Renaming Great People
- Thread starter macmert
- Start date
PreLynMax
Your Lord and Master
Simply select the unit you want to rename (you can also do this to normal units as well), then click on the unit name above its picture.
PreLynMax
Your Lord and Master
ah alright thanks...
Is there a way to change the name of the great people before they are generated? So that I might see a message saying "Dave Mustaine (Great Artist) is born in xxx."
I think its in the XML file somewhere... I'm too lazy to look.
Izmir Stinger
Deity
"Saint Peter has been born in St. Petersburg"
Wait, whut?
Wait, whut?
NomadicAI7
Chieftain
This only works for units and ONLY when promoted.
I still can't find a way to rename Great People like Great Generals and Great Admirals, so on.
I saw this picture from another thread that shows a CUSTOM renamed Great Admiral... so it IS possible, but HOW???
This is from this thread link: http://forums.civfanatics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=11830329Yeah that's irritating, but on the other hand, I love naming my special units after people I like!!!
Spoiler :
Is it perhaps some Interface or UI option to be able to EDIT the names of MORE than just CITIES and UNITS, but also GREAT PEOPLE as well?
For the sake of immersion, especially in the kewl scenarios that Civ5 has set up, I'd like to name my Great People accordingly and realistically. Otherwise, I keep having WWII general Patton for all my civs in any era
I want to avoid this. I completely understand Mad Hab.I would like to be able to rename Great Generals. After all, it doesn't feel right to have Leonidas as a Great General while playing as the Persians...
Please help somebody!!!
PS: Sorry for necroing an old thread
AdamCrock
Polish Pirate
I always laough when Alebrt Einstain is born in China 
haha I say to myself "made in china" haha Well You can search xml files 
haha I say to myself "made in china" haha Well You can search xml files 
joanne
Barbarian
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2009
- Messages
- 489
Look everyone! It's one of those unenlightened Civ5 heretics!! BURN HIM/HER AT THE STAKE
(i.e. wrong subforum, dude.
)NomadicAI7
Chieftain
Oops, I realized that it was the Civilization FOUR sub-forum after posting. I re-posted into the correct sub forum. Thanks for the notification joanne.
Also, thank you AdamCrock. I was fearing that mucking around with XML files is the only way to do it, instead of in-game edits.
Yeah, I'm an Age of Empires, Starcraft, and Total War series fan. Just lately, getting into the Civilization vibe of things. Yes, I'm going with Civilization 5 since it's the latest. But I only picked it up, after Gods and Kings expansion brought back Religion and Espionage and more scenarios to play. I like the more historically accurate civ placement and maps. I for one can't stand Civ's whimsy a-historicity. Like Albert Einstein being "made in China" or Angkor Wat built by the Iroquois.
However, I do appreciate Civ5's much more MACROSCOPIC strategy of battalion placement and tactical maneuvering. I had a blast with Rise of the Mongols and 1066 scenarios on Prince difficulty (which is still tough for me). RotM, I lost the first three times I tried it, never being fast enough. Last try though, I finished on turn 85, getting the Keshik technique down (and correct priortization of upgrades - three consecutive Barrages or Accuracies then for Logistics, then Range, then Indirect Fire, March last). With 1066, I just started as William Conqueror of Normandy, but it's going ok so far. However, at first Great General (El Cid), I was like... what the hell is Spanish El Cid doing in England, notwithstanding different time (approximately 30 years later)?
Also, thank you AdamCrock. I was fearing that mucking around with XML files is the only way to do it, instead of in-game edits.
Yeah, I'm an Age of Empires, Starcraft, and Total War series fan. Just lately, getting into the Civilization vibe of things. Yes, I'm going with Civilization 5 since it's the latest. But I only picked it up, after Gods and Kings expansion brought back Religion and Espionage and more scenarios to play. I like the more historically accurate civ placement and maps. I for one can't stand Civ's whimsy a-historicity. Like Albert Einstein being "made in China" or Angkor Wat built by the Iroquois.
However, I do appreciate Civ5's much more MACROSCOPIC strategy of battalion placement and tactical maneuvering. I had a blast with Rise of the Mongols and 1066 scenarios on Prince difficulty (which is still tough for me). RotM, I lost the first three times I tried it, never being fast enough. Last try though, I finished on turn 85, getting the Keshik technique down (and correct priortization of upgrades - three consecutive Barrages or Accuracies then for Logistics, then Range, then Indirect Fire, March last). With 1066, I just started as William Conqueror of Normandy, but it's going ok so far. However, at first Great General (El Cid), I was like... what the hell is Spanish El Cid doing in England, notwithstanding different time (approximately 30 years later)?
AdamCrock
Polish Pirate
Look everyone! It's one of those unenlightened Civ5 heretics!! BURN HIM/HER AT THE STAKE
(i.e. wrong subforum, dude.
With pleasure .... got matches ?
NomadicAI7
Chieftain
Before you get all snazzy about them pitchforks, matches, and stakes... do try to enlighten the uninitiated, please ... it's only fair to offer a glimpse of how CivIV is better than Civ5
I'm open-minded. For example, even with my beloved Total War series, I much preferred Medieval 2 Total War over Empire and Napoleon. But, of those two, Empire especially with Darthmod easily wins out Napoleon for me.
I'm open-minded. For example, even with my beloved Total War series, I much preferred Medieval 2 Total War over Empire and Napoleon. But, of those two, Empire especially with Darthmod easily wins out Napoleon for me.
AdamCrock
Polish Pirate
Well there are so many threads about how Civ 4 is better than Civ 5 I've lost count.
