1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

CityNameManager+ Release

Discussion in 'Rhye's and Fall - Dawn of Civilization' started by LacsiraxAriscal, Oct 30, 2019.

  1. LacsiraxAriscal

    LacsiraxAriscal Below Settler

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Messages:
    379
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    York and Manchester (UK)
    Apologies for my absence, been a busy week-and-a-bit. I'll get to everything before Leo's big reply and then come to the that and the stuff after it in a bit!

    Bizarrely me too, certainly saw a lot of GoT locations when I was out in Northern Ireland. I see Italica's amphitheatre is the dragon pit of all places, pretty iconic!

    Afraid this isn't really possible (as with Edo). The reason being that you can't have two cities with the same name simultaneously. The York/Toronto code is a good example; England's city list actually has them found Toronto, it never actually uses the York>Toronto change. That's only actually used in the 1700AD scenario, where the English York is of course not founded and will likely never be - it would take a foreign power invading, razing cities, and then England resettling the area, which is incredibly unlikely. On the other hand, Edo and Qart-Hadasht are both founded in the vast majority of 3000BC games. But then again I'm still not sure how the Edo/Edo thing is got around in the Nigeria mod, unless there's a way to preset cities of the same name even when two of the same name can't be founded.

    You're definitely right about the Vatican City thing. I'm trying to think of a way I could figure it so it could only appear in the modern era, but without just removing the option for an independent Rome to exist in that era altogether I think it's unlikely.

    As someone who doesn't really know anything about Nahuatl orthography beyond what I've accumulated through doing this whole thing, I'll defer to the majority on the diacritics!

    Re: Kaminaljuyu, yeah the issue here was not finding a suitable Mayan city that could go on that tile, but also in general leaning towards having the most commonly founded Maya cities defer to more historically important Spanish cities - eg while Tucume does not correspond directly to Guayaquil, I think that it's more worth seeing that city appear in the majority of 3000BC/600AD games than, say, Chiclayo. At the end of the day this is something I'm not too concerned about given the whole of DoC and thus this mod will soon be moving to a different map, but it would be great to chat further about Mayan cities as in general I know a lot less about Mesoamerica than, say, Asian and African history... speaking of which...

    Thanks for that note, I'll look into that and probably patch it in!

    I have a future plans file on my PC that includes an American/Canadian split... but not before a modern Persian split and an Indian/Tamil split, which are much bigger priorities at the moment.
     
    Crimean Lord and The 13th Earl like this.
  2. Leoreth

    Leoreth 心の怪盗団 Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    33,472
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Leblanc
    Oh it is? Didn't even know that. I just learned that the Alcazar was used as the Dornish water gardens location. And yeah I had Northern Ireland and Malta now. I wonder where I'll run into it next.
     
  3. merijn_v1

    merijn_v1 Black Belt

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    5,641
    Location:
    The city of the original vlaai
    When reading this post, I thought you were wrong, because from my tests with Nigeria it seems it is possible to have multiple cities with the same name. I looked into the code and it turns out it is partially true. The city.rename() function, used by the CNM module to (re)name cities, only prevents 2 cities of the same civ to have the same name. Cities with different owners can have the same name. That is why it did work in my Nigeria modmod.

    In DoC we have our own custom city naming mechanics, basically overriding the names of the citylist. The CNM module controls the name for all cities in the game, apart from manual renaming. I don't think there is any need for the double name restriction anymore. From a coding perspective this restriction can easily be removed. We could also still keep this restriction and apply it only for manual renaming or when there is no name in the CNM and a name from the citylist is chosen.
     
    1SDAN likes this.
  4. LacsiraxAriscal

    LacsiraxAriscal Below Settler

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Messages:
    379
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    York and Manchester (UK)
    That all sounds good. There are a few instances of hypernames being used in relocations in my mod, especially in some of the more, let's say, experimental city spots - like Taiwan, which was something of a nightmare to research but whose results I'm pretty happy with.

    My case for relocations being a bit more de rigeur remains pretty much the same: throughout history, examples of cities being 'razed' and thus swept out of existence permanently isn't nearly as common as a city simply paling away compared to other nearby cities. Indeed a lot of cities that were actually razed to the ground - Carthage by the Romans, Samarkand and other cities by the Mongols - bounced back very quickly. On the other hand, cities like Babylon stopped being inhabited when river paths no longer irrigated the city and desertification in Mesopotamia increased. Of course there are different approaches to how far you can go - for example, I have York become Leeds when England reaches the Industrial Revolution, which is an accurate reflection of York's dwindling importance compared to the cities that were closer to the mines in that era. But of course York is very much still inhabited - I live here!

