AquilaSPQR wrote:

Again - it does. Even the Londinium > London change is still a change. Let's take some other large English cities: Birmingham (no Celtic or even Latin background), Leeds (Loidis - significant change), Sheffield (no Celtic or Latin background), Bradford (same here), Manchester (Mancunio + castra - a significant change), Liverpool (again no celtic or latin roots), Bristol (from Old English Brycgstow - not only lack latin or Celtic roots but even Old English one is quite distant from modern version) and so on, and so on... You may say "some of them didn't exist in the Celtic/Latin era, so it doesn't count". Yet these are some of the major English cities now, literally screaming "I'M ENGLISH". If you look at map of the world that's where England is, not in Argentina. 

It's still not as drastic as Beijing > London, but since the game allows such change, it's still warranted. We have the Tenochtitlan > La Ciudad de Mexico example. 

Even if you consider such "drastic" changes too drastic - it's still better than not changing anything at all.

Probably the best way to have it done in Humankind would be making variations of basic names - how for example Kerma would look like if taken by Romans ("Kermium" for example), but that would be too time consuming to make for all cultures so let's forget about it (and still it would look strange to have "Kermium" as Roman capital instead of eternal Roma). 

Again, your original point which I'm responding to is the idea that something like Kerma should flip to being called something properly Greek, or Roman, and by this you meant literally Athens or Antium. That Babylon should become Rome. If your position on this has changed to some degree, sure but otherwise you're twisting the point I'm making to suite you and shifting the goal posts. Yes, the majority of major cities in England technically don't have Celtic roots but the concept remains and is reflective of Anglo-Saxon patters of settlement and displacement in actual English history. Perhaps things play out differently in this version of Anglo-Saxon migration into say, Axsumite territory or former Greece? Lets shift to other examples, the majority of cities in France have Celtic/Gallic origins for example more so than in England. Southern Ontario, Canada its major, cosmopolitan, capital is named in a way derived from First Nations languages. In any other direction you go you can find other examples interlayed with other cities that reflect the names of prominant Anglo-Scottish settlers or throwbacks to the old country. These reflect the past several hundred years of history here, and the changes they reflect don't happen over night or with a flip of a switch. 

Again, what you're suggesting as the easy way to do it, and evoking historical accuracy to justify it, is not quite accurate and is very wonky. The more accurate way would be time consuming and tedious uneven work that doesn't really add much at all to the game experience. 

And you still will. Maybe they were Mongolians centuries ago, but they're Dutch now, so it's logical they speak Dutch now and call their cities accordingly. Culture changed, new language reigns, BUT  there are still old unique extensions there. And that's much more cool - tey are Dutch, they are not Mongolians anymore, YET there are remnants of their past not in the names of Mongolian (yeah, I wish... rather Nubian or Egyptian...) cities but in their material culture which is far more resillient than language (people in England do not speak Latin anymore yet there is plenty of Roman coins there still lingering in the soil). That's much better than finding Nubian or Egyptian cities with guys pretending to be Dutch. And even could be more thrilling - "what is their heritage? What path did they take? Oh, are those Nubian pyramids? So they were Nubians thousand years ago!" 

 Again, this isn't something you can say holds evenly. Your concept of language here is flawed. Languages adopted and take words from other languages and keep them, or morph them slightly over time. Its not a matter of the Dutch would be speaking Dutch so they'd start calling Khanbaliq Amsterdam. Your idea that material culture holds over time in place of language is not an accurate rule of thumb. I can point to all of the Germanic peoples who migrated into Roman territory and carved it into Kingdoms who adopted Latin in the west and gave birth to modern Romance languages over time or who were absorbed into the more Hellenistic East. There were prominant BYzantine Noble houses such as the Axouch who were of partly Turkic origin, they switched sides and assimilated. (or at least in this specific case were captured as a child)

I wouldn't say it's "less like it's intended". I still like the ability to choose and adopt new cultures and mix old with the new. Evolving and changing. But in a more logical way. The option to change names is more or less cosmetic. It doesn't nullify the concepts of this game, it  merely makes it more visually acceptable for those who prefer more historic approach (because displaying city name as Kerma or Rome or Moscow is just like that - cosmetical, it doesn't impact gameplay that much)

I think you're overstating your case about what you think is the more "logical" way for these things to work, and again your position here as the more correctly "historical" approach. I'd suggest rethinking that presumption. Part of the point I've already made is that I concede the issues with how newer cultures don't get reflected with the given mechanics. I'd rather see that worked with, which adds variety across all game experiences, than some effort be wasted on a niche interest appeal to a skewed idea of historical accuracy that I will likely never turn on myself. It would be preferable that the Mongol Dutch do end up creating Dutch cities over time as well instead of just being locked into their old names. I'd like to see more ebb and flow in Empire prominance in the game, which as a broader issue with 4X game design in general that's hard to tackle. 

Limstella wrote:
Again, your original point which I'm responding to is the idea that something like Kerma should flip to being called something properly Greek, or Roman, and by this you meant literally Athens or Antium. That Babylon should become Rome.

It's probably not the best option, but still better than not changing them at all (and I think I already presented my opinion on this matter quite well). 

