Again Mesopotamian names for the rulers of Caucasian factions - suggestion to make changeable the names of family members and statesmen in Attila TW

[JERUSALEM]

I have suggestion to make changeable the names of family members and statesmen in Attila TW. And here is the reason why I want this change in Attila game engine:

See this is the video of by youtuber Sun Jetzu. And in this video Lazic force had a leader with the name - Labashi. see 6:20 minute

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIf1xzEdU1I


King Labashi was the king of Babylon in the 6th c. BC almost thousand year before the starting date (395 AD) of Attila TW.

Here is the link from wiki about Labashi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labashi-Marduk


I still wonder why CA team member working on the historical matters uses the names of the Mesopotamian rulers of the 1st millennium BC instead the name that are well know about the Kings of Lazica
or of any other rulers of Caucasus and others... Same mistakes were done in Rome 2 total war. Almost all the names of Caucasian family members and others were historically Inaccurate. Almost all of those name were from Mesopotamian history instead of Caucasian.


Here is more or less genuine list of kings of Lazica for the 1st to 8 cc AD, it is very easy to find in wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazica


With all these errors I have suggestion to make historical name changeable as it was done regarding the city names. Give us the possibility to make game more historical accurate and gave us the chance to change the names of historical persons (Family members and statesmen) in Attila TW.

So, what do you think about the changeable names for the family members and the statesmen in Attila Total War? just to do it in the same manner as it was done with the names of the city. Those city names are very easy to change in Attila TW, which is very good. Now we need the same regarding the family members and statesmen as well.

PS. PLZ Do not move this thread in Historical Discussion as it is about the certain changes into the game engine to make it more historically accurate or to let the player to do his best in making his own game.

[Brivime]

CA has been very lazy on the Eastern factions cultural distinction to an almost offensive level, Amanistabokhe the great king of Nabataea is not amused and neither is Assurbanipal of Persia.

[Darios]

CA has been very lazy on the Eastern factions cultural distinction to an almost offensive level

I totally agree (+Rep)

CA's portrayal of "Eastern" factions reeks of Orientalism. Labeling Caucasian, Iranian, and Semitic cultural groups as "Eastern" is just as bad had CA decided to (again) label Gallic, Britannic, and German under an umbrella "Barbarian" cultural group.

To me, it seems that CA has a thing for marketing the "exotic other." In RTW, we got "barbarian" tribes without any real diversity to them. R2 has "exotic kingdoms of the East" and even the Scytho-Sarmatians are referred to as "Nomadic Culture" despite the fact that the Scythians actually settled down into agricultural communities in Mikra Skythia and Crimea. I am not saying that I know enough about Iranian, Caucasian, or Semitic cultures to offer suggestions of how things should be done, but there are tons of people here on TWC who could give CA some great information concerning this. Labeling 1/3 of the campaign map as "Eastern" does take a lot away from immersion.

[ShadowMassa]

Much of what we see in the videos are 'placeholders', so that's what they say. Well, I would only hope they'll change it. Eastern leader portraits seem to dominate from the Syrian desert to southern Arabia, from Ethiopia to the Caucasia.

[Rostam_e_Iran]

We shouldn't have to change it, it should there already. Names could be added in a few hours at the most. I remember playing AOE and each faction had a unique interface lol. It's just pure laziness, nothing else to it.

[Lugotorix]

Why don't they just recycle the Caucasian names list from Rome II? It had errors but was semi-accurate. I haven't played as Armenia, but to a non-speaker, it seems about right. It's easy to tell the difference between the Dacian and Thracian names, for example. I don't see anything wrong with changing their names, it gives them character if there was an attribute you wanted in their name, same as legions work now.

[Gäiten]

So far what I have seen of the Sassanian units is very disappointing.
Does anyboy know if they have the preview`s units of this early artwork still included? (-> http://upload7.ir/imgs/2014-09/97022848680057364525.jpg )

[Abdülmecid I]

Honestly sometimes I really can't think how CA works. I can explain Persians having Arab names, like al Nuaman, as CA probably "didn't have the time" to make them culturally different. I strongly disagree with that, but I can explain it... The Mesopotamian names, on the other hand, why did they include them in the game, in the first place? There were no Assyrians or Babylonians in 272 BC or in 395 AD, so I have no idea why they did it. Did they mix Sham-shum-ukin with Shapur?

[JERUSALEM]

Honestly sometimes I really can't think how CA works. I can explain Persians having Arab names, like al Nuaman, as CA probably "didn't have the time" to make them culturally different. I strongly disagree with that, but I can explain it... The Mesopotamian names, on the other hand, why did they include them in the game, in the first place? There were no Assyrians or Babylonians in 272 BC or in 395 AD, so I have no idea why they did it. Did they mix Sham-shum-ukin with Shapur?

al Nuaman was the name for the Lakhmid ruler in 395 AD and for the Ghassanid ruler of the same year, CA did it correctly while building those two faction at the start of the game, but I do not understand why same accuracy is not preserved in other cases - Caucasian, so-called Persian (Sassanid) puppet states and Afrighids are very poorly researched and these Mesopotamian - Sumerian, Assyrian and Babylonian - named are completely wrong. If CA has no time to research it then let's make the names of the characters changeable as it was done for the cities.

[Abdülmecid I]

I know that al-Nuaman was used by the Lakhmids and the Ghassanids. The problem is that in one of the preview videos, a member of the Sassanid family was also called Al-Nuaman.