateHeaven = True # Kill China
if not (capital.getX() >= 97 and capital.getY() <= 47): bMandateHeaven = False # Move capital to China

if bMandateHeaven and bEmpire:
self.setCivDesc(iPlayer, "TXT_KEY_CIV_MONGOLIA_YUAN")
return


elif iPlayer == iTurkey:

bCaliph = (iReligion == con.iIslam)
if gc.getPlayer(iArabia).isAlive() and (utils.getMaster(iArabia) != iTurkey): bCaliph = False
if gc.getPlayer(iEgypt).isAlive() and (utils.getMaster(iEgypt) != iTurkey): bCaliph = False
if gc.getPlayer(iByzantium).isAlive(): bCaliph = False
if gc.getPlayer(iSeljuks).isAlive(): bCaliph = False

if (bEmpire and bCaliph) or utils.getScenario() == con.i1700AD:
self.setCivDesc(iPlayer, "TXT_KEY_CIV_TURKEY_OTTOMAN_CALIPHATE")
return

 

[ales_]

What does this mean?

 

[Gamah]

What does this mean?

I'm not an expert but I think the code for the mongolian name says you have to kill or vassalize China and then move your capital to China.
And the second code says that the name of Turkey will change to Ottoman Caliphat, if the Seljuks and the ERE are dead and Arabia and Egypt are dead OR your vassals.

if (bEmpire and bCaliph) or utils.getScenario() == con.i1700AD

Sorry if this question is stupid but wouldn't this mean Turkey would always be the Ottoman Caliphat in the 1700AD scenario?

 

[Leoreth]

Or we use Sublime Ottoman State as pre-Empire pre-Constantinople name and Ottoman Empire as Empire name. I'm not entirely sure.

Edit: I think I've decided on an appropriate sequence.

Just spawned: Sublime Ottoman State (Osman I Ghazi)

Taken Constantinople and reached isEmpire threshold: Ottoman Empire (Mehmed II Fatih)

Destroyed/Vassalized Arabia, Egypt, Seljuks, with Islam as state religion and reached isEmpire threshold: Ottoman Caliphate (Selim I Yavuz).

Yeah, I think Sublime Ottoman State should simply replace the current Ottoman Sultanate name. I don't think Caliphate should always be able to override the Empire name. Historically, the Ottomans claimed the Caliphate but were still referred to as Empire. I'd think of it more as an alternate history name should the Ottomans decide to emphasize the tradition of the Caliph more, e.g. by adopting Theocracy.

I think the trigger should simply be if the Romans are alive or not.

I don't get how this should work.

If they are called "Roman Empire" when Rome is dead, what are they called when the Romans are still alive? Modern historiography begins to use the name "Byzantine Empire" after the collapse of the WRE at the earliest. Before that it's the Eastern Roman Empire, which is what they're called in the game too.

I also think that it's very counterintuitive to have a civ called the Byzantines which can never have the name Byzantine Empire.

 

[iOnlySignIn]

Yeah, I think Sublime Ottoman State should simply replace the current Ottoman Sultanate name. I don't think Caliphate should always be able to override the Empire name. Historically, the Ottomans claimed the Caliphate but were still referred to as Empire. I'd think of it more as an alternate history name should the Ottomans decide to emphasize the tradition of the Caliph more, e.g. by adopting Theocracy.

I'm thinking along the SoI title "Commander of the Faithful".

With my current conditions (outlined above) it's quite challenging for AI Ottomans to reach Caliphate status anyway.

Ottoman expansion (towards Egypt and Mecca) during the reign of Selim I carried the clear connotation/purpose of the Ottomans uniting the Muslim world with Selim adopting the titles of Caliph/Amir al-Mu'minin/Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques.

I wish to reflect that in game and give players some immediate feedback for conquering Arabia and Egypt.

 

[BenZL43]

Why China only become Han at -180 BC and have comment #Emperor Wen of Han?
Why not it become Han since -206 BC?

 

[iOnlySignIn]

Han did not completely stabilize and unify China until then.