Limstella wrote:
the majority of cities in France have Celtic/Gallic origins

Examples? Cities which did not change their names since antiquity most preferably. Lutetia Parisiorum > Paris or Civitas Aurelianorum > Orleans or even Burdigala > Bordeaux doesn't count, since those names, as we can see, changed. 

Limstella wrote:
Southern Ontario, Canada its major, cosmopolitan, capital is named in a way derived from First Nations languages.

Interesting. But also raising questions. I assume it was very small French settlement at the beginning, somewhere inside territory owned by Native peoples who already named everything - lake in this case. Can it be compared to the situation we have in Humankind? Maybe. Or maybe not. 

Limstella wrote:
These reflect the past several hundred years of history here, and the changes they reflect don't happen over night or with a flip of a switch. 

I do not deny it. Changing all names immediately after switching culture to a new one is very oversimplifying. But it's also (probably) easy to implement. If gradual change could be implemented - it would probably be an even better option. Another thing to consider - game "speed" is not realistic. When we look at the rate new techs are discovered - we may assume one turn sometimes represents a decade or even more. 

Limstella wrote:
Your concept of language here is flawed. Languages adopted and take words from other languages and keep them, or morph them slightly over time. Its not a matter of the Dutch would be speaking Dutch so they'd start calling Khanbaliq Amsterdam.

Then why historic city names changed? Why there is so many city names which changed when new culture took ownership of them? Many of them are similar to the previous names and definitely derive from them (Constantinople > Kostantiniyye) but they still change! New culture arrives, even if it takes the old name - it's not the old name, but a new version of the old name. As I mentioned somewhere - maybe transition from Mongolian to Dutch culture wouldn't mean Khanbaliq would automatically become Amsterdam. But it would most probably change name to somehow reflect the change of culture. Just like so many cities in real world did. I know nothing of Dutch language, I have no idea how such transition could look like. Making it "Khanbaliq > Amsterdam" is just something easy, avoiding the completely unnecessary inventing the "how would Dutch/Romans/Aztecs/Chinese/Russians call Kerma if they took control of it?" names.

Also the language is probably the most important thing that separates cultures and makes them unique. I can wear traditional Masai dress but it won't make me even 1% Masai. I can build myself a traditional Masai hut and live there, but it won't make me Masai. If I learned their language though - I still wouldn't become Masai, but it would be a more significant change than just wearing their clothes.  

Limstella wrote:
Your idea that material culture holds over time in place of language is not an accurate rule of thumb.

Material culture, if not destroyed or altered, stays the same. Aztec temples are still Aztec temples, despite Mexico being Mexico now and being influenced by Spanish in the past. The culture right now is predominantly Mexican there now. In the past it was a mix dominated by the Spanish culture. Yet the Aztec monuments are still there. City is called Ciudad de Mexico, people are speaking Spanish, the temple itself is right now called "Templo Mayor", but it is Aztec in nature. That's exactly how my proposal looks like - culture changed (from Aztec to Spanish to Mexican), names changed (Tenochtitlan > CDMX and whatever it was called to "Templo Mayor") but the building still stands (or its ruins actually). In the game you would have new names reflecting the new culture AND old unique extensions displaying the original, long lost cultures which existed before new cultures arrived.

Limstella wrote:
I think you're overstating your case about what you think is the more "logical" way for these things to work

To me it's simply more logical that Russian empire has Russian cities instead of Egyptian ones. Or a mix of Egyptian, Roman, French and Aztec ones. What exactly makes such empire "Russian"? What exactly makes such group of random city names from all over the world "Russian"? Just because right now they can build one unique extension and have one unique unit? And their avatar is now wearing ushanka hat? We won't even have unique languages for each culture like in Civilization series, so that's it. Flag, city center, extension and unit (and avatar, but that's only on diplomacy screen. I also assume architecture will not be unique for all cultures and for example French and English will share basic look of common extensions). If not for flag and unique city center you would not even know who's that (and even that's not true actually, because only NEW Russian cities would get unique city center which means all their old city centers will still look like Nubian/Egyptian/Roman etc). Especially when you'll have absolutely confusing situation in later eras where you will basically see American empire with Egyptian city names, Russian empire with Nubian city names, German empire with Olmec city names and Mexican empire with Babylonian city names. In literally almost every game. 

I understand that someone may find it cool and have no issues with it. That's why I do not ask to take that option away from them. I only ask for a small option for those who would like to see Russian/American/German/Polish empires with Russian/American/German/Polish core city names.

I don't mind to have my cities not changing names, actually if it change automatically, I will really not like it. It's not more "realistic" for me and will just break my experience of shaping my own history.

But simply add a randomizer button when you rename a city, which will give a random city name of your current culture ?

Seems reasonable and easiest to implement, to me.

AquilaSPQR wrote:

It's probably not the best option, but still better than not changing them at all (and I think I already presented my opinion on this matter quite well).

The way it works currently conveys an idea/concept better than what you want. Not changing reflects that the name of the settlement reflects its founders/original inhabitants. That matters more than trying to shoehorn in a perceived form of historicism where Kerma randomly gets called Athens. It reflects the alternative emergant history of the game where instead of settling the British Isles or what we know as Greece, the English or the Greeks arrive in a different land and intermingle with the Nubians or the Zhou. 