    Currently, the only times a city will be renamed are: when it flips to (or is conquered by) a new civ, when a new era is reached, when a civ becomes Communist (almost all Russia, a few Soviet sphere of control cities (like Ulaanbaatar), one or two Chinese cities and a slightly different transliteration of Korea's core cities) and finally, and least used currently, when a city adopts a new religion - currently only used for the notorious Buddhapest and also the city of Gaya/Bodh Gaya, which can't currently be founded in the game as long as Patna exists, which I'd guess is every single game the human isn't playing as India. I think an interface announcement would be great, of course.

    This is implying a full relocation to a different tile, I take it? I'd support this in some cases, as with pesky old Babylon. I was thinking Persia could relocate it to Tisfun/Ctesiphon under some circumstances, which feeds perfectly into Baghdad. Of course this becomes thornier with the Carthage example, where Tunis occupies the same tile.

    That's fair, although currently the vast majority of relocations do come from conquests and collapses - there are a handful from era, as with the British Industrial Revolution example before, but they're far less frequent. It maybe just happens more than you'd expect - India does change hands a lot, after all! India in particular is a really difficult one because with very few exceptions (really Delhi, Patna and Karachi if you consider it to be a continuation of Debal) there aren't really any cities from classical or even medieval India that are still significant in the modern era. Seeing Mumbai and Kolkata founded that early in particular makes very little sense, especially when cities like Sopara and Tamralipta were among the most important ports in the world in their era. I do like the idea of cities being able to pick from a select list of cities for certain tiles - there were times when it was agonising to leave certain cities out.

    One thing I will say is that while it looks very chaotic in an AI game, where I've set the whole world to be visible and am watching every single little detail, this won't be the case for the human player. For a start you have a far more limited view of the world - as far as I can tell, most people who play tend to see their own empire and its immediate surroundings and not waste hammers on exploring too much unless its to colonise. So naturally you'll see less of the AI's name change machinations - if you're playing as Portugal, you might see Kandy or Anuradhapura or Polonnaruwa or Galle when you reach Sri Lanka, but you're not going to see it cycle through all of them before you take it (and establish Colombo, naturally). Secondly, if you're the human player... well, you'll hopefully not be haemorrhaging cities to independents and other civs on a regular basis, so again it shouldn't be too confusing! Unless you lose a city, you'll only ever get the era-related renames, which are mostly hypernames. Again, could still be confusing the first time if you're not expecting, say, Oslo to change its name to Christiania for a few centuries before reverting, but for the most part I think it's manageable.

    Very much in favour of point 6 and tentatively in favour of point 5, though I'm aware it may create a few oddities - as an example, we might see a Tibetan rendering of Constantinople in a run where the Romans and Byzantines never touched Byzantion.

    That's interesting, I'll have to do a little experimenting! Explains why Carthage wouldn't found two Qart-Hadashts. Only real problem with Edo is that both variants might take different rename from the same language - English, for example, as you'd want them to rename the African one Benin City (and keep the Japanese one as Edo). It very well could still be possible though, I'll have a dive into that when I get the chance. Fortunately I think it only really applies to Edo and a few Spanish cities, though there again you'd expect Spain to found both Santiago de Compostela and Santiago de Chile.
     
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2019
    The 13th Earl and Crimean Lord like this.
  5. Leoreth

    Leoreth 心の怪盗団 Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    33,472
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Leblanc
    I agree, from the examples I can think of what is more likely to cause a razed city to be displaced if either an occupier or the previous inhabitants deliberately decide to rebuild at a different location, which then eclipses the previous center for political or defensive reasons, part of which is why I think "relocation" encapsulates this well as a concept, although it covers more than "city A has been conquered and city B has been established as replacement".

    Yes, if we want no Leeds in the middle ages but also some games where Leeds can appear at all, then we need a relocation like this. And I think I agree with this goal. The question is how we communicate that to the user, and if we give human players an option. At this point I just mostly want to bring it to everyone's attention that there is a significant difference between relocations and mere hypernames when it comes to player experience.

