Naming of civs to come, correct or recognizable?

[ehecatzin]

Firaxis has been taking some steps to clear up naming of civs to avoid confusion and make continuity clearer, for example renaming Persia to Achaemenid Persia, I recall the Tenochtitlan Independent power having the "of the Mexica people" instead of Aztec.

Following this trend, how do you think other civs yet to be added should be named? would that create confusion or be an oportunity to get naming correct? should they even bother?, and to open the can of worms what should Rome 2 electric bogaloo be named:

• Byzantium.
• Eastern Roman Empire.
• The Roman Empire.

 

[Xur]

It doesn't really change anything in regards to gameplay. It feels like one of them websites that get a new look once in a while because the webdesigner wants to keep his job. It's sort of an "invented" problem to create work for someone at the office. I'm cynical, I know.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

In terms of Independent Powers, Constantinople of the Byzantines exists in the game, so I'd be surprised if they still don't end up being called the Byzantines when playable.
Plus, if hypothetically a Holy Roman Empire shows up in the same age, that might make it even more confusing.

As far as the debate between Mexica and Aztecs, the latter is more familiar and as far as I'm aware indicative of the whole empire? The Mexica people as an independent people for just Tenochtitlan makes sense, but would it when founding more cities? For example, I know Tetzcoco is known for its role in the Triple Alliance, even though it wasn't originally founded by the Mexica people, right?

 

[ehecatzin]

The thing is the Aztecs never called themselves that, I guess the correct term would be triple alliance if it where to include Texcoco and Tlacopan. That said I don't think It would be so incorrect to refer to the whole civ Mexica, as Tenochtitlan really was the driving force behind the alliance. But I can see how in this particular case Mexica and Mexico would be confusing, and just going by Aztec would be preferable.

 

[Krikkit1]

The thing is the Aztecs never called themselves that, I guess the correct term would be triple alliance if it where to include Texcoco and Tlacopan. That said I don't think It would be so incorrect to refer to the whole civ Mexica, as Tenochtitlan really was the driving force behind the alliance. But I can see how in this particular case Mexica and Mexico would be confusing, and just going by Aztec would be preferable.

The Inca never called themselves that either.
And if there is an Exploration Age civ that would have called themselves Romans... it will be called Byzantines.
(I could see a Holy Roman Empire though)

 

[Lukas1990]

In terms of Independent Powers, Constantinople of the Byzantines exists in the game, so I'd be surprised if they still don't end up being called the Byzantines when playable.
Plus, if hypothetically a Holy Roman Empire shows up in the same age, that might make it even more confusing.

As far as the debate between Mexica and Aztecs, the latter is more familiar and as far as I'm aware indicative of the whole empire? The Mexica people as an independent people for just Tenochtitlan makes sense, but would it when founding more cities? For example, I know Tetzcoco is known for its role in the Triple Alliance, even though it wasn't originally founded by the Mexica people, right?

Qajar or Assyria also were Independent Powers. Also Pirates was a independent power.

 

[Evie]

The change to Achaemenid seems to have less to do with using correct terminology, and more to do with avoiding confusion now that they have multiple Persias in the game.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The change to Achaemenid seems to have less to do with using correct terminology, and more to do with avoiding confusion now that they have multiple Persias in the game.

Yeah, the other option was going with Iran instead of Qajar, but that seemed less likely for reasons.

 

[MutilationWave]

I wish they'd be a little less PC with this stuff. I mean we have Russia and America, who have done plenty of terrible things currently and in recent history.

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

Plus, Iran has been their endonym for hundreds of years. It’s an all-encompassing term that doesn’t just refer to the dominant ethnicity. I don’t think it should be avoided just because it shares the name with a modern country.

 

[notNamed]

Plus, Iran has been their endonym for hundreds of years. It’s an all-encompassing term that doesn’t just refer to the dominant ethnicity. I don’t think it should be avoided just because it shares the name with a modern country.

It's a dumb name to use for distinguishing earlier and older Iranian states... at a completely random point.
Encyclopeadia Iranica talks about Achaemenid Iran for a reason. If you're working with people who don't know anything about the history of Iran, which Civ certainly is, you're just deceiving them.

If you work with historians, you use Iran throughout.
If you work with amateurs, stick with Iran being the exact state/regime they know and associate with the name, all the baggage included. Otherwise you simply invite shunting that onto random historical states and further inviting questions like "So when did that noble Persia become the children-eating Iran?" and dig a hole for yourself the moment you want to add or mod a third one in.