City Names mod for BTS

[Arkaeyn]

And what I've said is that the second one is not part of the criteria. The fact that you can list some capitals that were also important cities in their own right doesn't mean anything. To justify this you'd have to find an example of Firaxis actually doing what you're proposing: Selecting a more important city as the first city at the expense of the historical capital.

It's not part of the criteria according to you. And there are multiple civilizations for whom "historical capitals" are not used. St. Petersburg, Chang'an, Bonn, just to name a few. The Persians are littered with them. Sumerian "capitals" were more like a series of rising and falling city-states. So were the Greeks. Look up the importance of Karakorum, and ask yourself why Xanadu/Shengdu isn't even in the Mongol list.

I think it's a lot less cut and dried than you're making it sound. If you disagree so strenuously, it's not horribly difficult to change.

 

[Dryhad]

St. Petersburg,

Do you suppose this is because Moscow was a more important city or because it was also the official capital, and likely one that the players are more likely to recognise.

Chang'an,

Same deal, really. They can't very well have two first cities, can they?

Bonn,

Bonn was never the capital of the German Civilization. It was the capital of the Federal Republic of Germany during the years that Berlin was separated from the main section by the German Democratic Republic. To make it the capital of a German Civilization lead by Bismark and Frederick would be ludicrous by any definition.

The Persians are littered with them. Sumerian "capitals" were more like a series of rising and falling city-states. So were the Greeks.

Are you saying that, because these civs didn't have all their capitals used as capitals the American Civilization should have none of its capitals used as capitals?

Look up the importance of Karakorum, and ask yourself why Xanadu/Shengdu isn't even in the Mongol list.

Probably because it was the capital. Yes, it was later moved, but it was still a capital. Unlike New York.

I think it's a lot less cut and dried than you're making it sound.

No, that's wrong. Everything you've said is a red herring. All the capitals are actually capitals. "Oh, but this civ had two capitals" It doesn't matter! The United States didn't have two capitals, and New York was never its capital. That much, at least, is cut and dried.

If you disagree so strenuously, it's not horribly difficult to change.

I said something because you invited it and nobody else obliged. If you are going to undertake a revamping of Firaxis's cities, I would hope you would do it with an understanding of why Firaxis made the choices they did. You can do whatever you like with your mod, but I ask that you understand this.

 

[Arkaeyn]

I said something because you invited it and nobody else obliged. If you are going to undertake a revamping of Firaxis's cities, I would hope you would do it with an understanding of why Firaxis made the choices they did. You can do whatever you like with your mod, but I ask that you understand this.

If you believe Firaxis' city choices are infallible, what are you even doing in this thread? What makes you believe that you have the ability to correctly interpret Firaxis' intent?

 

[vdex34]

The United States didn't have two capitals, and New York was never its capital. That much, at least, is cut and dried.

New York served as the capital of the United States from 1785 until 1790 (Source1), and has been the nation's largest city since 1790 (Source2).

 

[Dryhad]

If you believe Firaxis' city choices are infallible, what are you even doing in this thread?

Did I say that? No, I said you should understand their reasoning before declaring it wrong.

What makes you believe that you have the ability to correctly interpret Firaxis' intent?

What makes you believe that you have that ability? Why not discuss it?

Again, you invited this. You asked if anyone thought it shouldn't be done that way. I think it shouldn't be done that way, and I'm trying to explain why. You can't then go and complain that I'm talking about this, because you asked people to tell you!

New York served as the capital of the United States from 1785 until 1790 (Source1), and has been the nation's largest city since 1790 (Source2).

I stand corrected. Still, the second point is and always will be a red herring.

 

[Arkaeyn]

Did I say that? No, I said you should understand their reasoning before declaring it wrong.

Why? I'm making a mod. A mod changes things. I find the initial city lists inconsistent in many ways.

Again, you invited this. You asked if anyone thought it shouldn't be done that way. I think it shouldn't be done that way, and I'm trying to explain why. You can't then go and complain that I'm talking about this, because you asked people to tell you!

