I think it would be cool if the "Crete" and "Cyprus" cities used their actual names, those being Knossos and Arsinoe, respectively, rather than simply using their map names.
I think it would be cool if the "Crete" and "Cyprus" cities used their actual names, those being Knossos and Arsinoe, respectively, rather than simply using their map names.
Great idea. It gives the game a little more depth and life to use the original names, and it makes the game both more intuitive and fun if the zone & city don't have the same name, any time that another name for the city is available.I think it would be cool if the "Crete" and "Cyprus" cities used their actual names, those being Knossos and Arsinoe, respectively, rather than simply using their map names.
Not necessarily, making one change doesn't automatically require another change, as long as you use the same logic in every region/civilization.I totally agree with you. It would appear more acurate, and the game deserves it. But to do that, you would also have to give the right name to Persian, Babylon and Egipt.
The change would make the game more precise in historic terms, there are players that care more than others when it comes to the truthfullness of a game, and if the rest wouldn't pay much attention to it, at least that percentage of players would have their play time quality improvedNot necessarily, making one change doesn't automatically require another change, as long as you use the same logic in every region/civilization.
There's nothing wrong with using he current best known name for the zone/civilization/empire, (e.g. Babylon and Egypt) while giving the individual locations inside of those zones more historical or at least individually flavored names. The idea is not to turn the game into course in historical names, only to give a little more flavor to the game by trying to avoid having cities with the same name as the region they're located in.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.