Destruction of Cities

[KyuuA4]

Instead of capturing cities... I destroy them in order to maintain the ethnicity of my Civ. empire. I hope that option remains.

Yes, I'm a bastard that way.

[Alexander I]

I think it would be cool if Civs renamed captured cities with the name of the old city in the new conqueror's language.

Examples:

Constantinople (Byzantine) --> Istanbul (Turkish)
Strassburg (German) --> Strasbourg (French)
Dallas (American) --> Hicktown (Canadian)

[KyuuA4]

City name changing

Ah, yes indeed. Often did I find it offensive for one Civ. to retain the name of a conquered city.

I actually took a city over just to change a name; and then give it back.

[Vince278]

Re: Destruction of Cities

Originally posted by KyuuA4
Instead of capturing cities... I destroy them in order to maintain the ethnicity of my Civ. empire. I hope that option remains.

Yes, I'm a bastard that way.

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

[KyuuA4]

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

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

[Vince278]

This is probably something we shouldn't try to out do each other on.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Alexander01
I think it would be cool if Civs renamed captured cities with the name of the old city in the new conqueror's language.

Examples:

Constantinople (Byzantine) --> Istanbul (Turkish)
Stassburg (German) --> Strasbourg (French)
Dallas (American) --> Hicktown (Canadian)

I agree to this

Though the last time I proposed this idea most other posters said it was a bad idea blah blah blah

[Sirotnikov]

Actually it is a cool idea to name change.

Perhaps, it could signal when a ciry is successfully assimilated


From game:

"Sir, St. Petersburg is now fully assimilated by our Bolshevik forces! It shall be known from now on as Leningrad!"

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Adagio


I agree to this

Though the last time I proposed this idea most other posters said it was a bad idea blah blah blah

The problem is that in the city lists we have cities that appear more than once under different civilisations - what about York/Eburacum/Jorvik or London/Londinium or Paris/Lutetia for example...that would really complicate this feature I'm afraid

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


The problem is that in the city lists we have cities that appear more than once under different civilisations - what about York/Eburacum/Jorvik or London/Londinium or Paris/Lutetia for example...that would really complicate this feature I'm afraid

Well, they could always eliminate the redudnancies among civs... though that way the Romans would have no Londinium. The Byzantines would have Constantinople, but the Greeks, Romans, and Turks couldn't, unless they conquered it...

Hmm... maybe just in a scenario...

[Tomasz]

why should they stick to their version of the original name? I think it would be easier to implement and generaly more interesting if the cities changed their names in regard to their leader.

Example:

Volgograd -> Stalingrad
Saigon -> Ho Chi Minh City

etc.

"Sir, we just captured York. For your glory, we shall rename it Lincolnbourg :P "

Tomasz

[Alexander I]

Or Alexandria.

Trouble is, you can only have so many cities named after you.
It'd get old REAL fast.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Alexander01
I think it would be cool if Civs renamed captured cities with the name of the old city in the new conqueror's language.

Examples:

Constantinople (Byzantine) --> Istanbul (Turkish)
Stassburg (German) --> Strasbourg (French)
Dallas (American) --> Hicktown (Canadian)

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

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


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

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

[LDiCesare]

why should they stick to their version of the original name? I think it would be easier to implement and generaly more interesting if the cities changed their names in regard to their leader.

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.