I'm perfectly fine with you objecting to D.C. as a lower-ranked city. I'm objecting to you declaring that I'm ruining Firaxis' intent or whatever by making that change. You're making a claim to authoritative knowledge of authorial intent that detracts from your argument. I don't know what Firaxis' intent was. I have no reason to believe that you know what Firaxis' intent was. Not knowing, I'm looking to make the cities more consistent with how the gameplay treats cities.

If you want to argue that my list is inconsistent with my stated goals, that's going to be far more effective than calling upon an unknown authorial intent. Particularly when those authors included Hastings and Thermopylae high up on their city names list

 

[Dryhad]

Why? I'm making a mod. A mod changes things.

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but this is the only one of your changes I've made any comment to whatsoever. Would you please stop insinuating that I have something against modding or changing the way Firaxis set up the game?

I find the initial city lists inconsistent in many ways.

I understand that. I am trying to explain why it is not inconsistent, at least in this way. If you are going to discard my comments as anti-modding and ignore my explanations, well I'm not sure why you asked if people agreed with you in the first place.

I'm perfectly fine with you objecting to D.C. as a lower-ranked city. I'm objecting to you declaring that I'm ruining Firaxis' intent or whatever by making that change.

It's a good thing, then, that I'm declaring no such thing.

You're making a claim to authoritative knowledge of authorial intent that detracts from your argument. I don't know what Firaxis' intent was. I have no reason to believe that you know what Firaxis' intent was.

By discussing it we can hopefully gain a better understanding than either of us could on our own. I am not trying to simply instruct you on what I believe to be the intent, I am trying to offer you alternatives so that you can reach your own conclusion. As it is, you seem content to assume that they had no reason and it was all arbitrary, which I do not believe is a position that makes for well designed mods. I offer you a reason, it may not have been Firaxis's reason, but it's a darn sight better than the no reason you're currently working with.

Not knowing, I'm looking to make the cities more consistent with how the gameplay treats cities.

I don't see how the current setup is at all inconsistent with how the gameplay treats cities. Washington is the capital, New York is the largest city with a bunch of wonders in it. In this situation, New York is going to be more important than Washington, so in my mind it's an accurate reflector of reality. Honestly, I don't understand what the problem is. In gameplay terms your argument that the most productive city is the de facto capital is quite clearly nonsense.

 

[Arkaeyn]

To justify this you'd have to find an example of Firaxis actually doing what you're proposing: Selecting a more important city as the first city at the expense of the historical capital.

If you are going to undertake a revamping of Firaxis's cities, I would hope you would do it with an understanding of why Firaxis made the choices they did. You can do whatever you like with your mod, but I ask that you understand this.

These are quotes of yours which purport to use Firaxis' decision-making process to counter my decision-making process. This is what I find objectionable about your arguments.

If you're attempting to have a conversation with me about the American capital, then go right ahead. But those quotes have the strong implication that I'm Doing Something Wrong According To Civ4's Developer, which is something that I'm going to interpret negatively.

 

[Dryhad]

These are quotes of yours which purport to use Firaxis' decision-making process to counter my decision-making process. This is what I find objectionable about your arguments.

If you're attempting to have a conversation with me about the American capital, then go right ahead. But those quotes have the strong implication that I'm Doing Something Wrong According To Civ4's Developer, which is something that I'm going to interpret negatively.

Why? Why are you so intent to interpret me negatively? I have said that this is not my intention, why do you insist upon pursuing this obviously mistaken line of conversation? Perhaps I conveyed the wrong sense with my wording, but shouldn't the fact that I later stated that that was not my intended meaning demonstrate that it was not my intended meaning? For someone so reluctant to speculate on Firaxis's intentions that you'd rather assume they have none, you profess an unnaturally high opinion of your judgment of mine!

I shall state my position once more and if you continue to misinterpret it I have no option but to assume that you never had any intention of discussing this seriously and invited responses for some perverse and unfathomable reason. My position is thus: If one is attempting to make an improvement to an existing work, one should understand the reasons said work was originally done in the way that it was. This in no way implies that one should adhere to said reason, only that one should acknowledge its existance and make an effort to understand it.

