ALERT: India Changing Name of Cities

[Bereta_Eder]

Theoderik, I remember reading in the manual of civ 1 (I still must have it around somewhere) that the turks were replaced the last minute with the germans. They even had a nice supplement describing the german tribe. It had to do with the limitation of the number of civs I think (#7).

Like any of this matters of course

[Seeker]

Also, the Russki city names have the ' left off them, as in Arkangelsk', Petropavlosk', ect.

[Smokey tha nuke man]

two things.

1.WHO CARES ABOUT THE CITY NAMES. my capital city is whater keys get pushed when i let my cat walk across the keyboard . same fo the rest of the cities.
2. i think the tribes should have differences, like have roman legions 5/2/2 and chinese musketeers come earlier, and americans get first nukes, and germans get 13 attack tanks, if someone could do stuff like this with brth of the federation (very smiliar ti civ, only nicer combat) then they can doit with civ. anyone agree?

[Theoderik]

Smokes, I for one would not feel very involved in a game of Civ, if the Cities were named "fsfkf", "vgsdføglka" and "A98sdfjk".

When I play Civ, I can get quite involved in the game, and my Civ kinda gets a life of its own. (Well, at least if my Civ is winning, and I can rest on my laurels, If I'm strugglling to survive it's a whole different picture). So I usually rename all of my cities to something I like. And since I'm a history-buff, it's usually a historic name.

To me, it doesn't make sence to found "New York" around 1500BC, when there's no (old) "York". New York was of course named by the English after York, and as such the name "New York" would only be given by the Civ that already has "York" in my thinking.

It is perfectly legal to get involved in the game, and discuss trivial issues. Just because you don't care what you name your cities doesn't mean noone is allowed to care.

Theo

[Theoderik]

quote: Originally posted by Smokey tha nuke man on 01-06-2001 04:28 PM 2. i think the tribes should have differences, like have roman legions 5/2/2 and chinese musketeers come earlier, and americans get first nukes, and germans get 13 attack tanks, if someone could do stuff like this with brth of the federation (very smiliar ti civ, only nicer combat) then they can doit with civ. anyone agree?

Well, I get what you mean. Like "Legions" is something unique to the Romans, and "Phalanx" unique to the Greeks. But in a standard Civ2 game all civs are supposed to be equal from the start, and therefor limiting phalanxes to the Greeks would limit the other Civs. So I don't think it should be like that. However, in a scenario it would be totally ok. The same goes with Roman Legions being stronger than Persian Legions.

As for nukes, Americans should NOT automatically get them first. In reality there was a race, because the US feared that the Germans were developing nukes. Civ can model a race to develop nukes, and that is pretty realistic, as it really was a race between Germany, U.S. and the Soviet.

When would the Germans get their 13 tanks? 4000BC? When they discover automobile? When they switch Governament to something like Despotism or Fundamentalism? I don't think that would work, other than as an event in a WWII scenario.

[Wiglaf]

Civ does not try to relive or simulate history. The general idea behind the game is to change it. If the designers wanted a more true to life game they would've implemented some of da nuke man's ideas. Same goes with the New York/York problem. If you start to do that, and leave the legions and such to every civ, then you have a half relive/half change history game going on, and that won't cut it.

[Bereta_Eder]

I second that SMACed.

It's always funny to read Washington founded in 4000BC and Zulus discover Nuclear Power or Greeks arrive in Alpha Centauri (although this can happen with the European Space Agency. emm, maybe not

On the other hand, CIV is really the best «game of the world». I mean which other game encompasses so much of humanity's struggles throughout history, its achievements and cruelties, its aspirations and inherent faults(I am rambling here, somebody stop me). That goes to say that Civ is always a good motive to make references to historical milestones and facts or the ways of the modern world.

You can't do that playing Pac man.

Anyway, I don't really like the idea of giving a specific Civ a specific advantage. Just the general attitude of the leader (expansionist - civilizaed etc) is enough for me. I think that doing that would limit the game and its flexibility. IMHO you should get whatever civ you want and have the exact same opportunities of leading it to glory or destroying it.
Of course this just my opinion.
[This message has been edited by paiktis22 (edited January 08, 2001).]

[Smokey tha nuke man]

I meant 13attack for german tanks. i thought tanks had a telve attack. anyway, just add one attack to german tanks (whatever the hell the number is). ok, if not the whole game, how about a "history scenario" (grat for test of time 2, if they're going to make it.) it would be intrsting given the different tribes different unit stats and disadvantages and stuff. now, does that solve your complaints?

[Wiglaf]

quote: Originally posted by Smokey tha nuke man on 01-10-2001 05:02 PM I meant 13attack for german tanks. i thought tanks had a telve attack. anyway, just add one attack to german tanks (whatever the hell the number is). ok, if not the whole game, how about a "history scenario" (grat for test of time 2, if they're going to make it.) it would be intrsting given the different tribes different unit stats and disadvantages and stuff. now, does that solve your complaints?

It would solve complaints if an option were given: "Modified Civ Attributes On/Off."

[Smokey tha nuke man]

that would work, but i'd rather have a scenario pack filled with historicaly based scenarios, complete with tribe limitations. but now that you mention it, the option is a nice idea, i'd just like "american revolution", "civil war", "gulf war" etc. scenarios

[Wiglaf]

quote: Originally posted by Smokey tha nuke man on 01-11-2001 07:19 PM that would work, but i'd rather have a scenario pack filled with historicaly based scenarios, complete with tribe limitations. but now that you mention it, the option is a nice idea, i'd just like "american revolution", "civil war", "gulf war" etc. scenarios

Maybe you should email the civ3 team. We'd go down in history

[Anodyne]

Now, if you don't like the civilizations or cities, change them. I think that adding the Americans was a mistake, they, indeed, won their indepencence from England. So, as having Americans 4000B.C is extremely unrealistic, I DELETED the whole civilization. I also deleted Sioux, though they were a big civilization, they never built cities or advanced far in science. They were unrealistic also. So were the Zulus, which I deleted. I also deleted the Spanish.
AND I replaced them with:
Incas
Mayans
Assyrians
Arabs
If you wish, I can post the list of cities and leaders of the civilizations I created. Perhaps next I'll delete the French or Germans and add Turks. I could also change the French to the Gauls, also... well, we'll see.
And about the vikings:
Yes, they actually weren't a 'whole' civilization, but many minor tribes who were trading with the other civilizations of Europe. Such is the thing with Arabs, too. They were never a whole civilization before Islam. But, I think it still adds more realism to the game to have the Vikings and Arabs in. Just a little change in history, a strong leader here or there, and *pouf* the tribes unite.
btw, there's also a mistake in Babylonian cities. Ashur and Nineveh weren't Babylonian, but Assyrian, and Assur was the old capital of Assyria.

------------------
Eating people is fun.

[Smokey tha nuke man]

how did you deletae tribes and add new ones. i would like to add the sumarians (first true civillization in history). i'd like to delete the babylonians.

[SCDARS]

quote: Originally posted by Smokey tha nuke man on 01-12-2001 05:08 PM how did you deletae tribes and add new ones. i would like to add the sumarians (first true civillization in history). i'd like to delete the babylonians.

It's quite simple: open rules.txt, and look for the Babylonians in the section following @LEADERS to replace any civ you want. (Note: adding civs is impossible, just replacing)