Ideas about empire naming

[Biniu]

Hello,


I've noticed during streams that many empires have names based on their location, for ex. Phrygia or Macedon.

However, especially during Diadochi wars, what definied these empires was their ruler and his dynasty (similar to muslims in ck2).

And so, It was not uncommon thing to see radical political changes such as Antigonid dynasty taking throne in Macedon and losing all their territories in Asia. So, I propose something similiar to crusader kings 2 – in rare ocasions name of the country should depend on other factors – culture/religion/ or dynasty


Also, I think that in extraordinary situations, such as macedonian nobles ruling in Egypt, It should also be included in naming („Ptolemaic Egypt” mayby? – and it should change if another dynasty takes throne). In the stream we can see that Seleucid Empire has name based on dynasty. But, we don’t know if It changes when different family comes to action. What do you think?

 

[Sarog]

I agree with you that some countries should use dynastic names. Especially the diadochi states - their factional character and their relationship with each other would be much better communicated with dynastic names. "Phrygia" is an obvious eyesore as the name of the Antigonid kingdom, but it's also a problem for Lysimachid "Thrace" for example. I reckon the average player who picks up this game without an intimate knowledge of the Hellenistic kingdoms will look at "Thrace" on the map and think "Spartacus' people!" Likewise with Egypt. I've also seen several people make the (understandable) assumption that the Seleucid satrapy of "Parthia" is the same entity as the Arsacid Parthian state. Dynastic names for the greek kingdoms would solve a lot of problems and show you at a glance how these states are related to each other. If you look at the map of Crusader Kings, it's very easy to tell the muslim states apart.

I also find the geographic-style naming hard to look at it when it comes to some barbarian tribes. "Saxonia", "Tectosagia"' "Arvernia" don't seem as natural as Saxons, Tectosagi, or Arverni. Particularly because you can migrate around, it's weird to be looking at a geographical tag when that geography is in flux.

I've talked about this in quite a few threads by now, and I'm not going to spend too much time repeating myself because at this point it seems like the decision is set in stone. Having the names like this is the team's preference, and things like the Seleucid Empire are only exceptions because there wasn't a better alternative.

 

[Thure]

I also find the geographic-style naming hard to look at it when it comes to some barbarian tribes. "Saxonia", "Tectosagia"' "Arvernia" don't seem as natural as Saxons, Tectosagi, or Arverni. Particularly because you can migrate around, it's weird to be looking at a geographical tag when that geography is in flux.

The problem with them is consistency. 'Saxons declare war to you!' or 'Athens declares war to you!'... you can only have one of them and reading 'Saxons declares war to you!' just sounds wrong. This would affect a lot of events.