    Speaking of, are there more candidates for religion based city renaming? How about changing from transcribed Nahuatl names to proper Spanish names from example, instead of Nahuatl -> Spanish directly when Spain conquers an Aztec city?

    No, when I say relocation I always mean keeping the ingame city on the same tile, but using the name of another city that occupies the same tile but is a distinctly separate city (although it may be incorporated into the other at a later date, as with Carthage/Tunis). I don't think it's possible to move the city to a completely different tile, there are too many exceptions and edge cases to account for.


    Yeah, that's sort of my line of argument too. Relocations are not functionally different from hypernames because in each case the player is confronted with a new name for a city on the same tile without a proper announcement of the new name (unlike renaming on conquest), but "allowing" relocations as well simply increases the number of times where this is encountered by the player, both for own and foreign cities. It's not as much of a concern to me if it only happens once per cities, but some of the examples (like in India, as you mention) the screenshot descriptions seem to suggest some cities relocate multiple times during the game. I acknowledge that it's less of a problem when it is happening for the AI, which is why I mentioned different treatment for human and AI cities (or at least a player choice), but I also don't think it's not a problem at all if it is happening excessively for even the AI.

    I share your goal that we want to see classical and medieval and modern cities in places like India, and the no relocations policy would not accomplish that goal given the region's history (and we're either stuck with classical cities forever or anachronistic modern cities like now). If it's true that change of owner is the principal trigger then that's fine for me. After all, even in the game we have India, the Mughals, English (or other European) colonies, and back to India as the intended chain of owners, with Tamils and the occasional collapse (and therefore change to independents) as possible triggers already, which should provide ample opportunity to cycle names throughout the game. But on the other hand if there's let's say a human controlled India that never collapses or loses cities it would be kind of cool if the classical cities remain in place because the historical events that led to their decline were averted.

    I sense from some of your screenshots that the desire is to showcase all the names the prominent city on a tile had throughout history, and it's cool to exhibit as many possible names as possible, but I would prefer a system that is less rigid and more responsive to what is happening in the game, but leaves the possibilties open for multiple names to be selected so they are eventually all seen over multiple games. You already mentioned that some names can only be seen under very specific circumstances and I think it's kind of cool that there are some rarely seen names that you can be excited about encountering. Definitely makes the exploration part of the game more interesting than just finding the same old pre-ordained cities every game.

    Yeah, if I do this it will be implemented so the game is aware of the renaming "order", e.g. Byzantion -> Konstantinoupolis, and it will only check back into the past but never into the "future" for renamings that have never happened. So if you don't have a name for Konstantinoupolis you can fall back on Byzantion but not vice versa. Also, this could allow us to tack some translations that are kind of irrespective of the current hypername (i.e. the "Tsargrad" chain - although that may be even better as its own hypername?) to Byzantion and then it doesn't need to be repeated for the Constantinople and Istanbul alternatives.

    It also explains why Rhye chose to be wordy with all the Alexandrias. Another one I thought about was York, i.e. York (England) and York (Ontario), modern Toronto. It's not as unlikely to happen as I thought (which you could argue for Edo).

    It's true that changing the DLL so that it accepts identical city names is possible, but the question is also if that is a good idea. Suddenly, notification and interface information isn't as meaningful anymore because you don't know which city the game is referring to anymore. For some, we have real world disambiguative names like in Spanish, and I could even imagine writing code that only adds the long form if the name is otherwise ambiguous. But for other names the best I can think of is programmatically adding the region name to the city if the name is a duplicate, e.g. York (Ontario) and York (Britain). I don't think we ever have the same name twice in the same region. I am using the larger set of regions from the big map here, by the way.

    I also discovered another problem with the current code. If two different cities have an identical name (even if not in the same language), but different identifiers (as they should), the game cannot really deal with it. For example, the Phoenician name for Malaga in Spain is Malaka, but that is also some translation of Bandar Melaka (didn't check which language). So it's impossible for the code to determine which city it actually is when encountering "Malaka", leading to mistranslation in one of these cases. And the code isn't easy to change because we only get the name string, not the full city object, so it's not even possible to go via tile or region instead. That's another argument why my planned transition to unique identifiers for cities on one single city name map is a good idea.
     