 

[Arkaeyn]

I keep interpreting it negatively because it comes across as an attack, and not a conversation-starter. Consider these conversational styles:


1. You are misinterpreting the desire of the designers, and doing so in a way which is wrong.

2. By making that decision, you seem be to acting in a way which is inconsistent with the rest of what you're doing.



#1 is a way to sound much stronger in an argument, but its strength lies upon an implicit claim to authority on your end, and a rejection of what I've done regardless of why.

#2 is an actual attempt to engage in conversation about the question.


You claim that I'm misinterpreting you, but you're still doing it!

My position is thus: If one is attempting to make an improvement to an existing work, one should understand the reasons said work was originally done in the way that it was. This in no way implies that one should adhere to said reason, only that one should acknowledge its existance and make an effort to understand it.

This implies that YOU know the reasons that the decisions were made, and that I do not, or I do not understand them.

We don't know why the decision was made. We can't know why the decision was made. We can only make guesses and assumptions based on what else exists. If you would like an in-depth analysis and justification of the capitals of Civ4 and my mod, I can do that.

But that's not the direction you're coming from. You're coming from an antagonistic, YOU ARE WRONG, direction that brooks no compromise.



At least, that's the way I feel about the conversation. If you think you are simply trying to engage me, then try to understand why I think you're attacking, not engaging.

 

[Dryhad]

I keep interpreting it negatively because it comes across as an attack, and not a conversation-starter. Consider these conversational styles:


1. You are misinterpreting the desire of the designers, and doing so in a way which is wrong.

2. By making that decision, you seem be to acting in a way which is inconsistent with the rest of what you're doing.



#1 is a way to sound much stronger in an argument, but its strength lies upon an implicit claim to authority on your end, and a rejection of what I've done regardless of why.

#2 is an actual attempt to engage in conversation about the question.


You claim that I'm misinterpreting you, but you're still doing it!

Oh yes. You clearly know better than me what I'm saying. Or perhaps anyone who uses Firaxis's name is automatically being antagonistic. I tried to explain myself. You repeat the same tired question dodge that so plagues CivFanatics, that no modder should ever explain why they made their mod the way it is, and that anyone who wants to know is being anti-modding and ought to be banned. Shifting attention to strawmen who appeal to authority doesn't address anything I've said. You're just pretending my criticisms don't exist.

This implies that YOU know the reasons that the decisions were made, and that I do not, or I do not understand them.

It doesn't imply that I understand them, but I make no apologies for the fact that it implies you don't, as this is clearly true. You have made it painfully clear that not only do you have no intention of understanding Firaxis's motives, you refuse to acknowledge that Firaxis even has motives at all!

We don't know why the decision was made. We can't know why the decision was made. We can only make guesses and assumptions based on what else exists. If you would like an in-depth analysis and justification of the capitals of Civ4 and my mod, I can do that.

Then do so. Why make a huge deal of things I never said when you have no reason to cover up the actual point?

But that's not the direction you're coming from. You're coming from an antagonistic, YOU ARE WRONG, direction that brooks no compromise.

Once again you apply a different standard of evidence to knowing Firaxis's minds and to knowing my mind. Why? Perhaps it's best you flatly refuse to speculate about Firaxis. If your attempts to speculate about my thought processes are any indication, you would certainly get it wrong.

At least, that's the way I feel about the conversation. If you think you are simply trying to engage me, then try to understand why I think you're attacking, not engaging.

I'm trying my best, but if I were in your shoes I think I'd take my repeated insistance that I am not attacking as true! What is to be gained by getting caught up in this idiotic exchange when I clearly didn't intend such a meaning to come across?

 

[Arkaeyn]

Oh yes. You clearly know better than me what I'm saying. Or perhaps anyone who uses Firaxis's name is automatically being antagonistic. I tried to explain myself. You repeat the same tired question dodge that so plagues CivFanatics, that no modder should ever explain why they made their mod the way it is, and that anyone who wants to know is being anti-modding and ought to be banned. Shifting attention to strawmen who appeal to authority doesn't address anything I've said. You're just pretending my criticisms don't exist.

I'm not pretending your criticisms don't exist. I'm annoyed at your consistent appeal to an authority you don't understand.

Until you can get past claiming that you understand Firaxis better than me, or that I don't understand and that's clear to you (a distinction without a difference) then your arguments are arrogant and antagonistic.

