Civ "Pers" -> "Achae"

[Genava55]

3 hours ago, Sturm said:

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.

It is the not really the name of the civ the topic, but the nomenclature used to name the files.

For the in-game name, Achaemenid Persians or Persians (Achaemenids) could be used.

[Thalatta]

4 hours ago, Sturm said:

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?

But we already said that the game is already doing this, with the Han and the Maurya for example, and the Maurya didn’t even last 150 years. I don’t think it’s about being hyper-accurate (the game is far from that :P), but calling the Achaemenids “Persians” is a charged simplification. I think eventually any other inconsistencies will be sorted out, if possible (I have my doubts with the name “Germans” for example, I agree more with authors not preferring this term).

 

4 hours ago, Deicide4u said:

After all, the most I've learned on medieval history was not in school, but as a teenager playing Age of Empires 2.

The first AoE cemented my interest in ancient history. High school history was shamefully boring, that's why I try to push for accuracy whenever I can, and many really look for this and nitpick on games (and movies) having errors. It's not just that educating and motivating is important and commended, but about being careful not to introduce or repeat misconceptions, which with some things it’s hard to do because one has to fill the voids with something, and it's a game after all, even books can be biased.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

On 30/04/2026 at 12:14 PM, Genava55 said:

For the in-game name, Achaemenid Persians or Persians (Achaemenids) could be used.

In the pull request, they are simply called "Achaemenids" because of the current 1-word nomenclature for civs in the base game. I would like to change this where applicable (specifically when using dynasties for distinction as is the case for Achaemenids), but that's a different Pull Request and requires some discussion. 

[Obelix]

FYI Pull Request #8881 (Persians to Achaemenids) got merged 11 hours ago (5268cb62a6).

[ittihat_ve_terakki]

This is honestly one of the worst change ideas I’ve ever heard here. The only other one that comes close was removing the “woman” unit and replacing it with that weird unisex version. People still call it woman anyway. The same thing would happen here, don’t change something people are used to and that already works. If you really want it that badly, you can always recreate every historical detail on your own with a historical mod. There’s no need to constantly tamper with a game people are already comfortable with.

Edited May 4 by ittihat_ve_terakki

[Lopess]

Changing the name is a great idea; honestly, I would prefer something like "Achaemenids (Persia)" as an educational approach.However, this should be extended to other civilians who are currently appointed by dynasties. My personal opinion is that everything depends on the approach being taken and following it.For example, I see that the vanilla version of 0AD follows a more focused approach to Civs, more specific periods, and with dynasties and historical facts boxed into that period.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

17 minutes ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

This is honestly one of the worst change ideas I’ve ever heard here. The only other one that comes close was removing the “woman” unit and replacing it with that weird unisex version. People still call it woman anyway. The same thing would happen here, don’t change something people are used to and that already works. If you really want it that badly, you can always recreate every historical detail on your own with a historical mod. There’s no need to constantly tamper with a game people are already comfortable with.

The game is still in development. In fact, change is part of the experience with the game. Embrace it. 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

12 minutes ago, Lopess said:

Changing the name is a great idea; honestly, I would prefer something like "Achaemenids (Persia)" as an educational approach.However, this should be extended to other civilians who are currently appointed by dynasties. My personal opinion is that everything depends on the approach being taken and following it.For example, I see that the vanilla version of 0AD follows a more focused approach to Civs, more specific periods, and with dynasties and historical facts boxed into that period.

The current vanilla way (one word preferred):

Achaemenids
Sasanians
Mauryas
Guptas
Han

Other possibilities:

Achaemenid Persians
Sasanian Persians
Maurya Indians
Gupta Indians
Han Chinese


Persians (Achaemenids)
Persians (Sasanians)
Indians (Mauryas)
Indians (Guptas)
Chinese (Han)

 

 

Cimbrian Germans
Germans (Cimbri)

 

[ittihat_ve_terakki]

@wowgetoffyourcellphone

If the goal is to capture the genuine opinion of the playerbase, rather than relying on 15–20 people who may have voted simply because they happened to be browsing the forum, then the poll should be conducted inside the game where it actually reaches hundreds of active players, if democracy is truly the intention. But from what I can tell, the poll feels more like an excuse. There already seems to be a group here that supports each other, passes ideas back and forth internally and pushes whatever they want into the game anyway. Instead of focusing on real issues, they act more like people tinkering with personal hobbies. The game still has plenty of bugs, unit movement is awkward, pathfinding is problematic, ships constantly block each other, Petra is bad, there’s lag, multiplayer has issues, there’s no campaign and so on. Yet instead the discussion keeps revolving around trivial, unnecessary changes, none of which reflect the major concerns or widely voiced complaints of any significant portion of the playerbase. At some point, it’s fair to ask whether improving the actual player experience should come before reinventing things that were never serious problems to begin with.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

That "group" you're talking about is the group of people who actually work on the game in some shape or form. These discussions gave you Spartans and Kushites. Those who work on the issues you listed largely do not work on things like this. Everyone has their own skills and interests. My interest lies in presenting the game in an interesting and historically authentic way. My skillset supports those interests. I assure you, the ones who can address most of those issues have "wasted" no time on this. And a "personal hobby" it is, for everyone here. You seem to be gravely mistaken about the nature of this project, and your tone and lofty criticisms indicate a person with deep entitlement for others' time and efforts. 

[Eilat]

5 hours ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

none of which reflect the major concerns or widely voiced complaints of any significant portion of the playerbase

 

5 hours ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

If the goal is to capture the genuine opinion of the playerbase, rather than relying on 15–20 people who may have voted simply because they happened to be browsing the forum

Those who genuinely want to contribute ideas or discuss the game will come to the forum; otherwise, they simply don't care. I've been playing this game since 2018 and only joined the forum late last year. Since then, I've participated in several discussions related to the game, developed some things to improve it, although most haven't worked as intended since I'm not a programmer. However, I've used the knowledge and resources I've gathered to provide input to some capable developers. For me, the past few months have been more meaningful to the game than the previous years combined. So, if you have any specific ideas, create a topic and discuss them.

[Thalatta]

11 hours ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

This is honestly one of the worst change ideas I’ve ever heard here. The only other one that comes close was removing the “woman” unit and replacing it with that weird unisex version.

I have to thank you for the whole "woman" thread, I found it hilarious. I was just disappointed that no one posted the Zoolander meme "but why male models?"

Every time someone complains about not changing what already works (as if it would be the only possibility that works), "tampering" it with historical accuracy (as if it's not one of the stated priorities of the game), or ignoring those who don’t play competitively (as if they are not a majority vital for the growth of the game), remember, YOU can also just make your own "let's just leave it as it is right now forever and ever" mod :). But of course, I always enjoy these rants over a game whose development is, indeed, a hobby for many who try to combine their ideas to create something special. All the bugs you mention I'm sure will be sorted out in time, no need to dismiss all that is not that.