BorgeoisBuffoon
Local Idiot
Okay. Let's begin. I am very dissapointed with the whole run of Civ 3's city lists, and by far I hope Firaxis have gotten it in their heads to fix the thing up. Here's a way to do it.
*****
1. FOR A HISTORICAL GAME, THIS ISN'T VERY HISTORICALLY ACCURATE.
The Mumbles in England. Alaca Huyuc in Hatti. Antioch in Persia. Brandenburg in Germany. Shantun and Xinjian in China. Bizen, Suo, and Satsuma in Japan. Palo Alto in America. Hilversum in Netherlands.
Anyone else see a problem here? Gee, when the places aren't in the right nation or historically important enough, they likely just don't exist!
Firaxis, if nothing else, heed my words. PLEASE make your city list more accurate. Don't make stuff up, put in unimportant places, or put provinces in place of cities or a city in the wrong civ. Many fans ARE historically minded, and it's a treat for us and will do you good to make sure the right cities are in the right places. People do not want to capture a Dutch town only 5,000 people big or Palo Alto. Give us historically important places to deal with! Some cultures also have many more cities to add to their lists, like India, Germany, China, and many more.
Besides, I doubt other cultures like seeing what happened in their lists.
2. EXTRA SETTLERS? SIMPLY NAME THEIR BURG FROM THE EXTRA CITY LIST!
Okay, admit it. 'London 2', '3', '4', are horrible city names. So why not have a Bangkok, Hanoi, or Cahokia in your empire?
By far this idea should be brought back from Civ2!! Just as so many cultures got a nod by being minor tribes and Barbarians, so to can you please people by adding in their town into the extra city list. There's WAY more than enough places to choose from in modern times alone!
You can keep the aspect of repeating city lists with a 'new' in front of each name. In fact, I recommend it, due to in-jokes ('Not Constantinople' in place of New Istanbul) and more originality than 'London 2'. Just put it after the extra city list.
3. PLEASE HAVE A UNIFORM LANGUAGE AND SPELLING FOR CITIES.
Simply put, if it has an English name, use that. Lyons and Rhiems rather than Lyon and Rhiem, New Carthage rather than Carthago Nova, Hanover rather than Hannover. We obviously don't need to go to far in translating-just some common sense.
Many ancient cities can safely use Latin. For Greece is an especially good example, use 'Heraclea', 'Ephesus', and 'Miletus' than 'Heraklia', 'Ephesos', and 'Miletos'. Many people know these cities by Latin versions better, and having Greek AND Latin spelling for the same city list is not professional-looking.
EXCEPTION 1: If the ancient place has a modern name, use that. 'Syracuse', 'Carthage', and 'Caralis' rather than 'Syracusae', 'Carthago', and 'Carales'.
EXCEPTION 2: For other languages of course, replace the Anglicizing with the language you speak. I'm American, so bear with me here.
4. FOR THE LOVE OF HIM, DON'T REPEAT CITIES.
Did Carthage go in time and conquer Cadiz? No? Why's it on the list then? Did Richborough and Rutupiae suddenly exist at the same time? Nope! And lord, don't get me started on Tokyo and Edo and Hattusas and Hattusha.
This is related to Reason 1, but glaring enough to get its own reason. NEVER repeat cities in the same civilization. Sorry Firaxis, that's just STUPID.
5. IF YOU BASE A CIV ON A TIME PERIOD, BASE IT RIGHT.
This is a confusing subject. I'll do my best and use Persia as an example.
A. Base the majority of the names on the civ's certain time period
Persia is based inheirently on the Achaemenids. Cool, that's a great period. But we see many cities from different time periods and names. That's not cool.
Firstly, decide-will it have ancient-style names that sound ala Latin or modern-style names (going modern-style is gonna have concessions-I'd admitedly would rather have Persepolis and Parsargadae than Takt-I-Jamshid and Sadatabad, respectively)? Next, weed out cities that may not seem Persian enough (see reason 7). This will leave a base of historically correct cities and the feeling of playing the proper civ.
B. Supplemental is cool if you've got the proper base.
As long as you've got a proper base of city names, I can't see why you can't add on a few cities from other eras of the civ's timeline. Persia once again is a good example. I added in Ctesiphon and Istakhr from the Sassanids-but this is still in the 'ancient' era and the Sassanids are harking back to the Achaemenids, not to mention the cities were important centers in Achemenid Persia already (Ctesiphon was Opis in those days, though it's infinently more well-known as Ctesiphon).
Egypt's a GREAT example. The vast majority of names are of the ancient-type, but Cairo isn't hurting anyone at all.
Remember: just research the time period if you base the civ on a certain period. Celtica? Look up ancient Gaul, Iberia, Britain, Ireland, and Danube Valley. Greece? Obviously the Mycenaean to the Classical period here, you don't see many Hellenstic Period-founded cities in there.
