The original Latin text is the following: "Nullas Germanorum populis urbes habitari satis notum est, ne pati quidem inter se iunctas sedes. Colunt discreti ac diversi, ut fons, ut campus, ut nemus placuit. Vicos locant non in nostrum morem conexis et cohaerentibus aedificiis: suam quisque domum spatio circumdat, sive adversus casus ignis remedium sive inscitia aedificandi." Note that he uses the word "vicos" (accusative plural of vicus). So for him, they are like vici, not like villae, aedes, casae or domus.  If these were truly isolated, solitary farmsteads miles apart from one another, the word vicus would actually be quite misleading. By choosing this terminology, Tacitus is making a specific point about the Germanic social structure. He describes dwellings that form local communities. Here is why he uses that specific term even if the houses don't touch.  In fact, it doesn't really matter whether the buildings are close to each other or not. The real question is whether it is a territorial unit. Consequently, did the Germanic peoples give a name to this group of buildings? I think so. And I think that the word *haima- is more appropriate in this case. Because it is a terminology that can be applied to a family, a clan, or a tribe.  I am reposting the description from the Deutsches Ortsnamenbuch (2017): -heim (page 254) -heim. Germ. *haima- ‘Home of a tribe’ (Heimat) ; in the individual Germanic languages with various stem formations and genders, e.g.: OHG heima Fem. ‘Home, homeland, residence’, late OHG/MHG heim Neutr. ‘Homeland, dwelling place, house’, OSax. hēm Neutr., MLG hēm(e) Fem. / hēm also Neutr., OFris. hām / hēm Masc. or Neutr., ON heimr Masc., OE hām Masc. ‘Village, estate’, Goth. haims Fem. ‘Village, small town’. The latter meaning likely applied from the beginning to -heim group settlements, although -heim originally occurred for individual settlements (farmsteads) as well. The -heim names, like those ending in -ingen, show characteristics of great age. They likely occurred sporadically as designations as early as the early phase (around the birth of Christ) and then became common during the early land acquisition (frühn Landnahme) of the 3rd–5th centuries (perhaps also as a translation of the Latin villa). In contrast to the PN-orientation (personal name) of -ingen names, the defining factor here is possession (‘Home / Estate of ...’). By the Merovingian period, the type was fully established and remained productive until the Middle Ages (MA), though varying by region. The fact that the -heim type played practically no role in the area of the Ostsiedlung (Eastern settlement) suggests its simultaneous unproductivity in the Altland (ancient lands). Most -heim names have a PN as the specific element (Bw.), usually in the genitive case. Younger names are mostly those formed with appellatives (common nouns), of which the schematically oriented ones with Nord-, Süd-, Ost-, West-, Berg-, Tal-, etc. (“Bethge-type”) certainly represent the result of Frankish-controlled naming in the vicinity of former royal estates or fisks; these predominantly arose in the 7th/8th centuries. The geographical occurrence of -heim names essentially corresponds to that of -ingen names in locations favorable for settlement; however, a striking distribution of the two types is evident particularly in the Upper and Middle Rhine regions, which can be explained by "compensation" and "radiation," as is known from dialectology. Notable are the mixed forms -ingheim, which occur with varying distribution in Westphalia, Lower Saxony (NI), Hesse (HE), Thuringia (TH), in the Rhineland, and further south. In addition to -heim, dialectal variants are encountered early on, some of which are fixed in official settlement names (SiN), such as -ham, -hem / -hēm, -um, -em, -an, -en, -m, -n, -a, -e, or total loss (elision). Literature: Bach DNK II, 2; Schuster I; Wiesinger 1994; Jochum-Godglück; NOB III; Debus / Schmitz, H.-G. FD There are two Gothic 'weihs' in the Gothic bible. One is used for 'holy' and 'saint' while the other one is used for village. But in this case it translates the Greek kōmē (Marc 8:23). It is a word with a singular mention (with this meaning). The only reason I chose it as my second choice is that it seems to have been used much later, in the early Middle Ages, to refer in some cases to small Roman towns. Settlements which were more urbanized than the usual Germanic settlement. Anyway, it is interesting only because it is already mentioned in Gothic with a meaning that designates a kind of settlement, which is 4 centuries earlier than the later evidences.   Here what the Deutsches Ortsnamenbuch (2017) says about it: -wik / -wiek (page 692):  Old Saxon wīk ‘dwelling, village’, Middle Low German wīk ‘place, settlement, (sea) bay’, Old/Middle High German wīch (masculine) ‘residence, city’ has been a subject of controversial debate regarding its origin and meaning. While older research assumed a loanword from Latin vīcus (‘quarter / city district, farmstead, manor, hamlet’) or assumed the meaning ‘trading/market place’ based on the North Germanic vīk (‘bay’), wīk has more recently been traced back to a Germanic word related to the same root as Latin vīcus, with the original meaning of ‘fence.’ This meaning evolved further in various contexts, for example, to ‘manor’ or ‘small settlement,’ and eventually to ‘district with special legal status or immunity’ (linked to terms like wikbelde / -greve). -wīk names are encountered in: Nordic countries and England; Particularly in the Dutch-Flemish region; In the Lower Saxon-Westphalian area (e.g., Braunschweig, NI); In Schleswig-Holstein (e.g., Schleswig; Wyk auf Föhr, District of Nordfriesland). This formation type likely dates back to the period of land development (Landesausbau) in its productive phase; in the Western Netherlands, it remained active until the 12th/13th century. Literature: Bach DNK II, 2; Schütte 1976; Debus / Schmitz, H.-G. FD

