I think we're all agreed how cool the city naming system of R&F is, but it does have some problems. The main one, in my view, is that a lot of the most famous and important cities get avoided by the AI's city picking.

The best example I have is the Germans. By and large, Germany only founds one city - Berlin - in Germany itself. The rest of its cities are in other countries. Memel shows up every time. Budapest fairly regularly. Chartres. Copenhagen.

The size of the map, of course, dictates the placement of the cities. Hamburg would probably 1 square away from Berlin, and therefore impossible. But why not Munich?

There are others, of course. The French found Aix-la-Chapelle more than Orleans. Neapolis never shows up for Rome.

On the other hand, certain civs do tend to get "their" cities in the right places. Japan is especially good. Spain tends to get Leon, Madrid, sometimes Barcelona.

And America NEVER expands westward. Poor Freddy cannot even contend with Montezuma, let alone the European powers, and sits idly in his capitol for much of the time. Not to mention not founding anything in the Western U.S.

England also does a FANTASTIC job, both at home and abroad. France does well with 3 or 4 cities at home and various American colonies (though didn't the French colonize the crap out of west Africa? Shouldn't they have a war script with Mali?).

SilverKnight

There are others, of course. The French found Aix-la-Chapelle more than Orleans. Neapolis never shows up for Rome.


rome is sickeningly weak at the moment.

Yep, it would be nice if it had the power to expand as much in RL, and then fall, of course.

I'm not talking about power here - just original city placement. Rome isn't going to build Neapolis not because it's weak, but because it's too near the pathetic Sicilian city. It has nothing to do with power.

Yeah, I know. But it is always good to complain that Rome is weak! ;) j/k

DISCLAIMER
All thoughts, ideas and suggestions about any new additions, changes or implementations, as well as all gripes, whines and complaints made by anyone in this sub-forum about the way the mod is go hand-in-hand with the following:
This mod has completely replaced vanilla Civ4 for us.
We could live for several days without food or rest, but less without RFC.
This mod has come a LONG way towards becoming one of the best for Civ4 in the short time it has been in development.
The mod continues to improve itself with better gameplay and better results with each new release.
Very few people make mods on the level that Rhye does, and less do it on their own.
While the role of the tester is important, we would have nothing to test if someone didn't spend hours upon hours creating it.
Each and every idea put forth is something that needs to be created and tested, and none of them are simple.

Just for a little perspective. It may seem like we're just b*tching (it could be "botching"! ;) ) endlessly about such a great product, but everything we say goes with the forementioned knowledge that the mod kicks ass already. :cool: All the things we bring up just bring it closer and closer to perfection, something RoC and RoCX were known for. I think it goes without saying (even though I'll say it now) that we appreciate the hard work put into this project, and are collectively doing everything we can to help out! :goodjob:

I guess my job is cheerleader. :lol: Feel free to sticky this post. ;)

SilverKnight

I'd like to co-sign the statement offered by SilverKnight. Rhye works hard on this, and it's voluntary. We have to understand that we are participants and assistants in a creation, not customers who are always right.

The most valuable thing we can do is test and help balance the game. Feature suggestions and the like are not as helpful as you think, and should be rare.

I sign it too. We just give input, Rhye knows how to sort it out, and chooses what is best for the mod and within his capabilities. After seeing what he did with ROC (It was the only thing I played in Civ III), I trust him entirely. Rhye, you rock!:rockon:

Signed with both hands :king: :goodjob:

I totally agree, that it's a great mod and the only one I play (actually the only computer game I play ever since 0.60 or so).

On topic: whenever I play as Germany I usually find one big constraint to founding cities in Germany: the Roman culture of Massalia(?). So I usually found Hamburg, Berlin, Königsberg (Memel IS the better spot, I know, but Königsberg is more important historically as the city where the Prussian kings were crowned for a while and, of course, Kant). I usually found Wien, also mainly for historical reasons and when I can Augsburg (i.e. when the Romans were knocked down or are knocked down by me, which happens very rarely).
Building as many cities as you can, gives you one big advantage: you can build National wonders that require 4 or 8 buildings. I still haven't playtested enough to be sure about it, but maybe continental European civs (Germany, France and Spain) should get a little bonus for their city like one additional food or shield ressource in the center (city) tile to the usual 2 food, 1 shield, 1 gold.

Btw, does anybody know which city of today corresponds to Aquileia? Maybe Trieste?

it depends on where it is; the range of aquileia (i think) streches from venice to a little south of trieste. i have seen a city where venice (probably) is named aquileia

Btw, does anybody know which city of today corresponds to Aquileia? Maybe Trieste?
Aquileia.

A small town.

Aquileia.

A small town.

Very near Venice, right?
From Wikipedia article on Aquileia
In 452, however, it was so utterly destroyed by Attila's Huns, that it was afterwards hard to recognize its original site. The Roman inhabitants, together with those of smaller towns in the neighbourhood, fled to the lagoons, and so laid the foundations of the city of Venice.
I think that's reason enough to consider it Venice. But it is definately closer to Trieste in the game's placement.

dont worry about Aquileia, I changed one of its two plots of to another city.