6. CULTURALLY-LINKED CITIES ARE COOL...
In a Civ3-Conquests thead I saw the new Russian list. It only had cities from today's Russian borders.
How stupid.
Russia's a good example. Many cities like Kiev, Minsk, and Odessa are very linked to the traditional Russia in cultural, military, and political matters. It not only seemed odd to not have said cities in the list, but this is the chance to have other cultures represented. Assyrian cities in Babylon are also a good example IMO. So is Danzig and Koenigsberg in Germany.
As long as the cities added aren't too numerous or iffy, Firaxis, you should really add in a culturally-linked city where applicable.
7. ...TO AN EXTENT.
Phoenicia in Persia, Egypt, and Hatti.
It has always bugged me to see Tyre and Sidon in Persia and Ugarit in Hatti. Yes, Phoenicia was conquered by these empires, but to many (even at the historical period) it was always Phoenician, not, say, Persian.
Don't add cities to a list that already have a thriving nationality or culture-Tyre is excellent for an extra city list, but not any other. You can find plenty of important cities for every civ.
Of course, some cities should be in a certain list, even if they aren't initially the civ's type. Antioch could be considered Roman-though founded in Greek times, it quickly became the third city of the empire-and maybe Taxila for Persia, Sanguntum for Carthage, and the like. But this'll need some common sense.
Simple rule: if a city sounds like it could or should belong to another or a new civ, don't toss it in.
8. SHARING CITIES ARE COOL-IN SMALL DOSES.
As long as TOO many cities aren't shared between certain civs, and too many cities shared in general, I actually give a stamp of approval to this. Some civs, like Greece/Byzantium and Sumer/Babylon will obviously have to share, but Spain/Arabia and Rome/Greece are also okay. Syracuse is a good example. Important to both Greece and Rome. Or Cordoba to Arabia and Spain.
Just don't put in a city that clearly belongs to another civ. Babylon was conquered by Persia, but it always was a culturally-Babylonian city for a LONG time.
*****
Much of this may seem overblown. I can't disagree, but Firaxis did such a poor job in this area SOMEONE had to make this suggestion.
Furthermore, I have been adding cities since Civ II and in 2001, when Civ3 came out, I was merely 16-yet with the initial civs and expansion-pack civs I made 26-35 long city lists for each civ that were MUCH more accurate than Firaxis's lists could hope to be! If a teen could do that, surely a premier gaming company can!
*****
1. FOR A HISTORICAL GAME, THIS ISN'T VERY HISTORICALLY ACCURATE.
The Mumbles in England. Alaca Huyuc in Hatti. Antioch in Persia. Brandenburg in Germany. Shantun and Xinjian in China. Bizen, Suo, and Satsuma in Japan. Palo Alto in America. Hilversum in Netherlands.
Anyone else see a problem here? Gee, when the places aren't in the right nation or historically important enough, they likely just don't exist!
Firaxis, if nothing else, heed my words. PLEASE make your city list more accurate. Don't make stuff up, put in unimportant places, or put provinces in place of cities or a city in the wrong civ. Many fans ARE historically minded, and it's a treat for us and will do you good to make sure the right cities are in the right places. People do not want to capture a Dutch town only 5,000 people big or Palo Alto. Give us historically important places to deal with! Some cultures also have many more cities to add to their lists, like India, Germany, China, and many more.
Besides, I doubt other cultures like seeing what happened in their lists.
2. EXTRA SETTLERS? SIMPLY NAME THEIR BURG FROM THE EXTRA CITY LIST!
Okay, admit it. 'London 2', '3', '4', are horrible city names. So why not have a Bangkok, Hanoi, or Cahokia in your empire?
By far this idea should be brought back from Civ2!! Just as so many cultures got a nod by being minor tribes and Barbarians, so to can you please people by adding in their town into the extra city list. There's WAY more than enough places to choose from in modern times alone!
You can keep the aspect of repeating city lists with a 'new' in front of each name. In fact, I recommend it, due to in-jokes ('Not Constantinople' in place of New Istanbul) and more originality than 'London 2'. Just put it after the extra city list.
3. PLEASE HAVE A UNIFORM LANGUAGE AND SPELLING FOR CITIES.
Simply put, if it has an English name, use that. Lyons and Rhiems rather than Lyon and Rhiem, New Carthage rather than Carthago Nova, Hanover rather than Hannover. We obviously don't need to go to far in translating-just some common sense.
Many ancient cities can safely use Latin. For Greece is an especially good example, use 'Heraclea', 'Ephesus', and 'Miletus' than 'Heraklia', 'Ephesos', and 'Miletos'. Many people know these cities by Latin versions better, and having Greek AND Latin spelling for the same city list is not professional-looking.
