That's why it's important to pull our heads out of the sand.

Vannius, Veleda, Maroboduus, Arminius=> yes Segestes is the father in law. Thusnelda is the wife. Cniva is a gothic king. Cunnius and Catti, never heard of them. More context please. Or check the info and the spelling. Maybe consider Ballomar, Ariovistus, Catualda and Gannascus.

@Sturm, I agree in principle. But, the game should eventually have an expansion pack, and it will be hard to distinguish the Persian factions if they all are called Persians. It would be good to educate people on various Persian empires throughout the history. If they didn't know, then they will learn while playing the game. After all, the most I've learned on medieval history was not in school, but as a teenager playing Age of Empires 2.

It makes sense historically, but it creates a bit of a usability headache. What the game actually represents is the Achaemenid Empire, founded by Cyrus the Great and expanded by Darius I, so calling them “Achaemenids” is definitely more precise and avoids mixing them up with later Persian empires. The problem is that 0 A.D. is still a game, not a history textbook, and “Persians” is instantly recognizable while “Achaemenids” sounds like something you have to Google mid-match. There is also a consistency issue. If we start going down the hyper-accurate route, then why stop there? Should we also rename everyone else into their specific dynasties and political phases? That way lies madness (and a very confusing UI). So replacing “Persians” outright feels like overcorrecting. Keeping “Persians” as the main label and using “Achaemenid” in descriptions or lore text hits a much nicer balance between being correct and being playable.

Basically player placement option is the reason it would fail