Very near Venice, right?
From Wikipedia article on Aquileia

I think that's reason enough to consider it Venice. But it is definately closer to Trieste in the game's placement.
Indeed, it is much nearest to Trieste than Venice today.

Just a thought (I didn't really want to start a new thread)

I don't know whether anyone has suggested it before but is it possible to change the names of the civs as time passes. The best example of this would be Rome changing to Italy. Maybe even Aztec to Mexico, Inca to Peru, Persia to Iran possibley.

I haven't the foggiest whether it's possible merely a suggestion and it's purely cosmetic. Would be a nice little touch though.

I like this idea, I hope it's do-able. :D And only to reflect internal cultural changes over time, not political. That way China isn't always switching between Republic and People's Republic, Russia doesn't become the Soviet Union, etc.

As for American cities of importance--although I don't claim to be the only American in this forum--I could help plot just about every square in North America, including Mexico and some of Canada. (If that's even how the city maps work.)

SilverKnight

I started a game of America yesterday, and when the smoke cleared I spawned in an empty North America. Fine by me, but the recommended spot when you spawn is Norfolk, not Washington. This should somehow be changed.
Also, shouldn't the first American city be named Washington regardless of location? It's special in that it's named after a significant person, so the location shouldn't matter much.

I like this idea, I hope it's do-able. :D And only to reflect internal cultural changes over time, not political. That way China isn't always switching between Republic and People's Republic, Russia doesn't become the Soviet Union, etc.

As for American cities of importance--although I don't claim to be the only American in this forum--I could help plot just about every square in North America, including Mexico and some of Canada. (If that's even how the city maps work.)

SilverKnight

As a fellow tax paying american I could help with this as well.

One thing I find odd is the Germans always claim Aquileia when they spawn. Yet they don't seem to care for Hambourg if its founded by the French. very odd.

Also saw a spot I thought France should have a colony name. There was a french colony on the caribbean island south of cuba. They named it Grenoble. Seems to me Martinique or Grenada would be better names. There's plenty of french colonies in that area.

In 093 French found Grenoble in Russia but I hope this issue is solved in 097

In my last game England's captial was Mycenae, where London is located. I assume it was a greek colony that flipped. I like that other civ's cities can become the capital of the new civ, as that is very realistic. Kind of makes them an offshoot of the old civ. But shouldn't the name have changed when it switched? Think this also happened with the French taking the Roman version of Paris in another game.

I think the way it works right now is that when a city flips to a new civ, the name is changed if the previous name is mapped to a new name. I don't think it's based on geographical mapping in this case (unlike when founding a city).

I started a game of America yesterday, and when the smoke cleared I spawned in an empty North America. Fine by me, but the recommended spot when you spawn is Norfolk, not Washington. This should somehow be changed.
Does the AI found Norfolk first, as well?

SilverKnight

I don't know whether anyone has suggested it before but is it possible to change the names of the civs as time passes. The best example of this would be Rome changing to Italy. Maybe even Aztec to Mexico, Inca to Peru, Persia to Iran possibley.

I like the idea, but an independent Inca nation would never call themselves 'Peru'. Usually I just tweak the map file so at the very least, nations call themselves by their own name, so in this case the Aztecs are already Mexica.

When the Aztecs settled down they called themselves the Mexica, which means 'sons of Mexi' or Huitzilopotchli, but the Inka had always called themselves Inka. Biru is an Andean word which essentially told the Spanish to move on and look elsewhere for the man of gold. It became attributed to 'Peru' just as Yucatan came from 'Ci-yu-catan' (which means 'I don't understand you' - I'll stop now).

The key is, of course, that after being conquered for years and years... the whole ethnicity of the region changes, and the cultural identity. Mexico = Aztec PLUS Spain, for example.

I wouldn't object to a name change in that particular case... but if Britain conquered the Aztecs, it's hard to imagine they'd still be called Mexico. Or if Rome hadn't been infiltrated by a combination of French, German, and Spanish powers, it's hard to imagine them becoming Italy. Hence, it's probably best just to bring them back as is, and leave the rest to the imagination of the player.

But surely if the Aztecs had been conquered completely, we wouldn't see their name on anything but some sort of dead civ scoreboard?

Nevermind that, I've just realised it'd be perfect for the revolution concept in v100. If any nation had conquered the Aztecs, it's likely that as in real history, most rivalries between different tribes and identities would vanish. If the Aztecs were to rebel a few centuries afterwards, the native population would probably unite under a broad indiginous term such as 'Mexica' again, regardless of who had conquered them. This name-changing could be very flexible, but does anyone know if it's possible?

The Aztecs WERE conquered "completely". ... at least, as completely as you can conquer a people in real life. I guess that's part of my point -- after conquering them completely, they 'mutate' and 'crossbreed' with the dominant culture... so when they inevitably throw off the rule of the empire, they have some aspects of their old culture and some aspects of the new.

... for that reason, it's not to say you could predict a name change for any civilization to re-emerge. It would depend not just on the conquered civilization, but who conquered them.