Major issues with civilization city-lists and independent power names

[untitledjuan]

I'm making this thread to discuss issues related to the city lists of the civilizations in-game and the independent powers.

First, why did they removed Munich as a city for the Bavarian independent people? I know it might have been related to München being included on the Prussian city list, which made no sense at all. Wouldn't it have been better to remove München from the Prussian list and leave Munich and the Bavarians as an independent power? After all, the Kingdom of Bavaria was never part of Prussia and joined Germany in 1871, well into what the game considers to be the "Modern Era".

Secondly, why does the city list for Great Britain only include English cities? They should include Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish cities at least. They seem to just have copied and slightly modified the English city list back from Civilization 6. It's Great Britain we are playing as, not England, it's rather offensive/ignorant to some to assume that Great Britain or the UK is only England.

Thirdly, why does Spain's city list include Havana, Manila and Orán, but not other Spanish Colonial cities. Why include three random colonial cities in between many cities that today belong to Spain? If they wanted to include some Spanish colonial/Hispanic American representation, they should have gone with the capitals of the colonial viceroyalties (Lima, Bogotá, Buenos Aires) and some major ports such as Havana, Manila, Cartagena de Indias or Veracruz.

Finally, some historical cities that repeat themselves among civilizations (but with a different name/spelling) should just automatically rename themselves after a change in civilization/era. For example, when founding Londinium as Rome it then changes into Lundres if you change into the Normans and then the same city would change into London when switching to the British.

Other examples of this changes that could happen (with cities from existing civilization city-lists) are the following:

- Gadir (Carthaginian) > Cádiz (Spanish)
- Cades (Roman) > Cádiz (Spanish)
- Malake (Carthaginian) > Málaga (Spanish)
- Mainákē (Greek) > Málaga (Spanish)
- Londinium (Roman) > Lundres (Norman) > London (British)
- Norwiche (Norman) > Norwich (British)
- Eboracum (Roman) > Everwyk (Norman) > York (British)
- Lutetia (Roman) > Paris (French)
- Massilia (Roman) > Marseille (Franch)
- Catana (Roman) > Catinenze (Norman)
- Širājiš (Persian) > Shirāz (Abbasid)
- Pataliputra (Mauryan) > Patna (Mughal)
- Varanasi (Mauryan) > Banaras (Mughal)
- Jì (Han) > Beiping (Ming) > Beijing (Qing)
. Kaem (Norman) > Caen (French)

 

[MutilationWave]

I'm making this thread to discuss issues related to the city lists of the civilizations in-game and the independent powers.

First, why did they removed Munich as a city for the Bavarian independent people? I know it might have been related to München being included on the Prussian city list, which made no sense at all. Wouldn't it have been better to remove München from the Prussian list and leave Munich and the Bavarians as an independent power? After all, the Kingdom of Bavaria was never part of Prussia and joined Germany in 1871, well into what the game considers to be the "Modern Era".

Secondly, why does the city list for Great Britain only include English cities? They should include Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish cities at least. They seem to just have copied and slightly modified the English city list back from Civilization 6. It's Great Britain we are playing as, not England, it's rather offensive/ignorant to some to assume that Great Britain or the UK is only England.

Thirdly, why does Spain's city list include Havana, Manila and Orán, but not other Spanish Colonial cities. Why include three random colonial cities in between many cities that today belong to Spain? If they wanted to include some Spanish colonial/Hispanic American representation, they should have gone with the capitals of the colonial viceroyalties (Lima, Bogotá, Buenos Aires) and some major ports such as Havana, Manila, Cartagena de Indias or Veracruz.

Finally, some historical cities that repeat themselves among civilizations (but with a different name/spelling) should just automatically rename themselves after a change in civilization/era. For example, when founding Londinium as Rome it then changes into Lundres if you change into the Normans and then the same city would change into London when switching to the British.

Other examples of this changes that could happen (with cities from existing civilization city-lists) are the following:

- Gadir (Carthaginian) > Cádiz (Spanish)
- Cades (Roman) > Cádiz (Spanish)
- Malake (Carthaginian) > Málaga (Spanish)
- Mainákē (Greek) > Málaga (Spanish)
- Londinium (Roman) > Lundres (Norman) > London (British)
- Norwiche (Norman) > Norwich (British)
- Eboracum (Roman) > Everwyk (Norman) > York (British)
- Lutetia (Roman) > Paris (French)
- Massilia (Roman) > Marseille (Franch)
- Catana (Roman) > Catinenze (Norman)
- Širājiš (Persian) > Shirāz (Abbasid)
- Pataliputra (Mauryan) > Patna (Mughal)
- Varanasi (Mauryan) > Banaras (Mughal)
- Jì (Han) > Beiping (Ming) > Beijing (Qing)
. Kaem (Norman) > Caen (French)

I agree with you in general but I had one thought. Maybe some city names are missing because they're meant to be used in upcoming civilizations?

 

[Uberfrog]

I agree with you in general but I had one thought. Maybe some city names are missing because they're meant to be used in upcoming civilizations?

