Since the Website Manual Uses the Term "Factions"

[sphyrth]

Either the game, or the manual should adjust accordingly.

Posting this one as a whole since it also shows the brokenness of the Structure Tree for my 1024x768 screen.

[jeffnz]

Keep it as civilisations. It sounds 1,000,000x better!

[av93]

IMHO "civilization" generally implies a State, and not all the factions that are represented in 0 a.d have an State organization.

But an argument in favour of keep it, it's that level the "factions" to the same, dignifying "barbarian" cultures (they really weren't "barbarians")

[Lion.Kanzen]

Yes but I'm not sure how familiar is average player with that concept. May be is necessary add this in some place in learn to play.

[sphyrth]

My point is that:

If you like the term "Factions", then change the terms in the game.
If you like the term "Civilizations", then change the terms in the manual/website.

I just want consistency since both terms are being used interchangeably here.

[Lion.Kanzen]

23 minutes ago, sphyrth said:

My point is that:

If you like the term "Factions", then change the terms in the game.
If you like the term "Civilizations", then change the terms in the manual/website.

I just want consistency since both terms are being used interchangeably here.

But the game explain what a Faction is? The game don't explain to much about game concept. The website does but is still not enough.

I was thinking most in a kind encyclopedia  like AoM. With glossary of course.

 

 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

5 hours ago, sphyrth said:

My point is that:

If you like the term "Factions", then change the terms in the game.
If you like the term "Civilizations", then change the terms in the manual/website.

I just want consistency since both terms are being used interchangeably here.

It's true that perhaps the game should choose one or the other. Civilization sounds broader, like "Western Civilization" while Faction sounds smaller or more specific. One thing that "Civilization" can boast is that it's been the standard term for historical rts, while faction has been used in non-historical rts, at least in my experience.

[drsingh]

I feel "Empire" suffix will go better with the selection of races we have.

Since Civilization is usually represents people. eg Sumerian civ.

But Empires are based on a dynasty or certain ruler in a civ. But can be used to indicate a very large group united by conquest.

Eg. Seleucid Empire, Roman Empire, Mauryan Empire.

 

Greek goes well with civilization. But Macedonian Empire sounds better.

Faction sounds like a smaller group. But could be true for Spartans. Gauls etc.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Ok, Faction its better because we have these term by Rome Total War.( in the game). Spartans and Athenians are factions not a civilization. Ptolemies and Seleucids are this way. 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Right, "Greeks" is a civilization, while "Athenians" is a faction within that civilization. You can even say that about the Mauryans, they are a faction within the "Indians" civilization. But that's semantics. It may be useful to just use civilization because that's the term players are used to, semantics aside.

[drsingh]

Players are also used to terms - Age, aging up. But we have Phase's - town, city. Because of what makes sense with the theme of the game.

 

There's a wierd mix of races.

Persian can be civilization or empire not a faction.

But Ptolemies cant be a civ. Or maybe faction even.

 

Civilization refers to a large community of people with common culture.

Faction refers to smaller group based on a location in a larger group(civ). (Persian, Mauryan can not be faction)

Some of these races - like Seleucid, Ptolemies, mauryan. take their name not from a location, or a group of people. but from the ruler. And thus are a dynatsy.

 

Here we can either choose 'Faction' since it can work with majority of races.

Or coin a new term - like "Empire" or its synonyms- like 'kingdom' or 'culture'

 

i personally feel Empire could fit best in this weird mix of races. And it is more easy to interpret as compared with factions.

Even though some of them like athens, sparta, gauls. never had an empire historically. but they had the potential to make one.

And this is what can change in this game. Allowing player to expand Sparta beyond its borders to form an empire.

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

I would argue against these points.  First, the Athenians had a civilisation.  They spoke there own dialect of Greek and had a unique culture.  For example their art styles with pottery, calendars, theatric traditions, and much more are their own.  Furthermore, Sparta also had its own distinctly unique culture even though they were part of a broad, vague cultural subgroup of the Hellenes.  Furthermore, Athens and Sparta did make empires of their own rights through leagues that were not just loose alliances but firmly controlled powers, and may I assure you that they were empires.  Furthermore, in the context of Sparta, was an empire by definition when it had subjugated Messenia, an event long before the Persian Wars.  Gauls also had empires.  I would cite the Boii, a Gallic confederation as only one example.  

[Lion.Kanzen]

2 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

I would argue against these points.  First, the Athenians had a civilisation.  They spoke there own dialect of Greek and had a unique culture.  For example their art styles with pottery, calendars, theatric traditions, and much more are their own.  Furthermore, Sparta also had its own distinctly unique culture even though they were part of a broad, vague cultural subgroup of the Hellenes.  Furthermore, Athens and Sparta did make empires of their own rights through leagues that were not just loose alliances but firmly controlled powers, and may I assure you that they were empires.  Furthermore, in the context of Sparta, was an empire by definition when it had subjugated Messenia, an event long before the Persian Wars.  Gauls also had empires.  I would cite the Boii, a Gallic confederation as only one example.  

The complete concept of civilization all human non natural ( culture) with some kind of ancient development.

Quote

A civilization (UK and US) or civilisation (British English variant) is any complex society characterized by urban development, social stratification, symbolic communication forms (typically, writing systems), and a perceived separation from and domination over the natural environment by a cultural elite

But in game concept the Athenian aren't  very different of Spartan or Macedonians ( in game).

same architecture, same units with own skins in their props. For now the only have their own language are the romans.

now "empires" is a very complex word here. Where the limit and differences with a kingdom?

and tribes ( not the stage)  and clans ( gens, family) are another concept in these many cultures.

[sphyrth]

Man, I didn't know that I was touching on another trivial-but-sensitive sibject.

Basically, we're dealing with 2 traditions based pn word preference. I happen to belong to the "Faction" tradition because I was relying on the manual. If I was an AoE player, then I would probably be in the "Civilization" tradition... which majority of the initial devs belong to (which also explains why the terms is used in-game).

We might be dealing with a little problem here. 0 A.D. places these Warring Factions (Village Phase) while giving them technologies that made them Established Civilizations... even to the Empire level.

About traditional terms like "aging up", "Town Center", and lumbercamp... it's interesting for me to see that nobody's using the term "Castle". I mean "Fortress" is the only thing I see used natively in the game.