Examples? Cities which did not change their names since antiquity most preferably. Lutetia Parisiorum > Paris or Civitas Aurelianorum > Orleans or even Burdigala > Bordeaux doesn't count, since those names, as we can see, changed.

You seem to be missing the point. I've explained this before and trying to arbitrarily insist names don't count is this continued goalpost shifting. Its not a matter of *change* or *not* change historically but of the changes being reflective of their original roots still. It'd be tedious to implement this into the game for every culture process, so I'd rather it stay as is. Honestly there are so many names of cities that are also the same in multiple languages anyway. We call Paris Paris in English, just as its called in French. The name of a city is not the wheel upon which the whole of linguistic accuracy is reflected.

I do not deny it. Changing all names immediately after switching culture to a new one is very oversimplifying. But it's also (probably) easy to implement. If gradual change could be implemented - it would probably be an even better option. Another thing to consider - game "speed" is not realistic. When we look at the rate new techs are discovered - we may assume one turn sometimes represents a decade or even more.

Welcome to 4X games. You should reconsider wanting to accurately recreate history with this type of game. They walk a fine line where some elements can be reflective of historicity but you're not going to be able to recreate things exactly.

Then why historic city names changed? Why there is so many city names which changed when new culture took ownership of them? Many of them are similar to the previous names and definitely derive from them (Constantinople > Kostantiniyye) but they still change! New culture arrives, even if it takes the old name - it's not the old name, but a new version of the old name. As I mentioned somewhere - maybe transition from Mongolian to Dutch culture wouldn't mean Khanbaliq would automatically become Amsterdam. But it would most probably change name to somehow reflect the change of culture. Just like so many cities in real world did. I know nothing of Dutch language, I have no idea how such transition could look like. Making it "Khanbaliq > Amsterdam" is just something easy, avoiding the completely unnecessary inventing the "how would Dutch/Romans/Aztecs/Chinese/Russians call Kerma if they took control of it?" names.

There are complicated reasons why historic city names changed, in many of them its because the modern name reflects actually entirely new settlements established after the former was abandoned. This is somewhat common if you look at the history of Middle East for example. If a city is continuously inhabited, it makes less sense that the name would completely change. There'd be a permenancy that'd be reflected. Baghdad for example was founded near the ruins of many ancient cities in the 8th Century, including not far from Babylon, realtively. Imagine if Babylon was never abandoned, never fell into ruins? Would it necessarily be under a different name? Would it be called Baghdad instead?

Also the language is probably the most important thing that separates cultures and makes them unique. I can wear traditional Masai dress but it won't make me even 1% Masai. I can build myself a traditional Masai hut and live there, but it won't make me Masai. If I learned their language though - I still wouldn't become Masai, but it would be a more significant change than just wearing their clothes.  

I think you have a more than non-zero chance of being assimilated into the Masai and their culture if you gave an honest shot of it. I can't speak for them, but I dont think its a matter of simply mimicking their lifestyle of course. 

To me it's simply more logical that Russian empire has Russian cities instead of Egyptian ones. Or a mix of Egyptian, Roman, French and Aztec ones. What exactly makes such empire "Russian"? What exactly makes such group of random city names from all over the world "Russian"? Just because right now they can build one unique extension and have one unique unit? And their avatar is now wearing ushanka hat? We won't even have unique languages for each culture like in Civilization series, so that's it. Flag, city center, extension and unit (and avatar, but that's only on diplomacy screen. I also assume architecture will not be unique for all cultures and for example French and English will share basic look of common extensions). If not for flag and unique city center you would not even know who's that (and even that's not true actually, because only NEW Russian cities would get unique city center which means all their old city centers will still look like Nubian/Egyptian/Roman etc). Especially when you'll have absolutely confusing situation in later eras where you will basically see American empire with Egyptian city names, Russian empire with Nubian city names, German empire with Olmec city names and Mexican empire with Babylonian city names. In literally almost every game. 

I understand that someone may find it cool and have no issues with it. That's why I do not ask to take that option away from them. I only ask for a small option for those who would like to see Russian/American/German/Polish empires with Russian/American/German/Polish core city names.

I think you're trying to find some sort've purity test by which to judge the Russianess here and I don't think I can help you with that. Its a fools errand. Again I'm more interested in shaking up the variety of the ebb and flow of empires and city prominance with mechanics that improve gameplay being a way around the repretiveness than shoehorning in a name change flip, because in and of itself it doesn't bother me to see a Russian empire with Nubian or Mycenean city names, even in its core. It'd be cool to maybe see it with some Teutonic, Frankish, Ming or Polish ones too though.

This name flipping idea ultimately seems like an issue for modding away, it doesn't add much to be worth it or impactful enough in the game experience for most people.

Limstella wrote:
Not changing reflects that the name of the settlement reflects its founders/original inhabitants. That matters more than trying to shoehorn in a perceived form of historicism where Kerma randomly gets called Athens.

