(Firaxis, please read) RIDICULOUSLY EASY-TO-IMPLEMENT suggestions

[LordShiva]

This thread is for suggestions that could easily be put in at the last moment.

Here's one:

India's city list - Ganges, Indus are RIVERS, Bengal, Punjab, "Rajastan" (sic.) are STATES, not cities. Please please please update India's city list. I'd prefer if Karachi, Lahore and Dhaka were removed, because they aren't in India anymore, but even if they're added to the following list (after Calcutta, Bangalore and Pune respectively), that's fine. I made the list roughly in order of population, with prominence/geographic diversity allowing for a few adjustments.

Delhi
Bombay
Calcutta
Madras
Bangalore
Hyderabad
Pune
Jaipur
Lucknow
Patna
Guwahati
Bhopal
Srinagar
Agra
Bhubaneshwar
Chandigarh
Ahmedabad
Kanpur
Agartala
Mysore
Kochi
Amritsar
Pondicherry
Varanasi
Nagpur
Surat
Indore
Darjeeling
Panjim
Ranchi
Nainital
Vadodara
Jabalpur
Madurai
Aizawl
Imphal
Vijayawada
Hubli-Dharwad
Gwalior
Jodhpur
Visakhapatnam

[Maniac]

How about Vijayanagar? It need not only be modern cities.

[LordShiva]

Good point.

Vijayanar
Fatehpur Sikri
Indraprastha
Panipat


There are probably tons of other easy-to-implement suggestions... Leader names for civs?

[Harovan]

Cities in Civilization games represent not real cities, but regions. There is theoretically nothing wrong with state names in the city list. River names on the other hand would be silly.

That said, you will certainly be able to easily modify the city list to your liking. There is a lot of other things to care about in Civ4 at the moment, and I would be very upset if Firaxis would waste resources on city names now.

[LordShiva]

I agree that there's alot to be worked on - but it's hardly a waste of resources to edit a little text file, and I'd prefer if it was done before the game shipped than have us gamers all do it ourselves.

And I also think cities should represent cities. I don't want Abe Lincoln sending settlers all over the place to build "California" or "Pennsylvania;" I wouldn't like to see cities called "Szechuan Province," "Eastern Siberia," "Bavaria," "Wales," "Anatolia" etc.

[Harovan]

Well you can want that they should represent cities, but de facto they do not. They combine a city (the capital of the region) and up to 20 other tiles, none of which belongs to the city itself, but serves the purpose to gather food and material resources - just like a rural area. Let's see... capital + rural area = region. Yes.

[sophist]

I suggest Pataliputra instead of Patna.

I'm fine with Pakistani and Bangladeshi cities being included in India. Pakistan and Bangladesh are still part of the broader Indian culture, and their separation from the nation of India is only the last 60 years of thousands of years of history.

Agreed on cities not having names of states or rivers. It's not like India lacks for a large number of actual cities whose names should be used. It's not like most people playing the game would be familiar with any but the top 5, if that.

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Well you can want that they should represent cities, but de facto they do not. They combine a city (the capital of the region) and up to 20 other tiles, none of which belongs to the city itself, but serves the purpose to gather food and material resources - just like a rural area. Let's see... capital + rural area = region. Yes.

If nothing else, it should be consistent. Most, if not all, of the other civs' cities are actual cities. Why should it be different for India?

[Jaybe]

I have always considered civ cities to be states/provinces.

A worked tile that is occupied (and especially pillaged) should not just be displaced, but at least lost for a turn, and potentially even cause the city to lose population point.

[Tassadar500]

I wouldn't consider Toronto a state, but it sprawls over huge areas of land, with rural areas.

[LordShiva]

As do Bombay, London, New York, Berlin, etc. That's fine. But noone would argue that "Ontario" is a better name for a Canadian city in Civ (were there a Canadian civ) than "Toronto."

Moreover, Calcutta (and Dhaka and Chittagong) and Lahore (and Amritsar and Chandigarh) are cities that happen to be in the Bengal and Punjab regions respectively, which is another reason not to have those in the game.

[Boris Godunov]

Meh. Hardly worth their time worrying about it, and it's something that anyone can easily fix on their own should they so desire.

[Tassadar500]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Meh. Hardly worth their time worrying about it, and it's something that anyone can easily fix on their own should they so desire.

This is also true.

[LDiCesare]

And I also think cities should represent cities. I don't want Abe Lincoln sending settlers all over the place to build "California" or "Pennsylvania;" I wouldn't like to see cities called "Szechuan Province," "Eastern Siberia," "Bavaria," "Wales," "Anatolia" etc.

Actually, when I play on an Earth map, I tend to rename cities to region or state names. So I will have cities called Portugal, California, Alps or Savoie. Anatolia is actually a favourite of mine. But I agree that they'd better have a correct city list as these are still supposed to be cities.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Meh. Hardly worth their time worrying about it, and it's something that anyone can easily fix on their own should they so desire.

However, they also have it ready-done for them in the OP.

[Tassadar500]

They'd still need to verify that all the names are correct, and it's very possible that no one from Firaxis read this thread.