Edit: This is also to make sure that Qin has actual chances to appear. I have similar problems trying to add the Shang - it's quite challenging to make sure they appear.

 

[Swarbs]

I don't get how this should work.

If they are called "Roman Empire" when Rome is dead, what are they called when the Romans are still alive? Modern historiography begins to use the name "Byzantine Empire" after the collapse of the WRE at the earliest. Before that it's the Eastern Roman Empire, which is what they're called in the game too.

I also think that it's very counterintuitive to have a civ called the Byzantines which can never have the name Byzantine Empire.

I'm sure this has been covered before, but IRL the Byzantines never referred to themselves as the Byzantines, and neither did anyone else until a century after they were conquered. They and the Roman Empire just referred to themselves as the Roman Empire - they didn't even distinguish between the two halves.

Imo, if only the Romans or the Byzantines are alive then that civ should use the title "Roman Empire", and the associated titles where relevant (Roman Kingdom, Roman Republic etc). The only difference would be to replace Italian in the Roman names with Greek (so the Byzantines can be People's Republic of Greece, Greek League etc). Keeps it simple and historic.

And as it is now, if both of them are alive then they should be the Western Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire.

I don't personally think it's counterintuitive for the Byzantines never to be the Byzantine Empire. After all, the Moors can never be the Moorish Empire, and the Tamils rarely become the Republic of Tamil Nadu, they're usually the Chola Empire. Both the Moors and the Tamils are largely external titles given to a people who didn't refer to themselves as such, so I don't see why the same logic can't apply to the Byzantines. Just keep all the adjectives as Byzantines and that will differentiate them from the Romans.

 

[iOnlySignIn]

^ Currently I've made the name change (Roman Empire => Byzantine Empire) dependent on adopting Orthodoxy because Catholicism is more oriented towards Western Europe instead of Eastern Europe, and the Great Schism, etc.

I could also set it to be a specific date, 1055 (Great Schism) for example, or 620 (Muslim invasion; Heraclius changing the official language from Latin to Greek).

Yeah, I think 620 is a nice pivotal date for this name change to happen.

Edit: Or I could tie it to a tech. I'm thinking Feudalism.

Edit Edit: Nah. Orthodoxy state religion is still the best IMO. The rest are either not flexible enough (620 date) or too flexible (Feudalism).

 

[Leoreth]

I'm sure this has been covered before, but IRL the Byzantines never referred to themselves as the Byzantines, and neither did anyone else until a century after they were conquered. They and the Roman Empire just referred to themselves as the Roman Empire - they didn't even distinguish between the two halves.

Historians do, heck I have a book by quite the authority on Byzantium that has Byzantine Empire in the title on my bedside table.

I've already said that I'm going with modern historiographical names for consistency and recognizability. Everyone knows what the Byzantine Empire is, while having two civs with the name Roman Empire just leads to confusion. Your other examples aren't really applicable since they don't lead to the same kind of confusion. You could even say they support my point since the Chola Empire didn't call itself Chola Empire either.

Don't take it personally, but I'm getting a bit tired of the "they didn't call themselves Byzantines" bit because it's usually said by people whose knowledge of the subject ends at reading the wikipedia article so they look like they're in the know. It's a triviality to anyone remotely familiar with the Byzantines.

 

[Swarbs]

Historians do, heck I have a book by quite the authority on Byzantium that has Byzantine Empire in the title on my bedside table.

I've already said that I'm going with modern historiographical names for consistency and recognizability. Everyone knows what the Byzantine Empire is, while having two civs with the name Roman Empire just leads to confusion. Your other examples aren't really applicable since they don't lead to the same kind of confusion. You could even say they support my point since the Chola Empire didn't call itself Chola Empire either.

Don't take it personally, but I'm getting a bit tired of the "they didn't call themselves Byzantines" bit because it's usually said by people whose knowledge of the subject ends at reading the wikipedia article so they look like they're in the know. It's a triviality to anyone remotely familiar with the Byzantines.