And you'll still get it because city will retain its historic city center and all unique extensions. It's more important than the name after all. Material culture stays the same (old monuments that is), language (and therefore names) changes. Exactly what I'm proposing.

Limstella wrote:
You seem to be missing the point. I've explained this before and trying to arbitrarily insist names don't count is this continued goalpost shifting.

Well, it's basically like this: I say changing cultures means usually (if not almost always) changing names of settlements. You say it's not true and that some English of French cities have still Celtic names (or very similar to Celtic). I ask for examples then. You do not provide them and say I'm "trying to arbitrarily insist names". 

If you say cities don't change names when new culture takes ownership - then show us examples please. I say they change and I gave you some and can give you more if you want. Ontario example was interesting, but I'd say it's more an exception than a rule. Another thing - even if you find such examples it still doesn't make my examples invalid. One way or another - you can't really prove your point that in human history cities were not changing names when their culture changed. Because they were, if not all of them, then some of them (I'd say majority).

Limstella wrote:
It'd be tedious to implement this into the game for every culture process, so I'd rather it stay as is.

And I'd say it's strange and immersion breaking for some players and that's why there should be an option to choose changing AI city names to new ones. In the end it's one opinion and preferences against another opinion and preferences. And since I like the idea of "live and let live" - I propose to make it optional and yet you still insist on taking such option away and make us play like you'd like to play.

Limstella wrote:
You should reconsider wanting to accurately recreate history with this type of game. They walk a fine line where some elements can be reflective of historicity but you're not going to be able to recreate things exactly.

I know. In my current Civ IV game I've just smashed Indian empire with my Roman riflemen. But "being just a game" is not really an excuse to implement everything, no matter how wrong, strange or improper it may be. If this game wants to be historical to some degree (historic cultures, units and extensions based on research etc) - then why not make it even more historical with one, simple optional change? Of course I do not want to recreate history, because it would be impossible (with no earth maps and AI doing random things) and actually it's not my intention. But I'm happy that in this Civ IV game I mentioned my core Roman cities are Roman, not Nubian or Olmec. Because of that I have a non-historical game with some historical elements.

Limstella wrote:
There are complicated reasons why historic city names changed, in many of them its because the modern name reflects actually entirely new settlements established after the former was abandoned.

And other cities changed their names because new culture arrived. City known for centuries as Tenochtitlan became CDMX without burning it down completely. City called Danzig is now Gdansk without resettling it. And so on and so on... Why do you insist so badly that it's not true? Is it because it would make my point more valid?

Limstella wrote:
Imagine if Babylon was never abandoned, never fell into ruins? Would it necessarily be under a different name? Would it be called Baghdad instead?

Maybe, maybe not. Instead of guessing, let's focus on real examples of some continuously inhabited places:

Olissipo > Municipium Cives Romanorum Felicitas Julia > Ulishbona > Al-Lixbûnâ > Lisbon

Gadir > Gades > Qādis > Cadiz

Hisbaal  > Hispalis > Išbīliya > Ḥimṣ al-Andalus > Sevilla

Malet > Melite > Madinah > L-Imdina 

Karaly > Caralis > Cagliari

Byzantion > Constantinopolis > Konstantiniyye > Istanbul

Limstella wrote:
I think you're trying to find some sort've purity test by which to judge the Russianess here and I don't think I can help you with that.

Not at all. Russia exist. Russian culture exist. That's why we can say what is more Russian and what is less Russian. It's not some invented, fictional culture like Klingons where you can actually invent new stuff to use in TV show and call it "Klingon". Part of "Russianess" are their city names which are derived from their culture, history and language. That's why it is an important element of "Russianess". In a game even an empire without any unique units or extensions but consistently using city names like Moskva, Chelyabinsk, Vladovostok etc. would be much more "Russian" than an empire with Memphis, Rome, Tenochtitlan and London with some random citizens wearing ushanka hats. Everyone can wear those. But only Russians would call their cities Moskva and so on.

Limstella wrote:
This name flipping idea ultimately seems like an issue for modding away, it doesn't add much for the amount of work it'd take to get it up and running to be worth it or impactful enough in the game experience for most people.

Amount of work? City names are already there. Besides - you won't need much of them. Only cities founded by players should change names, conquered ones should stay the same to make things easier. That's probably no more than a handful of city names needed and I'm sure devs already prepared such lists for all cultures added to the game. The only thing left is to write some script which would change city names. Things like that are in mods made by volunteers for Civ and other games like EU IV. Another reason to think seriously about implementing this proposition - it's not that hard to do as you probably believe. 

AquilaSPQR wrote:

And you'll still get it because city will retain its historic city center and all unique extensions. It's more important than the name after all. Material culture stays the same (old monuments that is), language (and therefore names) changes. Exactly what I'm proposing.

But I'm literally saying that I want it to still do this through the names. Material culture again does not strictly stay the same. Buildings fall apart but are rebuilt, old temples are torn down by inhabitants for building materials etc etc. The CC architecture staying the same isn't more historically accurate than the name staying the same either, but it doesn't bother me because its one of the conceits of the game's world.

