Destruction of Cities

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Alexander01


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

That's not strictly true. Under Ottoman rule, the official name of the city was Konstantiniyye; Istanbul was the common vernacular name, but only became official under Atatürk.

People who are actually into the historical development of Greek and Turkish tell me that a derivation of Istanbul from Konstantinopolis is highly unlikely. The best bet seems to be it derives from of Greek eis ten polin "to/in the city", which will have been pronounced something like "stin bul" in northern Greek dialects of the late medieval period.

[Kataphraktoi]

more good and evil options ,maybe even a very subtle interface change aka light side\dark side

not being able to slaughter cities in civ3

...or you can just eat bananas and keep playing

edit: ive been to dozens+ of forums for about a zillion games and i swear ive seen the (city on the bosphorus) argument on every single forum in existance and seen about every varation you can possibly make on the words involved :/

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Cataphract887
more good and evil options ,maybe even a very subtle interface change aka light side\dark side

That sort of thing is absurd in a civ game. It worked in GalCiv; it doesn't fit with Civ at all.

not being able to slaughter cities in civ3

Eh, you COULD do so in Civ3.

[Kataphraktoi]

not really,only on capture

[KyuuA4]

Originally posted by Cataphract887
not really,only on capture

Is an implication on the destruction of a city through bombardment means is accurate?

[Rasputin]

the penalties for destruction of citys should be far higher, world outrage at your treatment of civilians.

[KyuuA4]

Originally posted by Rasputin
the penalties for destruction of citys should be far higher, world outrage at your treatment of civilians.

Hmm... I look forward to destroying cities of a specific religion (one not of my country - which ever I select for my Civ).

[Ninot]

Originally posted by Rasputin
the penalties for destruction of citys should be far higher, world outrage at your treatment of civilians.

I agree, but only after a certain technological level.

if I destroy a city in 2000 B.C., I dont think a country that is halfway around the known world should care very much.

If I destroy a city in 2000 A.D, I think it should almost cause instant war with other nations.

[Rasputin]

disagree slightly

all nations that have contact with you, or any nations that have contact with nations that have contact with you will soon know what you have done.

so providing the other civs can trace a link back to someone that knows you then yes they should hat eyou more and more the more citysdestryoed.

[KyuuA4]

all nations that have contact with you, or any nations that have contact with nations that have contact with you will soon know what you have done.

Before modern times, no Civ should be concerned regarding the destruction of cities. And so, any sort of penalty should be minimal. Once the modern times come in - where sissy policies of war come in; then there should be a severe penalty for destroying a city.

[DerSchwarzfalke]

If one reads the various stellae of ancient empires, not only was destroying cities not frowned upon, it was something to brag about. Destroying enemy cities should only have penalties in the modern period.

The modern period is also when it would be most tricky to convert well-established cities to your religion and culture, too, which would add another element to the game: not only is it then more difficult to convert them, it is much more difficult to obliterate them outright.

[KyuuA4]

The modern period is also when it would be most tricky to convert well-established cities to your religion and culture, too, which would add another element to the game: not only is it then more difficult to convert them, it is much more difficult to obliterate them outright.

After all, it was a shocker enough as it is watching airplanes deliberately crashed into buildings.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Cataphract887
not really,only on capture

How the hell else would you slaughter a city?

[Rasputin]

modern era of nuke weopons easier to wipe out whole citys..

[Paddy]

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 )

you a badddd man Vince