Your current method comes across poorly, regardless of your denials that you're not being antagonistic. Say "I think that D.C. should be the capital because the capital makes most sense as the city with the Palace in it" and we can talk. No appeals to a higher knowledge or understanding.

 

[Arkaeyn]

Less arguing, more updates:

0.8
Massive Classical Europe changes! Byzantium and Celts updated, which caused big spillover to the Greece, Ottomans, Romans, and Carthaginians, as well as smaller changes to England, Persia, France, Spain, and the Barbarians cities.



Just have Maya, Khmer, Zulu, and Native Americans to do. Though I'm pondering not doing the Native Americans, because there's no real way to do it with any kind of consistency.

 

[Dryhad]

I'm not pretending your criticisms don't exist. I'm annoyed at your consistent appeal to an authority you don't understand.

I'm not appealing to any authority, your strawman versions of me are. I've tried to explain the difference between an appeal to authority ("Firaxis does this, so it's true") and an example that happens to use an authority ("Firaxis does this, which is good and it works") but you refuse to listen. Which would be fine if you'd accept my assurance that I intended no such appeal in lieu of an explanation of what I actually intended, but you won't even accept that! What is the reason for pursuing this dead end? All it's accomplishing is drawing attention away from any legitimate criticisms I might have in order to attack me for implications I never made.

Until you can get past claiming that you understand Firaxis better than me, or that I don't understand and that's clear to you (a distinction without a difference)

There is a difference. I don't believe you don't understand because your understanding is different to mine, I believe you don't understand because your "understanding" consists of a pointed refusal to speculate at all. If you make no attempt to understand, I can't see how you could possibly understand.

Your current method comes across poorly, regardless of your denials that you're not being antagonistic. Say "I think that D.C. should be the capital because the capital makes most sense as the city with the Palace in it" and we can talk.

I said that initially. You responded with (among other things) a list of Firaxis's cities that you believed supported your criteria. Now tell me how that is any less of an appeal to authority than anything I've said!

 

[Huayna Capac357]

I made a Mayan city list back for Civ III. I use the original Mayan names for cities when possible. You can use it here

Kaan
Mutal
B'aakal
Chichen Itza
Waka'
Saal
Yaxchilan
Piedras Negras
Bonampak
Siaan K'aan
Oxwitza'
Xpuhil
Sacul
Ucanal
El Mirador
Motul
Seibal
Maasal
Rio Azul
Cancuen
Aguateca
Lamanai
Becan
Rio Bec
Mayapan
Uxmal
Dzibilchaltun

I also made a Khmer city list:

Yasodharapura
Angkor Wat
Angkor Thom
Hariharalaya
Beng Melea
Koh Kor
Kompong Siray
Vat Bonon
Banteay Chmar
Maung Tam
Phnom Rung
Pireah Vihear
Sikoraphum
Vat Phu
Vat Nokor
Bati
Phnom Chisor
Phimai
Prasat Kamphaeng Yai
Roy Et
Phra Phang Sam Yod
Muang Sing

 

[Arkaeyn]

Excellent! Those are the two biggest roadblocks I have remaining. I think after that I just need to touch up the Ottomans, and decide on if I'm doing anything with "Native America."

 

[mechaerik]

If it were me, i would use tribes as the NA city list; like Iroqouis, Sioux, Cherokee, Apache, etc.

 

[Arkaeyn]

That's one way to make the best of a bad situation, but then you end up with "cities" that weren't actually cities, which is one of the things I was trying to avoid, such as by changing the "barbarian" cities away from that.

 

[Duneflower]

If I could inject another viewpoint into this argument, or perhaps even two...

I personally would argue that, in game terms, the "American (USA) Civilization" existed in partial form even before the Declaration of Independence was written and signed, which would make Philadelphia the logical capital and possibly first-city.

Though all told, I personally favour ordering cities by date of foundation; I also like to make the US capital be Jamestown (Virginia), that having been the first permanent colony in the original 13.

 

[Arkaeyn]

Date of founding makes sense to some extent, but doesn't always. For example, civilizations like the Byzantines or Babylonians mostly consist of cities founded by other civilizations.

Philly is also a decent choice, and is maybe easier to argue for than New York.