Well, it's basically like this: I say changing cultures means usually (if not almost always) changing names of settlements. You say it's not true and that some English of French cities have still Celtic names (or very similar to Celtic). I ask for examples then. You do not provide them and say I'm "trying to arbitrarily insist names". 

If you say cities don't change names when new culture takes ownership - then show us examples please. I say they change and I gave you some and can give you more if you want. Ontario example was interesting, but I'd say it's more an exception than a rule. Another thing - even if you find such examples it still doesn't make my examples invalid. One way or another - you can't really prove your point that in human history cities were not changing names when their culture changed. Because they were, if not all of them, then some of them (I'd say majority).

My point is again, not that that they don't change at all. You seem obstinant about not comprehending the point I'm making when talking about names reflecting roots as a concept. Not immutability. Your own example of Lisbon downline follows a similar history of likely developing from a Celtic root name through the ages. Its later name was not merely bestowed upon it by new arrivals, but taken from what it was called before. This is the point I'm getting at with my examples or allusions to place names in Gallia or Briton sticking around, somewhat rarer in places they might be. 

And I'd say it's strange and immersion breaking for some players and that's why there should be an option to choose changing AI city names to new ones. In the end it's one opinion and preferences against another opinion and preferences. And since I like the idea of "live and let live" - I propose to make it optional and yet you still insist on taking such option away and make us play like you'd like to play.

I'm not taking away an option that doesn't yet exist, I'm saying I don't see the merit in it being implemented. At least certainly not in your original suggestions form. In part because I disagree with your concept of how historical it is. You keep wrapping your claims in framing other people as "not seeing anything wrong" and you as desiring more historicism and I disagree with those arguments. I'd much rather see the gameplay just be emergent and tell its own story where yes, sometimes you see a huge amount of the history and influences of the past when you encounter an empire. I see it reasonable to want to see sometimes / even rather often see the more recent cultures emergant or emphasized but ultimately I want to see the story thats told from the *ingame* history, not some boring repeat of real world history.

I know. In my current Civ IV game I've just smashed Indian empire with my Roman riflemen. But "being just a game" is not really an excuse to implement everything, no matter how wrong, strange or improper it may be. If this game wants to be historical to some degree (historic cultures, units and extensions based on research etc) - then why not make it even more historical with one, simple optional change? Of course I do not want to recreate history, because it would be impossible (with no earth maps and AI doing random things) and actually it's not my intention. But I'm happy that in this Civ IV game I mentioned my core Roman cities are Roman, not Nubian or Olmec. Because of that I have a non-historical game with some historical elements.

 Something being just a game is a perfect excuse for creative liscence and intentions. Who are you to say this is "improper"? Whats improper about a game with an alt history play style where the Franks don't settle into Gallia, but rather Northern China or its ingame equivilent and go from there? Your civ game has no more historical elements than Humankind will, it just has certain naming conventions. It also has a version of human history where things are actually rather immutable, the Romans were around as Romans in 4000BC for example and so on and so forth.

And other cities changed their names because new culture arrived. City known for centuries as Tenochtitlan became CDMX without burning it down completely. City called Danzig is now Gdansk without resettling it. And so on and so on... Why do you insist so badly that it's not true? Is it because it would make my point more valid?

"without burning it down completly" is doing a lot of leg work, there. The Spanish decimated Tenochtitlan. I'm pretty sure Danzig's name change followed mass deportation of ethnic Germans from Poland. Not quite the points you think they are to your idea. 

Maybe, maybe not. Instead of guessing, let's focus on real examples of some continuously inhabited places:

Olissipo > Municipium Cives Romanorum Felicitas Julia > Ulishbona > Al-Lixbûnâ > Lisbon

Gadir > Gades > Qādis > Cadiz

Hisbaal  > Hispalis > Išbīliya > Ḥimṣ al-Andalus > Sevilla

Malet > Melite > Madinah > L-Imdina 

Karaly > Caralis > Cagliari

Byzantion > Constantinopolis > Konstantiniyye > Istanbul

Again, looking through many of these, they follow the patterns I've outlined where they changes reflect still its origins. With maybe the exception of Byzantion > Istanbol. For your allusion earlier of something being an exception to the rule, it seems your own examples still support my point.

Not really a point in discussion, but city of Danzig became Gdańsk after earlier city of Gdańsk became Danzig. I keep seeing people mentioning Poles "appropriating" German names that forgot the neighbours helped themselves to Poland and removed it from maps in late XVIIIth century. It's a poor example in general, AFAIK latinized Gdanzk is the first mention of the name we have, which isn't that far off.

EDIT: and I think it's worth mentioning for Limstella's last point, that despite how it looks, phonetically 'Danzig' is approximation of 'Gdańsk'.

Limstella wrote:
But I'm literally saying that I want it to still do this through the names. Material culture again does not strictly stay the same. Buildings fall apart but are rebuilt, old temples are torn down by inhabitants for building materials etc etc

That's why I wrote "if not destroyed or altered". It's ok though that in-game it's simplified. I have no problems with that.

Limstella wrote:
My point is again, not that that they don't change at all. You seem obstinant about not comprehending the point I'm making when talking about names reflecting roots as a concept.

