Byzantium and the Ottomans in G&K

[nsotos]

With the inclusion of the Byzantine Empire in Gods and Kings, there is now a conflict in the capitals of Byzantium and the Ottoman Empire (Constantinople and Istanbul) as they are essentially the same city historically. While not necessarily a problem, I find it a bit funny as I would always rename Istanbul to Constantinople if I conquered the Turkish capital with the Greeks prior to the expansion.

 

[vcutag]

With the inclusion of the Byzantine Empire in Gods and Kings, there is now a conflict in the capitals of Byzantium and the Ottoman Empire (Constantinople and Istanbul) as they are essentially the same city historically. While not necessarily a problem, I find it a bit funny as I would always rename Istanbul to Constantinople if I conquered the Turkish capital with the Greeks prior to the expansion.

I've always liked Konstantiniyye.

 

[Civciv5]

I guess I have to live with the fact that Theodora and Suleiman will have the same capital and that there will be 2 Istanbuls,2 Edirnes,2 Konyas,2 Ankaras,2 Trabzons.
"Theodora has conquered Istanbul!" altough she already owns the same city.
"Theodora and Suleiman are currently fighting about who will own the palace of Istanbul and Istanbul."
There should be a mechanism that solves the problem:"When Theodora founds a city (Constantinople),Suleiman does not found the same city,but the next in the city list and vice versa.
But which name should their capital have?
Constantinople was founded long before the Ottoman conquest,so I guess Theodora will found Constantinople and Suleiman founds Brusa(Bursa(which was the second capital after Sogut).

 

[Saxony]

Maybe they are going to the same as with America and Polynesia when Polynesia and America are in the same game America will not have Honolulu in their city list.

 

[Louis XXIV]

It's a different name, it shouldn't matter. Doesn't Rome have Florentia as a city?

 

[fromar]

I find it a bit funny as I would always rename Istanbul to Constantinople if I conquered the Turkish capital with the Greeks prior to the expansion.

Does that situation come up often? Ever? Still, it's a pretty awesome policy.

 

[Lone Wolf]

In all previous versions of Civ where the Ottomans and the Byzantines were in (Conquests, BTS) the capital of Byzantium was called "Constantinople" and the capital of the Ottomans was called "Istanbul". City overlap is not a problem for the Firaxis people who compose these lists.

 

[Cicero63]

If you bring up the fact the Byzantine and Ottoman cities cross, then you have to bring up the same with Roman and Celtic cities being the same as modern European cities. Rome founded London as Londinium, Vienna was originally a celtic settlement, Paris was known as Lutetia to the Romans. Should I continue?

 

[nokmirt]

On a TSL map Bursa would be the Ottoman capital and Constantinople would be for the Byzantines. If I played as the turks and captured Const. I'd rename it Istanbul, as others have mentioned above.

BTW as far as I know we do not have a huge TSL map of Europe with the med. I am pretty good at making maps. After GnK comes out I will begin working on one. With that the contest between the Byzantine and Ottoman empires can play out again.

 

[AriochIV]

There is already tons of potential overlap between cities of the Mediterranean and Middle East that have been part of many different empires. As long as they have different names, it has no impact on gameplay.

 

[PhilBowles]

It's a different name, it shouldn't matter. Doesn't Rome have Florentia as a city?

I've wondered if the unusual spelling of Tombouctou and Jenne in the Songhai list is to allow the possibility of giving these cities to the Mali with their conventional spelling if they are ever introduced.

It's still not quite as bad as the Khmer city list from Civ IV, which (a) contained the cities Yasodharapura and Angkor Thom (which are the same place), and (b) contained "city" names that are actually the names of temples within Angkor Thom, such as Pre Rup and Rajihivara (modern Ta Prohm).

 

[Buccaneer]

There is already tons of potential overlap between cities of the Mediterranean and Middle East that have been part of many different empires. As long as they have different names, it has no impact on gameplay.

Yeah, esp. since I always change the names of my cities to something personal.

 

[bonafide11]

I never understood why people get so irritated by this. Sure, they are historically the same city, but they have two different names and it doesn't affect gameplay at all. It's bound to happen with such an important city in history. What's the big deal? The name of the city is just a name, it isn't meant to actually mimic that city.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I never understood why people get so irritated by this. Sure, they are historically the same city, but they have two different names and it doesn't affect gameplay at all. It's bound to happen with such an important city in history. What's the big deal? The name of the city is just a name, it isn't meant to actually mimic that city.

Exactly, Ottomans and Byzantium have been present in Civ since I think Civ 3 if not earlier on. Not only that, they don't even share the same City List.

And I do think Civ 5 has a strange rules for city naming, there is a chance that two cities can have the same name, if you try to rename your capital to let's say Paris with napoleon present, you will have a city named Paris, and hence there will be two Parises.

Also, when I was spamming temples, I noticed that if a civ runs out of a city list, it does not go to New Paris, it actually takes cities from other civilizations.

 

[Nyanko]

With the inclusion of the Byzantine Empire in Gods and Kings, there is now a conflict in the capitals of Byzantium and the Ottoman Empire (Constantinople and Istanbul) as they are essentially the same city historically. While not necessarily a problem, I find it a bit funny as I would always rename Istanbul to Constantinople if I conquered the Turkish capital with the Greeks prior to the expansion.

If you were playing as the Greeks, you should have renamed it Byzantium. Constantinople was only named as such after Rome moved its capital there.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

It's nobody's business but the Turks.

 

[KevinLancaster]

They should re-implement that old Easter egg.

 

[That nerdy kid]

they could probably code it so that if byzantines are in the game, Ottomans have Bursa as capital, and that when Constantinople is captured by the ottomans, it changes to Istanbul (and vice versa).

 

[Uberfrog]

It's nobody's business but the Turks.

That's pretty much the most apt response here.

You're playing a game where all capital cities are founded in 4000BC. The Ottomans decide to call theirs Istanbul. They didn't have to conquer it from the Byzantines. It was never Constantinople.

Historically, I can see why people complain about things like Yosodharapura/Angkor Thom - that's carelessness on the developers' part. But when it comes to naming the capitals of the Byzantine and Ottoman empires, there really isn't a choice. It's pointless to worry about.

 

[PhilBowles]

That's pretty much the most apt response here.

You're playing a game where all capital cities are founded in 4000BC. The Ottomans decide to call theirs Istanbul. They didn't have to conquer it from the Byzantines. It was never Constantinople.

And George Washington was so egocentric he named his capital after himself, rather than having it named after him in retrospect...