    The 13th Earl likes this.
  6. ozqar

    ozqar King

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Messages:
    684
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Just a quick thought on multiple cities sharing a name, we can do a couple of things
    - Add "new" (in the right language) for situations when it's the same civ founding both cities, I think that would work for Qart Hadasht?
    - Add "of (country)", such as "Santiago de Cuba", "Santiago de Guatemala", "Santiago de Chile" (not to mention "Santiago de Compostela" and "Santiago de los Caballeros" in the Dominican Republic, but those would still have to be written out). With some other names, such as La Paz (there's La Paz in Bolivia and La Paz in Baja (Mexico)), this would be adding to the names, but I think that reading "La Paz de Bolivia" and "La Paz de México" isn't so horrible. Perhaps the "of (country)" addition should only pop up when a 2nd city with the same name is founded?

    Finally, this website has a list of many cities with homonymous names. Those spaniards were really out of creativity, as you can see there... there are 29 cities around the world named "San Jose"!
     
    The 13th Earl likes this.
  7. merijn_v1

    merijn_v1 Black Belt

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    5,641
    Location:
    The city of the original vlaai
    So one would be name Qart Hadasht and the other one Qart Qart Hadasht? :lol:
     
  8. Leoreth

    Leoreth 心の怪盗団 Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    33,472
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Leblanc
    Yeah Spanish Catholics really went all out for their saints, I think only Alexander is ahead of them.

    To summarise my idea:
    - if only one of the duplicate cities is in your empire, it keeps the simple name: Edo, York, Santiago
    - if duplicate city names are in your empire, both change to a longer unique name
    - we can keep a special list of longer name for some cities, e.g. Santiago de Compostela. We can also put kind of made up distinctions in there, e.g. La Paz de Bolivia like above.
    - fallback longer name is <city name> (<region name>), e.g. Edo (Japan) and Edo (West Africa)
    - another rule could be that core cities get to keep their simple name, so it's Edo and Edo (West Africa) for Japan.
     
    Crimean Lord and The 13th Earl like this.
  9. ozqar

    ozqar King

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Messages:
    684
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Whaaaat?!? I didn't know that! Well, but it isn't so weird then, because in Latin the Iberian one is called Cartago Nova.

    Maybe "Edo, Japan" and "Edo, Benin"? The parenthesis look weird. Also, I think it would be better (more politically correct) if country names (Benin) would be used instead of region names (West Africa), even for independent-owned cities.
     
    Publicola and The 13th Earl like this.
  10. Leoreth

    Leoreth 心の怪盗団 Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    33,472
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Leblanc
    It's the fallback option. No way we can compile lists of country names for every tile in the world.
     
    hnrysml likes this.
  11. Imp. Knoedel

    Imp. Knoedel Stalin and Starlight, Stalling a Stallion

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2011
    Messages:
    8,631
    Location:
    The cooler Germany
    That's just your Anti-Monaco bias talking.
     
  12. Leoreth

    Leoreth 心の怪盗団 Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    33,472
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Leblanc
    Yeah Monaco sucks
     
    cmakk1012, Publicola, JHLee and 2 others like this.
  13. Leoreth

    Leoreth 心の怪盗団 Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    33,472
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Leblanc
    Okay so here's another thing I have been thinking about and that I want to talk about. I plan to introduce a concept (maybe along with the 1.17 rewrites) of periods. Every civilisation can be in different periods that is a distinct property which you can retrieve with something like pEgypt.getPeriod(). Some civs may be in the same "period" for their entire existence but others may have different periods. What a period represents can vary for civ to civ but for instance for China, the different dynasties can be different periods, or for Holy Roman it can be used to represent the transition between the Holy Roman Empire and Austria etc. I chose "period" as a name for this concept because it is broad enough to encapsulate whatever specific use a civ can get from the concept.

    This isn't only relevant for city names, but also dynamic civ names, leader selection, and other things like capital relocation or changed core and stability areas. Right now, in all these parts of the code the same checks are repeated multiple times, and there is potential for accidental discrepancies that would lead to some inconsistent combinations (I am pretty sure this already happens). With this instead, the period would be determined in one part of the code and the all the others could use it to figure out civ names, city names etc. It will also supercede the "reborn" property that is currently used to (badly) implement changed core areas and the like. Here the problem is that there are only two options for a civ (before and after core area change) instead of multiple changes, if necessary. Not to mention that the rebirth mechanic is supposed to be phased out soon as well.
     