And my point is simple - no matter how exactly, but they change. Sometimes the change is small, sometimes it's huge. But they still change to reflect that a new culture arrived and gave new names to their settlements (either completely new names or new versions of old names). That's why (one of two major arguments) I say that names which won't change at all no matter if they are Egyptian, Russian or Olmec - are wrong. And if so - a new system should be implemented.

Creating a system which would take the oldest root and then modify it accordingly would be too difficult to make and thus time consuming. That's why such solution is bad. 

A system where old cities founded by player or AI change names to those of new culture is much easier. It's probably easy to add, it gives greater variety (no more the same set of cities over and over again in every game) and it's less confusing (to see Russian empire with Russian cities instead of Olmec/Egyptian/Greek/Japanese ones). At least three birds with one stone. 

Limstella wrote:
but ultimately I want to see the story thats told from the *ingame* history, not some boring repeat of real world history

I fail to see how my proposal would in any way make the gameplay a "boring repeat of real world history". 

1. you would still be able to mix cultures however you want

2. you would not be forced to turn that option on

3. no game would be a "repeat of real world history" thanks to game mechanics

Limstella wrote:
Something being just a game is a perfect excuse for creative liscence and intentions. Who are you to say this is "improper"?

Of course. You can make a WWII shooter with serious storyline and grim realism and then add the final level where you have to kill dancing Hitler who is dressed like a clown. No one says you can't. But I hope you see it would be quite disappointing. Same thing with infamous "Sunset Invasion" DLC in paradox game where whole DLC was focusing on Aztecs invading medieval Europe. That DLC was rather coldly received. Of course devs had absolute right to make it, why not? Was it a good decision though? 

That's the main thought behind that statement.

Limstella wrote:
The Spanish decimated Tenochtitlan. I'm pretty sure Danzig's name change followed mass deportation of ethnic Germans from Poland. Not quite the points you think they are to your idea. 

The main cause of Tenochtitlan > CDMX change was the arrival of Spanish people and the decision to make Tenochtitlan one of major Spanish centers. That's the cultural change. Danzig > Gdansk is an example where two cultures competed for many centuries. When Polish culture had the upper hand - it was called Gdansk. When German - Danzig. If I recall correctly this competition was still alive and well mere few years ago when wikipedia article was a battleground between German and Polish nationalists. Germans were changing all instances of "Gdansk" to "Danzig", and Poles were doing the opposite until a compromise was struck. It again just proves how culture influences city names - a point I'm constantly presenting.

Limstella wrote:
Again, looking through many of these, they follow the patterns I've outlined where they changes reflect still its origins. With maybe the exception of Byzantion > Istanbol. For your allusion earlier of something being an exception to the rule, it seems your own examples still support my point.

Nope. Gades > Gadir change is small, but easily noticeable. To me "Gades" and "Gadir" are two different names, and that means the change took place. "Karaly" and "Cagliari" sounds similar, but they are written quite differently. And it makes much greater difference on the map where you see just that - city names written there.

From the very beginning I say that when culture changes - city names usually change as well. These city names changed when new culture took ownership. Therefore it supports my point, sorry.

DNLH wrote:
It's a poor example in general, AFAIK latinized Gdanzk is the first mention of the name we have, which isn't that far off.

As far as I know the oldest written name was "Gyddanyzc". Sounds similar, but don't you see (visually) difference between Gyddanyzc, Danzig and Gdansk? I see it and it's quite huge. And Danzig/Gdansk perfecly shows us how two cultures can call the same city differently at the same time just because they are two different cultures, both claiming the ownership of that particular place. 

AquilaSPQR wrote:

That's why I wrote "if not destroyed or altered". It's ok though that in-game it's simplified. I have no problems with that.

If you're fine with simplifications, why are you against simplifications such as names staying the same in your post? You're contradicting yourself at this point. Again, you're being very selective with how you interpret the idea of material culture. That those conditions happen, even without the interaction of invasions or intentional destruction by malicious forces but through mere accident, natural disaster, or the need to recycle materials discredits your own simplification of material culture staying. You're mentioning the thing that discredits your argument but selectively ignoring it. To respond fruther to your point about Tenochitilan here, you're -intentionally at worst, naively at best- understating what happened to the city. The Spanish ransacked it, then built over the city ruins. Its not a matter of the Aztecs adopted Spanish culture and thus might have still kept place names intact, their city was destroyed. To put it in game mechanics terms, if you ransack another city it gets eliminated and if you build over it it has a different city name. You're trying to misrepresent things historically to suit your point here, which kinda sinks the claim to historicism on your end if I'm being honest.

You repeat this claim about things changing supporting your point but misrepresent the hows and whys of those changes, which is my entire point: names like Gadir and Cadiz are the same name, but changed through morphing of pronunciation and usage of different scripts. You keep pointing at them and saying "they're different, they sound different to *me!*, so names should change" and my point is that the game's abstraction, its simplification, reflects the core roots of these names remaining in the game world better. I'd rather that stay in than some auto flip mechanic that doesn't represent how names *actually* tend to change be added in. That would be even less immersive. I've played a lot of Civ IV's Rhys and Fall of Civilization mod and there was a similar culture based mechanic where cities were renamed. Something could be dooable but it might not account for everything correctly, which is the main issue with expecting such a thing in the base game. I'm apathetic at best to such things being implemented and have already expressed where I think the game could better reflect the dynamicism of human history and such without shoehorning in your idea, which again I find even more immersion breaking than the way it is currently. I also think the Stadia Open dev scenario is a poor basis from which to judge how likely these patterns of repetition are going to occur . We've yet to see how it tends to play out with bigger maps, more space and things like city merging in play that might reflect the ebb and flow of city prominance in a nuanced way. 