Frankly, I actually do enjoy the quest two of you are into as your both try using arguments and evidence as far as possible instead of entering into personal attack mode (which is too often the case today). Your examples and references - although not conclusive for me - are providing new insights and background in any case. To me as a complete ignoramus in this subject (except for being a native German speaker), it is of course impossible to decide for clear right or clear wrong. Maybe it is not possible at all as Germanic tribes of that time might have been quite diverse? Should we try finding a more generic solution that could be good enoughfor players to grasp the spirit? Three words describing three phases (knowing that some tribes of that time did not (yet) develop cities as you wrote). Afer all this is a simplified game.

@Genava55 As I said, literally, "proper villages [...] in the eyes of the Romans", you can just go and read Tacitus: "It is well known that the nations of Germany have no cities, and that they do not even tolerate closely contiguous dwellings. They live scattered and apart, just as a spring, a meadow, or a wood has attracted them. Their villages they do not arrange in our fashion, with the buildings connected and joined together, but every person surrounds his dwelling with an open space, either as a precaution against the disasters of fire, or because they do not know how to build", he's trashing their way to do it, for him they looked like big farms (and the ones you posted seem to be the biggest ones, a few extended families). But all this is, yet again, not even the point. The point is, according to A Grammar of Proto-Germanic, and the PGmc dictionary, and whatever other Proto-Germanic source we can cite, and if we agree that wīhsą can describe some kind of big farm or small village (which, again, could also be put into question according to yet another one of your cherry-picked criteria, since weihs has been used to translate agrós), then which term is closer to it, þurpą or haimaz? That is the ONLY question, and for whoever reads those sources the answer should be clear, as I already stated in my previous post.

We've been using the name for 26 years which is legal ground by itself. 0ad and WFG are under the patronage of SPI the non profit behind debian and arch linux. Should we have legal issues they are the ones we would sollicit

No, https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/search/search-information , 0.A.D, 0ad, wildfiregames, wildfire (software category), etc, are not registred as brand trademark. Perhaps it's important to formalize this development group and the project itself before someone takes advantage of it by registering the trademark in their name, preventing future distributions of 0ad. There are well-known cases like OpenOffice, where Oracle, after acquiring Sun Microsystems, registered the name and it ceased to be free software. The community had to create a new fork and change its name. Something similar almost happened with Mozilla Firefox. Debian wanted to create its own attended version of Firefox (Iceweasel), but Mozilla made a legal claim for the use of the name and trademark, which were legally registered despite being free software. If you want a personal recommendation, I suggest you create a non-profit foundation dedicated to maintaining 0ad to keep the project free and perhaps eventually generate indirect benefits by supporting the developers. As a foundation, you'll be protected from legal action for patent infringement. They registered the foundation as wildfiregames and under that foundation they registered the name 0ad. A very clear example is the case of doom 1 and 3, idsoftware released the source code and the community began to create incredible mods and forks. What was not distributed and was copyrighted were the models and designs of doom, the brand and so on, but the engine was free and people could create new games without the need to use the same models. But idsoftware was a legally registered entity with the doom trademark registered in its name, regardless of whether the code was free or not; this gives them much more control. I think you should do something similar, but under a foundation scheme.