  14. LacsiraxAriscal

    LacsiraxAriscal Below Settler

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Messages:
    379
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    York and Manchester (UK)
    Yes! There's plenty really, I just decided to avoid including them in the first release because it would take a while to suss out. I mean I didn't mention this before, but of course Egypt has it already implemented when they are reborn with Islam - if they're not reborn with Islam they stick to their old names, which is why I've been trying to keep them Coptic, though I think I might have to split off Coptic into a whole new language atm.

    Some other examples that come to mind are Indonesian cities becoming Islamic representing the shift from old Indonesian kingdoms to Majapahit, potentially using Christianity to un-Norse the Viking city names (though you're arguably playing a little fast and loose with the timeline there) or Islam replacing Zoroastrianism being the catalyst for Arabic replacing ancient Persian (well, Farsi rather than Arabic when I get round to implementing it). I'm sure there are a few one off examples that I'm not thinking of right now too.

    Ah, I reread what you wrote before and realised I'd misread it. I thought you meant add the city ruins improvement on to the original tile, when you actually said add it as a new building in the city. Gotcha.

    This is largely the case already - eg if you found Shurparaka and never lose it it will never become Mumbai. Really it's easier to see what's not obeying those rules, as it'll only be where I added a city that relocates by era. In the cases where this happens, it's usually because the city that eclipsed was it explicitly founded under native Indian rule, not Mughal or colonial, so it felt strange to have it change name only when conquered.

    Let me have a look through now to see if I can see all the Indian cities that would relocate even if you never conceded them, and cut a few down in the process... Not including Sri Lanka, which is admittedly a bit haywire at the moment, but to be honest I've been using that, Taiwan and Armenia as experiments for a more hands-on approach, so they'll almost definitely be stripped back at some point.

    Spoiler :
    In the Medi era, Chandrapura to Govapuri (which are very very nearby each other, both in the small state of Goa), and Indraprastha to Dilli (disputed if they're the same tile, obviously already present in DoC).

    In the Renaissance there are a fair few more: Ahichchhatra to Bareli (that one could probably go, tbf - it already defaults to it when lost to independents, so I think I'll excise that one from the eras list), Chittorgarh to Udaipur (reflects a very definitive shifting of the regional capital by Udai Singh II, who gave his name to the city, which led to it replacing Chittorgarh as the local centre), Mainaguri to Koch Bihar (not much to that one except one city dwindling and another becoming prominent), Pravapura to Nagpur (as with Ahichchhatra, I think worth getting rid off this one as almost all foreign powers will replace it with Nagpur - even if that's not necessarily accurate as to when one city became less important than the other), Sirpur to Rayapur/Raipur (reflecting how Sirpur was likely destroyed in an earthquake and thereafter replaced by Raipur as the main city of the region), Talakadi to Bengaluru (could restrict this to being conquered again, but it's annoying when it was definitively founded by the Vijayanagara Empire), Tamralipta to Karnasuvarna (could be lost if we like the idea of holding on to Tamralipta for all of history, as ahistorical as it is of course, though it is currently the only way Karnasuvarna can appear on the map), Vengipuram to Bezavada/Vijayawada (this one can probably go though).

    In Industrial we get Debal to Kolachi (I'm fairly confident that one should stay, and depending on where you think Debal was it's essentially a rename anyway), Ratnapura/Ratanpur to Bilaspur (the power centre shifted under Maratha rule, so not really sure how you'd reflect that without an era-defined change), Srirangapatna to Mahisuru (it feels odd to not have India be able to have Mysore of their own accord to me, but given when independent it can change to Mysore anyway I think I'll cut this for now), and Vizhinjam to Thiruvananthapuram (don't really want to change this one, to be honest).

    In the modern era we just get Govapuri to Panaji and Katak to Bhubaneswara (both simply reflecting new state capitals... though actually if you never lose any cities you'll forever keep Tosali, not Katak, so discount that one). All in all, it might seem like a lot, but once I've cut the ones I mentioned there aren't really that many at all given how big India is - you'd probably only have one of these at most affecting you in a given game. Note that there are a few that look like they *should* be relocations but are actually just radically new names for existing cities... Deogarh to Uch, Saketa to Ayodhya, Kashtpur to Multan to give just three examples.


