Destruction of Cities

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by LDiCesare

Yes, indeed Constantinople wasn't renamed Istanbul by the Turks when they conquered it, but only after the fall of the Ottoman empire, when Attaturk decided to rip it from its capital status and move the capital to Ankara.

Well, Istanbul is simply Constantinople in Turkish. It's a Turkish "I" prefix plus the main consonantal trunk of the word.

Examples:

Constantinople --> Istanbul (I + Stan + Ple)
Smyrna --> Izmir (I + Smyr)

[KyuuA4]

The problem being that most cities would not have any equivalent for most countries.

There won't be a need for any "equivalent" names. Heck, the selection of a new name could simply be chosen from a random list of the Civ. taking the city over.

Heck, Paris should be renamed to "Sissytown"...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Alexander01
Only the ancient civilizations. Babylon wouldn't know what to call Washington or Paris, that's for sure.

No one would know what to call the American cities. And what would the Romans call Chinese or Japanese cities? What would the Aztecs call Mali cities?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by LDiCesare
Yes, indeed Constantinople wasn't renamed Istanbul by the Turks when they conquered it, but only after the fall of the Ottoman empire, when Attaturk decided to rip it from its capital status and move the capital to Ankara.

I believe that's just when Western mapmakers changed its name.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


I believe that's just when Western mapmakers changed its name.

That's correct. Turks always called it Istanbul, it being the name of the city in their language.

Post WWI was when British and American cartographers began to use foreign place names instead of the English versions. After all, Constantinople is only what English speakers call it.

[Mace]

Re: Re: Destruction of Cities

Originally posted by Vince278


Wonderful. Ethnic cleansing in Civ. What next? Starving cities to keep unrest down like Stalin? (oh wait, I already do that )

Kind of odd; you might be able to do ethnic cleansing and mass genocide in Civ4 but you may not be able to poison water supply or suitcase nuke a little ol' city.

Me no understand this logic...

[Mace]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


No one would know what to call the American cities. And what would the Romans call Chinese or Japanese cities? What would the Aztecs call Mali cities?

Bostonium
Augusta Chicagoensis

Timbuktapam
Timbacalco

Hanchorium (Hangchow)
Nagoren (Nagoya)

I'm just playin around with names.
In all seriousness, this name changing is neat, and I have done it, but IMO might be a little extra for the stock game...

[KyuuA4]

If the United States conquers Canada... would Canadian cities be changed? If so, how would you rename them?

Of course, I'd be offended having a US city by the name of Quebec or Montreal.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by KyuuA4
If the United States conquers Canada... would Canadian cities be changed? If so, how would you rename them?

Of course, I'd be offended having a US city by the name of Quebec or Montreal.

We'd keep the Canadian names.

[Addled Platypus]

Originally posted by KyuuA4


Reduce a Civ down to just one city and maintain status of war only to continuously bomb that remaining city. Target practice.

hey the first cheat
if you do this too often in C4, will they get a promotion
+1 city bombard

I realy am wondering


Cant one rename a city when ever they want?
Right click --done

[DerSchwarzfalke]

Am I to understand that the ability to name our own cities is being hamstrung by Firaxis, or are we only talking theoreticals here?

Annihilation of cities a la SMAC I whole-heartedly support, with the caveat that there has to be a point in history where that becomes a far bigger no-no than, say, in ancient times. As for name changing, I like the idea of being given the option to do so after the successful assimilation of a city.

[Kuciwalker]

Am I to understand that the ability to name our own cities is being hamstrung by Firaxis, or are we only talking theoreticals here?

The latter.

[Proteus_MST]

I´d like for destroyed cities to be still visible on the map.

For example as a set of ruins with the former name of the city and its date of destruction being displayed [either all the time, or at the moment you move over the ruins [like a tooltip] or only if you look examine the tile where the ruins are) (of course with being able still built a new city over it and the ruins not having any influence over the food/production/gold you get from this field (or the improvements you can build there )

You could also do it in form of a map overlay, which (like the grid) could be switched on or off in the options menu (so that [if you are very warlike] you don´t have the whole world flooded with ruins of destroyed cities and aren´t able to see the underlying terrain icon anymore )

[DerSchwarzfalke]

I approve. I would love to survey a map of the vanquished Russian Empire (for some reason, Russians were always my big enemies in Civ games) and see my handiwork of destruction forever and ever.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
I´d like for destroyed cities to be still visible on the map.

For example as a set of ruins with the former name of the city and its date of destruction being displayed [either all the time, or at the moment you move over the ruins [like a tooltip] or only if you look examine the tile where the ruins are) (of course with being able still built a new city over it and the ruins not having any influence over the food/production/gold you get from this field (or the improvements you can build there )

You could also do it in form of a map overlay, which (like the grid) could be switched on or off in the options menu (so that [if you are very warlike] you don´t have the whole world flooded with ruins of destroyed cities and aren´t able to see the underlying terrain icon anymore )

They added that in C3C.