I fail to see how my proposal would in any way make the gameplay a "boring repeat of real world history". 

1. you would still be able to mix cultures however you want

2. you would not be forced to turn that option on

3. no game would be a "repeat of real world history" thanks to game mechanics

Again, the point is you're asking for something that stresses, in your mind, an adherence to world history in a game about rewriting world history. That's my point here. You're applying an argument about adherence to historical literalism in an alt history game. Its self defeating.

Of course. You can make a WWII shooter with serious storyline and grim realism and then add the final level where you have to kill dancing Hitler who is dressed like a clown. No one says you can't. But I hope you see it would be quite disappointing. Same thing with infamous "Sunset Invasion" DLC in paradox game where whole DLC was focusing on Aztecs invading medieval Europe. That DLC was rather coldly received. Of course devs had absolute right to make it, why not? Was it a good decision though? 

That's the main thought behind that statement.

Is Wolfenstein improper because its premise is an alt history where the Nazis dabble in occult science and conquer the world with mechs and shit? Is it not allowed to exist on its own artistic merits and be judged as such or must it be a carbon copy of Medel of Honor and Call of Duty? Sunset Invasion was fucking rad, and people who hate it hate fun and I'll die on that hill. Its poor reception was a vocal outcry from people missing the point of it and msot people who were reasonable about it not being suited to them didn't get it and didn't install it. Again, we're talking about a game where the premise is alt history and alt culture combinations through this history, it should be judge on those merits and mechanics assessed from that angle not trying to decry it for failing to meet a literalist expectation. That's my entire point. The Russians you meet in Humankind are not necessarily going to be the Russians of literal history and thats fine. You can imagine internal logic and justification for them just fine! Same with the English, perhaps settling not in celtic land and displacing but being migrants and influencing the culture of Greece or Axsum instead just as various ethnic groups have establish dynasties in Iran or China, but more peacefully/or as a rebellion against a previous dynasty that even ruled over them.

Again, I agree with repetitivness being a problem but my take is I'd like to see how the emergent narrative reflects the mechanics of the game and its internal history not mechanics added to force your particular narrative. I'd like to see time lines where perhaps the Russians rebuild after invasion and loss over the ruins of former Nubian and Frankish cities, or where they're a stable extension of an ancient Taiga river marsh version of the Egyptians ruled from Memphis as much as anything else. 

Limstella wrote:
If you're fine with simplifications, why are you against simplifications such as names staying the same in your post?

Because simplifying city centers does not create the same "strange" situation as the-same-no-matter-what city names do. It's subjective opinion and my own preference, I've said it so many times now I'm surprised i have to say it again. I however think that I'm not alone and many other players would think the same. I won't dare to guess if that would be majority or minority of players, but I really doubt I am the lone person on this world who would welcome such change with relief.

Limstella wrote:
You're contradicting yourself at this point.

Nope, sorry. And you're getting more and more stubborn up to the point you're starting to throw such false claims.

Limstella wrote:
Again, you're being very selective with how you interpret the idea of material culture.

Just because you say so doesn't make it true and it's becoming quite tiring to reply to your strange accusations. 

Limstella wrote:
That those conditions happen, even without the interaction of invasions or intentional destruction by malicious forces but through mere accident, natural disaster, or the need to recycle materials discredits your own simplification of material culture staying.

I don't know where you live, but in my country there are thousands of 200+ year old buildings which still look almost the same like when they were built. Even those which are  damaged - they are damaged but not replaced by anything new. It's not like there's a medieval castle ruin which was repurposed by foreign invaders into their own theatre. That material culture stands. I'm not talking about many other buildings which changed, because it is so obvious I'm surprised I have to mention it. I'm talking about some important structures which were cared for and survived to this day relatively unchanged. In the town 6 km from me there is a church built in early 1700s. It didn't change much even though this town was later occypied by foreign culture for more than 100 years. In the nearest city there's still medieval castle, a renaissance town hall and few churches/cathedrals. They again look mostly like they looked few centuries ago. One century of foreign occupation did not change them to some foreign architecture. 

Another thought that just occurred to me - on Yucatan peninsula the descenants of Mayan people sometimes still live in traditional huts. Five centuries of cultural change, first Spanish, then Mexican, and yet their architecture stays more or less the same. 

Of course usually architecture changes in time, of course sometimes new culture brings new architecture (CDMX looked different than Tenochtitlan). Sometimes it can stay the same though with only small decorations being updated. 

We may also think of that architecture as "historic monuments" being preserved. It's a modern idea, but 1. it's quite nice and 2. it fits the game without breaking it.