Rusty Edge
Deity
We all have our reasons, mostly personal preference.
Such as with Civ Complete you just load the game and don't have to deal with Steam, DRM checks, etc.
Civ IV has many excellent mods, no charge.
Civ IV has play by e-mail.
I think IV has a "the world is my canvas" feel to it. I don't feel tied to a single playstyle or victory condition for the entire game because of the civ I drew or a choice I made in the social policies a thousand years ago. I feel free to adapt to the map and game developments.
IV also feels more Epic to me. Maybe it's the number of cities I can control.
Such as with Civ Complete you just load the game and don't have to deal with Steam, DRM checks, etc.
Civ IV has many excellent mods, no charge.
Civ IV has play by e-mail.
I think IV has a "the world is my canvas" feel to it. I don't feel tied to a single playstyle or victory condition for the entire game because of the civ I drew or a choice I made in the social policies a thousand years ago. I feel free to adapt to the map and game developments.
IV also feels more Epic to me. Maybe it's the number of cities I can control.
NomadicAI7
Chieftain
Hmmm, using my known analogies, it's seems like this:
CivIV is to CivV is like Shogun2 to Rome Total War. Let me explain:
I HATE/LOATHE the HAPPINESS mechanic in Civilization V ... once I'm large enough and by the time I conquer a second civ's capital, my Happiness is -30s, ebbing away slowly, way too slowly. This is the case right now at turn 134 of my Ottoman campaign in the scenario Into the Renaissance. I conquered Cairo of Ayyubids from Saladin (funnily enough Songhai leader lol) about eight turns before and just conquered Constantinople of Byzantium from Theodora. My entire empire is stagnating, even though I can't build anything more in my core cities of Aleppo, Edessa, Acre, Jerusalem. Now the mega-cities of Cairo and Constantinople are added. How the hell do I get out of unhappiness?
It seems that unhappiness is easier to manage in Civilization IV, as one can have more cities. In Civilization V, one is penalized for starting each new city.... personally, imho the most fun aspect in Civilization for me is starting new cities and naming them accordingly/realistically to their map location/historicity.
While Rome Total War was an awesome game, I hated it's SQUALOR mechanic. Basically, by the end of the game, your cities become so large, that they're filthy and much revolts and Rebel (think Barbarian in Civ terms) spawn up everywhere.
Imho, Shogun 2 did a WAY better job at making it possible to appease your populace eventually, not causing your cities to turn too large and cause unhappiness. Shogun 2 also handled expansion much simpler and easier to understand. Build a castle, be prepared to support it with food and extra population. This meant that NOT every single region NEEDS a castle. Actually, it prompts strategic thinking and making sure that castles and large towns are erected in the most strategic locations.
I made the noobie mistake in my first CivV games that I bestowed every ugpradea and building in each city. WRONG way about it, it seems. CivV favors a few, strategically placed LARGE, mega cities and many smaller (pop3 or below) cities supplying it with Luxuries and Entertainment, but not becoming production or military hubs themselves.
Am I starting to understand the mechanics more? Or am I dead wrong?
PS: Is there a way to switch Capital from one city to another? What are the effects of that in Civ5?
I hated how capital placement was crucial for Rome Total War. Too far away and the farther regions constantly rebel. I guess it's realistic, but not realistic in the sense that no matter how many happiness/sanitation buildings I constructed, didn't do squat.
CivIV is to CivV is like Shogun2 to Rome Total War. Let me explain:
I HATE/LOATHE the HAPPINESS mechanic in Civilization V ... once I'm large enough and by the time I conquer a second civ's capital, my Happiness is -30s, ebbing away slowly, way too slowly. This is the case right now at turn 134 of my Ottoman campaign in the scenario Into the Renaissance. I conquered Cairo of Ayyubids from Saladin (funnily enough Songhai leader lol) about eight turns before and just conquered Constantinople of Byzantium from Theodora. My entire empire is stagnating, even though I can't build anything more in my core cities of Aleppo, Edessa, Acre, Jerusalem. Now the mega-cities of Cairo and Constantinople are added. How the hell do I get out of unhappiness?
It seems that unhappiness is easier to manage in Civilization IV, as one can have more cities. In Civilization V, one is penalized for starting each new city.... personally, imho the most fun aspect in Civilization for me is starting new cities and naming them accordingly/realistically to their map location/historicity.
While Rome Total War was an awesome game, I hated it's SQUALOR mechanic. Basically, by the end of the game, your cities become so large, that they're filthy and much revolts and Rebel (think Barbarian in Civ terms) spawn up everywhere.
Imho, Shogun 2 did a WAY better job at making it possible to appease your populace eventually, not causing your cities to turn too large and cause unhappiness. Shogun 2 also handled expansion much simpler and easier to understand. Build a castle, be prepared to support it with food and extra population. This meant that NOT every single region NEEDS a castle. Actually, it prompts strategic thinking and making sure that castles and large towns are erected in the most strategic locations.
I made the noobie mistake in my first CivV games that I bestowed every ugpradea and building in each city. WRONG way about it, it seems. CivV favors a few, strategically placed LARGE, mega cities and many smaller (pop3 or below) cities supplying it with Luxuries and Entertainment, but not becoming production or military hubs themselves.
Am I starting to understand the mechanics more? Or am I dead wrong?
PS: Is there a way to switch Capital from one city to another? What are the effects of that in Civ5?
I hated how capital placement was crucial for Rome Total War. Too far away and the farther regions constantly rebel. I guess it's realistic, but not realistic in the sense that no matter how many happiness/sanitation buildings I constructed, didn't do squat.
Similar threads