That's fair enough - it's your mod so your call. And you are right that the Byzantine Empire is a more familiar and less confusing name, particularly for people who aren't aware of the nomenclature of the empire over time.

I would prefer to see it as the Roman Empire, cos for me the Byzantine Empire is largely associated with the period of decline of the Roman Empire and its ultimate failure. In the game I'd rather be a successful Roman Emperor than an inevitably declining Byzantine Emperor. But that's just personal preference, not worth changing the whole mod for.

If it mattered that much to me, or anyone else, it would be pretty simple just to change the names file myself!

 

[Pavel Chichikov]

There was nothing 'inevitable' about the decline of the Byzantines. Declines are only inevitable in retrospect.
It was their bad luck they were subjected to probably the biggest mass migration since 1200 BC.

Historians do, heck I have a book by quite the authority on Byzantium that has Byzantine Empire in the title on my bedside table.

I've already said that I'm going with modern historiographical names for consistency and recognizability. Everyone knows what the Byzantine Empire is, while having two civs with the name Roman Empire just leads to confusion. Your other examples aren't really applicable since they don't lead to the same kind of confusion. You could even say they support my point since the Chola Empire didn't call itself Chola Empire either.

Don't take it personally, but I'm getting a bit tired of the "they didn't call themselves Byzantines" bit because it's usually said by people whose knowledge of the subject ends at reading the wikipedia article so they look like they're in the know. It's a triviality to anyone remotely familiar with the Byzantines.

Is the author John Julius Norwich?
Yes it's a triviality, no people called themselves Phoenicians, or Celts, or Mayans either.
In some ways 'Byzantine' is quite fitting, like the Ottomans, there was no 'dominant ethnicity', nor did anybody even think in those terms back then. Or the Roman Empire, there were quite a few Spanish emperors for example.

 

[Leoreth]

If it mattered that much to me, or anyone else, it would be pretty simple just to change the names file myself!

That's the spirit of modding

 

[iOnlySignIn]

The Human player on 3000 BC can easily decide whether to be Roman Empire or Byzantine Empire by choosing to adopt Orthodoxy or not. I think that's a neat solution.

Updated new version: Shang Kingdom and Nanda Empire names for China and India. Finally got them to appear at historical times!

 

[DC123456789]

Leoreth, when will this be added to the base game?

 

[The Diocletian]

Brazil while running Capitalism: Banana Republic.

You are welcome for this brilliant idea.

 

[iOnlySignIn]

^I'm more interested in how you would define the Roman => Byzantine name change.

Anyway, new edition coming up:

Pandyan, Chola, Vijayanagara names for Tamils. Maratha, Deccan Sultanates names for India.

 

[Swarbs]

There was nothing 'inevitable' about the decline of the Byzantines. Declines are only inevitable in retrospect.
It was their bad luck they were subjected to probably the biggest mass migration since 1200 BC.

Perhaps, although you could argue they were responsible for their own decline by failing to advance and sticking to largely inefficient methods of government and organisation. Stagnation = decline.

Besides, my point is that the decline of the Byzantines was not inevitable, but when they are called the Byzantines it just feels that way. After all, they are one of the few civs to have UHVs which almost completely break from their historical position. The UHVs for most civs focus on what they actually achieved, or came close to achieving, but the Byzantines are some way outside that, with their UHVs being to make Constantinople the largest city in the world at a time when it was in decline and about to be conquered, and to be close to their peak at the point they were defeated.

The Human player on 3000 BC can easily decide whether to be Roman Empire or Byzantine Empire by choosing to adopt Orthodoxy or not. I think that's a neat solution.

It's quite neat, but does choosing to remain Catholic mean you will lose the Orthodox Holy city and Hagia Sophia? Cos I think that would seriously harm the economy of the Byzantines and make the 1st UHV very difficult to achieve.

 

[Leoreth]

Leoreth, when will this be added to the base game?

When I'm done with the stability stuff.

As you might have noticed, progress is slow at the moment. This is because my free time currently goes into kicking Muscovy's ass as Novgorod.