EXCEPTION 1: If the ancient place has a modern name, use that. 'Syracuse', 'Carthage', and 'Caralis' rather than 'Syracusae', 'Carthago', and 'Carales'.
EXCEPTION 2: For other languages of course, replace the Anglicizing with the language you speak. I'm American, so bear with me here.
4. FOR THE LOVE OF HIM, DON'T REPEAT CITIES.
Did Carthage go in time and conquer Cadiz? No? Why's it on the list then? Did Richborough and Rutupiae suddenly exist at the same time? Nope! And lord, don't get me started on Tokyo and Edo and Hattusas and Hattusha.
This is related to Reason 1, but glaring enough to get its own reason. NEVER repeat cities in the same civilization. Sorry Firaxis, that's just STUPID.
5. IF YOU BASE A CIV ON A TIME PERIOD, BASE IT RIGHT.
This is a confusing subject. I'll do my best and use Persia as an example.
A. Base the majority of the names on the civ's certain time period
Persia is based inheirently on the Achaemenids. Cool, that's a great period. But we see many cities from different time periods and names. That's not cool.
Firstly, decide-will it have ancient-style names that sound ala Latin or modern-style names (going modern-style is gonna have concessions-I'd admitedly would rather have Persepolis and Parsargadae than Takt-I-Jamshid and Sadatabad, respectively)? Next, weed out cities that may not seem Persian enough (see reason 7). This will leave a base of historically correct cities and the feeling of playing the proper civ.
B. Supplemental is cool if you've got the proper base.
As long as you've got a proper base of city names, I can't see why you can't add on a few cities from other eras of the civ's timeline. Persia once again is a good example. I added in Ctesiphon and Istakhr from the Sassanids-but this is still in the 'ancient' era and the Sassanids are harking back to the Achaemenids, not to mention the cities were important centers in Achemenid Persia already (Ctesiphon was Opis in those days, though it's infinently more well-known as Ctesiphon).
Egypt's a GREAT example. The vast majority of names are of the ancient-type, but Cairo isn't hurting anyone at all.
Remember: just research the time period if you base the civ on a certain period. Celtica? Look up ancient Gaul, Iberia, Britain, Ireland, and Danube Valley. Greece? Obviously the Mycenaean to the Classical period here, you don't see many Hellenstic Period-founded cities in there.
6. CULTURALLY-LINKED CITIES ARE COOL...
In a Civ3-Conquests thead I saw the new Russian list. It only had cities from today's Russian borders.
How stupid.
Russia's a good example. Many cities like Kiev, Minsk, and Odessa are very linked to the traditional Russia in cultural, military, and political matters. It not only seemed odd to not have said cities in the list, but this is the chance to have other cultures represented. Assyrian cities in Babylon are also a good example IMO. So is Danzig and Koenigsberg in Germany.
As long as the cities added aren't too numerous or iffy, Firaxis, you should really add in a culturally-linked city where applicable.
7. ...TO AN EXTENT.
Phoenicia in Persia, Egypt, and Hatti.
It has always bugged me to see Tyre and Sidon in Persia and Ugarit in Hatti. Yes, Phoenicia was conquered by these empires, but to many (even at the historical period) it was always Phoenician, not, say, Persian.
Don't add cities to a list that already have a thriving nationality or culture-Tyre is excellent for an extra city list, but not any other. You can find plenty of important cities for every civ.
Of course, some cities should be in a certain list, even if they aren't initially the civ's type. Antioch could be considered Roman-though founded in Greek times, it quickly became the third city of the empire-and maybe Taxila for Persia, Sanguntum for Carthage, and the like. But this'll need some common sense.
Simple rule: if a city sounds like it could or should belong to another or a new civ, don't toss it in.
8. SHARING CITIES ARE COOL-IN SMALL DOSES.
As long as TOO many cities aren't shared between certain civs, and too many cities shared in general, I actually give a stamp of approval to this. Some civs, like Greece/Byzantium and Sumer/Babylon will obviously have to share, but Spain/Arabia and Rome/Greece are also okay. Syracuse is a good example. Important to both Greece and Rome. Or Cordoba to Arabia and Spain.
Just don't put in a city that clearly belongs to another civ. Babylon was conquered by Persia, but it always was a culturally-Babylonian city for a LONG time.
*****
Much of this may seem overblown. I can't disagree, but Firaxis did such a poor job in this area SOMEONE had to make this suggestion.
Furthermore, I have been adding cities since Civ II and in 2001, when Civ3 came out, I was merely 16-yet with the initial civs and expansion-pack civs I made 26-35 long city lists for each civ that were MUCH more accurate than Firaxis's lists could hope to be! If a teen could do that, surely a premier gaming company can!
