Deabte: Keep names or rename all captured citys.

[Sir John]

Should we rename all of our captured citys? I would say that we do that so that as many people as possible can have the possibility to name a city. We could keep the names on capitals we capture. Washington for America and etc.

What do you think of this?
Ill poll it when the discussion seems to be "out-dicussed"...

 

[Rik Meleet]

Cities we liberate are Fanatican cities and we'll rename them. Especially Capitals. No reminders of the terrible leaders who governed them prior to our glorious armies liberating them and doing them the favor of joining the Glorious Fanatican Empire !

 

[Plexus]

And I disagree, capitals should always be kept. And the protection of other cultures is what is best.

 

[Almightyjosh]

I'm with Plexus on this one, it is great to have areas in the nation that keep their cultural heritage! We can maybe re-name a few, but it would be better to keep all of them. Besides, we will be founding PLENTY of cities to name as we please, adn if we find a 'kept' name particularly offensive, we can change it down the track.

 

[Rik Meleet]

@ Plexus. I'm willing to adopt your opinion on Capitols, but not other cities.

Culture-giving buildings are destroyed when the city is taken, a sign that that cities culture has come to a stop. I think we should start making clear to the taken cities-citizens that the are Fanatican cities by starting to change their names.

@ Almightujosh. I'm not talking of razing or abandoning cities, I tend to keep them. But I don't see why we should remind them of their horryfic past as slaves of the Egyptian / Aztec / etc. empires, but instead grant them the honor of becoming Fanaticans and allowing them to have a Fanatican city-name.

It's better to change the city name and treat them well then to let them keep their city names and treat them bad.

 

[Sir John]

I agree with Rik and partially plex here.

I think we should rename ALL citys, ECSEPT the capitals.

 

[Siegmund]

I tend to retain names... I do like to preserve history, but, among other reasons, to minimize confusion. I've already had a bit of mental readjusting to do with "Cattlefish" and Funkytowne getting "real" names --- if it's a name we've been seeing on the map for a long time it will be firmly fixed in our mental maps of the world (and on all the old saves.)

 

[Cyc]

One of the perks of participating in the Demogames has always been naming a city. Not only for the people who are fortunate enough to be elected, but for those who aren't. It's just a nice thing to be able to do - leave your mark on the Demogame map. In DG2, many people were left out of the loop (in my opinion). Even the thrill of naming a second city is enticing enough to keep some involved until the end of the game. An item that everyone fills in when they register for the Demogame is what name they would give a city if they had the chance. Hehe, we're not going to get to plant enough Fanatican cities on this map to cover all our citizens unless we raze our enemies. I believe we should be renaming captured cities.

 

[Rik Meleet]

In addition to Cyc's remark: If the DG3 setup is also "to be nice to newbies" and "adopt a newbie" and "senior / experienced players are not always elected over a promissing newbie in polls" are 2 of the examples invented for DG3, Cyc's view on city naming fits into this. Create more influence and thus game-thrill for newbies.

On a personal note I chose Gorina to be my first hometown because of my remark in this link on the location of Gorina. I wasn't the only one, I might not have been the first, but I felt the city location was chosen because I suggested it. Whether this is true is not important, what is important that it changed the game for me. I made my first impact on the game and felt good over that. A newbie changed the future.

To all you experienced DG1 and DG2 players: Do not underestimate the importance of a sense of influence on a newbie if the game gets a personal 'triumph' or 'acknowledgement'. Naming as many captured or created cities will give more newbies a chance to personalise the game and creates closer ties to the game for them.

 

[ScorpiusAP]

I also think that we should rename ALL cities we capture, although I'd be perfectly happy if we ledt enem capitols.

 

[Ehecatl Atzin]

I'm against renaming just for renamings sake. The name that could, eventually, replace the original name should constitute something worth having on the map, I'm personally tired of having silly little names that dot the map with personal jokes and ego massages, but then again, that's just me. I agree with Plexus and Almightyjosh, original names should be kept unless the above statement presents itself, we also have landmarks to name, nobody seems to care much about those...
...and just to stir the pot a little, I hope Bagdad doesn't get it's name changed now that's it was conquered

EA