    Yeah I agree with this. I really tried to let the element of chance and dynamicism infect the renames as much as I can with the toolset I had, but I'm simply not a good enough coder to come up with all new mechanics of my own. Some of the things that work best in the current version are the two distinct independent languages allowing certain tiles to drift into different directions, as well as the propensity for certain flips to completely alter a tile's history (most often seen with colonial powers - in general if you fight off colonial powers you'll never be besmirched with their cities... at least in the Old World, as the New World America spawns still have the awkwardness of being set to the languages of OTL).

    Interesting you say that, as I've not seen England found York once in my recent run of tests... Plymouth, Newcastle and Edinburgh all round, occasionally veering into Bristol instead of Plymouth. And I think the general player strat is to go for Southampton (well, Portsmouth in my version) and Newcastle. Not quite as rigid as China, mind.

    Oh this is really useful, thanks for sharing this! I've been considering redoing the non-map "reserve" city lists to better reflect common colonial names rather than them just consisting of cities in their core that don't happen to be in their city map, but I haven't really found a good resource for it yet.

    *whistles and quietly sweeps the Monaco identifier under the rug*

    I love this! In general this will really give a new lease of life to certain civ's city lists that loses the rigidness of arbitrary eras.

    Anyway I've added a new version in the post reflecting all the changes I've mentioned here in the past couple of days and indeed this post. Note though that Egypt's a bit borked. I'm still working on that one.
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2019
  15. Leoreth

    Leoreth 心の怪盗団 Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    33,472
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Leblanc
    Oh great, all of them are cool.

    Alright, I think I agree with most of what you write here. This gives me a lot to take into account when it comes to improving/extending the code.

    Speaking of, have you included Winchester? It was the capital of England for some time before the Norman conquest after all.

    Just kidding, I would actually love to see it as a rare city name for its tile. I just hate basically everything about the city in real life.
     
  16. Leoreth

    Leoreth 心の怪盗団 Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    33,472
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Leblanc
    So another thing I had been thinking about are the independent languages. It's a cool idea for more diversity, but also it seems like just the next best thing in place of a dedicated mechanic.

    It seems the main purpose of it is to introduce some randomness into which "native" city name is chosen for a city (and by native I mean a language of the local population that is not necessarily the language of an actual civ in the game). So this could instead be solved by randomly choosing a name from a list of possible names.

    Secondly, what do you think about making all of these local languages actual languages instead? Too much overhead? I have been thinking after some of your commentary that this might be useful because you could have code to select the language based on region, era, religion etc. to avoid languages cropping up too early for example. I'm not sure if it's worth it though.
     
    The 13th Earl and Crimean Lord like this.
  17. LacsiraxAriscal

    LacsiraxAriscal Below Settler

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Messages:
    379
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    York and Manchester (UK)
    Yes, Winchester is in England's city map and relocates to as most of England's city list does in the Industrial era, to Southampton.

    When it comes to individual languages... in a perfect world, great, but a lot of the languages are literally used for one city and no others (take Milanese for instance). So maybe it's worth taking it on a case by case basis, with some unique languages like Tatar (which would only appear in places that Mongols or Turks had controlled at some point?) or Egyptian Coptic (limited to independent or Egyptian cities when Christian). It's possibly getting a little too precious with it when the default languages themselves already can defy the timeline - after all, there's no reason French or Spanish as we know it would exist in a world where Carthage conquered Europe.

    After a busy few weeks I might have some time to work on the big map version now. Is there an Excel file or an album of screenshots of the big map anywhere?
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2019
    Crimean Lord and The 13th Earl like this.
  18. Leoreth

    Leoreth 心の怪盗団 Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    33,472
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Leblanc
    No, but actually I had been thinking about making some screenshots. Sometimes I wanna think about the new map and it bothers me that it requires launching up the mod.
     
    Crimean Lord and Steb like this.
  19. LacsiraxAriscal

    LacsiraxAriscal Below Settler

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Messages:
    379
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    York and Manchester (UK)
    I've begun to translate CNM+ to the big map, starting by just mapping out the cities from my current version onto the spreadsheet version of big map. You can see my progress here! Feel free to leave comments on there, although I have only just started (and might well break for Christmas now). It's definitely proving easier to place cities on this map, so kudos to everyone who worked on it. First slight oddity I've noticed is Egypt's capital Waset/Luxor is a coastal city on this map, at least if you place cities according to their location in relation to the Nile (and you don't have much of a choice in Egypt).
     
    ozqar, The 13th Earl and cmakk1012 like this.

Share This Page