Limstella wrote:
You're mentioning the thing that discredits your argument but selectively ignoring it.

Nope. I'd rather say you either fail to understand what I'm saying (I know my English isn't perfect, but I think I'm still quite easy to understand) or trying to derail the conversation, and both of those options are tiring. Let's just admit that:

1. To me changes like "Gades" > "Gadir" or "Emerita Augusta" > "Merida" or "Lutetia Parisiorum" > "Paris" are changes and to you apparently they are not

2. I think it's a good idea to make names change in the game when new culture takes control and you do not.

Otherwise we could write lenghty replies for another months to come and nothing would come out of it.

Limstella wrote:
To respond fruther to your point about Tenochitilan here, you're -intentionally at worst, naively at best- understating what happened to the city. The Spanish ransacked it, then built over the city ruins. Its not a matter of the Aztecs adopted Spanish culture and thus might have still kept place names intact, their city was destroyed. To put it in game mechanics terms, if you ransack another city it gets eliminated and if you build over it it has a different city name.

Aztec culture faded away (no matter how), Spanish arrived (again, no matter how). No one said it was Aztecs who suddenly became Spanish. Actually if you only tried a bit harder you could've came up with Tlaxcala for example. Allied with the Spanish, allowed to retain their name, it exists as Tlaxcala to this day. Does it "disprove" my point? Of course not. I'm not saying it's impossible to retain the name after cultural shift. I'm saying there is enough examples of such changes that it justifies adding it to the game, even more when we think about another problems the current mechanic creates (repetitiveness and being ahistoric for those who pay more attention to history in their games). 

In simplier words - I say books have usually white pages and black letters. You point at one of the books which have yellow pages and red letters and triumphantly say "IT'S NOT TRUE! HA! YOU INTENTIONALLY OR NAIVELY OMIT IT!". 

Sigh, no, I do not. And whatever book you'll find will not change the fact that there are books with white pages and black letters as well.

Limstella wrote:
You repeat this claim about things changing supporting your point but misrepresent the hows and whys of those changes, which is my entire point: names like Gadir and Cadiz are the same name, but changed through morphing of pronunciation and usage of different scripts.

"The same, but changed". OK, maybe in English "changed" and "the same" mean something else than in my native language, who knows? In my (apparently simplier) language "the same" means "the same" and "changed" means "changed". 

Limstella wrote:
my point is that the game's abstraction, its simplification, reflects the core roots of these names remaining in the game world better.

Especially when currently city names stay exactly the same no matter who owns them - be it Egyptians, Romans, Chinese, or Aztecs. With languages and cultures so distant and different from each other it's simply mindblowing. Of course I won't tell you to change your opinion. But I'll say it's plain wrong to me.

Limstella wrote:
I also think the Stadia Open dev scenario is a poor basis from which to judge how likely these patterns of repetition are going to occur .

We can say a thing or two because we know how current mechanics and "ideas behind them" look like. 10 cultures in ancient era so far IIRC. It means at best 10 original capitals. They may evolve later into 10 completely different cultures, yet those 10 cities (unless razed or somehow merged with other cities) will stay the same though the entire game. All cultures in the game (be it Russian, American, German, Japanese, Chinese, Olmec, Aztec, Mayan, Polish, Venetian, Ottoman etc.) will have one of those 10 original first cities as their capital. In every game. 

Changing names mechanic would give much greater variety. 

DNLH wrote:
It's not a new name each, it's the same name with pronouncation being adapted by two different languages.

And by being adapted to two different languages - it become two different names. Germans write and say "Danzig". Poles write and say "Gdansk". Imagine this situation in the game - what should be done with it? Poles found the city of Gdansk. Then they adopt the German culture and what - the Gdansk stays the Gdansk? Or maybe it would be better for it to become Danzig since Polish culture faded away and it's German city now? Or the other way around, to stress out another thing I mentioned - huge cathedral built by Germans (as well as many other buildings in the Old Town area) stays in the city even though it's Polish now.

More radical changes like Rome > Tokyo are another thing. The proposed mechanic serves three major purposes.

1. to make culture changes more visible on the map

2. to make empires more "realistic" 

3. to give greater variety

Rome > Tokyo change would be more about point number 2 than point number 1 (though about both as well). As I mentioned before using Russia as an example - I'm sure I'm not alone thinking that an empire with Kerma as capital city, Rome as second, Tenochtitlan as third and London as their last wouldn't be as "Russian" as empire with Moskva, Sankt-Pietierburg, Vladivostok etc. This is an optional change for those who prefer more historic approach in this matter. Some may say that this Kerma/Rome etc empire is perfectly Russian because they can build cossacks there and their avatar has Russian clothes. Some other may say it's not as important as Russian cities having Russian names.

If this is merely subjective, then again why do you keep asserting other people, like me, are "just plain wrong" if they don't see things the way you do or present reasoning for it? This conversation is going in circles, and its increasingly clear why.

You keep repeatedly misrepresning facts or points to twist to suite you, including again and again misrepresenting what I mean about *how* names change, and that they are technically the same name, not that they don't change at all. There's not much of a point in engaging with you on this issue any further if you going to be this disingenious.