We actually already have literal duplicate city names in the game already: Nottingham is in both the Norman and British city lists, Luoyang in the Han and Ming, Guangzhou in the Ming and Qing,

 

[CliffCo]

I agree with you in general but I had one thought. Maybe some city names are missing because they're meant to be used in upcoming civilizations?

That's highly possible but look at how many American cities/towns have the same name as those in England in real life even though the were founded centuries later, unless the devs don't want to duplicate any names.

 

[Navelgazer]

We actually already have literal duplicate city names in the game already: Nottingham is in both the Norman and British city lists, Luoyang in the Han and Ming, Guangzhou in the Ming and Qing,

My latest game had Neapolis and Scythian Neapolis right next to each other, which amused me.

 

[Lord Lakely]

The best way to handle City Lists is by giving every city on the list a tag. Every tag can only be founded once. Once the tag for 'London' has been settled by the Romans as Londinium, the Normans should no longer be able to settle 'Lundres', nor the British 'London'.

However, should one transition from Romans to Normans, then the Roman city of 'Londinium' becomes the Norman city of 'Lundres' by default, as both names share the same tag. Ditto if the same player then transitions into Great Britain.

To make sure there's no overlap in terms of capital cities, give every Civ a secondary capital only they can settle. For Great Britain, this could be Windsor if 'London' already exists and is owned by another player. For the Ottomans, this could be Bursa, if Istanbul (tag: 'Constantinople') has already been taken. For Prussia, this would be 'Königsberg' if Berlin has already been taken, etc.

Same principle applies to independents. If you roll Bavaria into your game and 'München' already exists (due to a HRE/German exploration civ), have a back-up tag that isn't on the German/Prussian list, like Salzburg or Passau.

It shouldn't be too difficult to program that in. It would save a lot of duplication hassle.

EDIT: let's just tag our Firaxis liaison just so that she's aware and can pass it on to the team: @FXS_Sar - small quality of life request, would be much appreciated if this was added in, whenever the team finds the time for it. Thank you. ^_^

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

Re: the changing language on already-founded cities. I love the idea, but here's where my brain goes:

Londinium - Lundres - London. Great, works.
Londinium - [Shawnee] - [Mughal]. Ok I know how Shawnee pronunciation goes I might be able to do th-
Londinium x [all exploration civs] x [all modern civs] = melting brain

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'm not necessarily bothered by the idea that cities should change names. I mean that would be hassle considering many European cities today would come from Roman cities.

But I do agree with the idea that the name of the cities should reflect the name of the civilization. Great Britain should include cities from Scotland and Wales, and Prussia should add cities from Prussia, not just current German cities.

 

[Krikkit1]

Re: the changing language on already-founded cities. I love the idea, but here's where my brain goes:

Londinium - Lundres - London. Great, works.
Londinium - [Shawnee] - [Mughal]. Ok I know how Shawnee pronunciation goes I might be able to do th-
Londinium x [all exploration civs] x [all modern civs] = melting brain

I think it’s Only if the next civ has a “matching” name on it’s city list. (so there’s no duplicates.
So if Rome founds Londinium, and then goes to Spain, while Persia goes to Norman…the new Norman capital won’t be Lundres to avoid duplicates.
So if Londinium is in ancient…it is the only settlement that is allowed to be Lundres in Age2

Otherwise already founded cities either stay the same, or can become the next on the city list.

Hopefully this renaming feature could be a narrative event.

 

[j51]

SeelingCat’s Rosetta is already a wonderful mod that tags the cities to not repeat and changes them to the appropriate spelling for each civ’s language and they did before for Civ 6 and maybe 5. (I can’t remember.) There’s also a cool mod that creates an event to rename cities for the current owner when they grow out of towns. (I can’t remember that mod or its maker though.) So all this stuff is definitely doable in game.

 

[SeelingCat]

Thanks for the mention, J51!

Rosetta has been a lot of work (even after building off the Civ6 version), so I can see why Firaxis wouldn't want to open up that can of worms. That being said - I'd happily grovel for a way to rename AI cities, as it currently does not appear to be possible. However, it's already really helped with my own immersion for the age changes.

 

[evonannoredars]

A very rudimentary way to implement a system for updating city names (before making something more complex) could just be a button with the city-renaming option to pick a new name from the new civ's city list.

Wrt duplicate city names/evolving names, I don't mind if there's both a Londinium and London in my game, at least if they're in a different empire. It's a very minor detail I probably wouldn't even notice. Having all cities evolve seems more hassle than it's worth, that's something the player could do themselves anyway. That being said, it would be very cool to have narrative events for renaming cities which do have these name evolutions between civs.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Re: the changing language on already-founded cities. I love the idea, but here's where my brain goes:

Londinium - Lundres - London. Great, works.
Londinium - [Shawnee] - [Mughal]. Ok I know how Shawnee pronunciation goes I might be able to do th-
Londinium x [all exploration civs] x [all modern civs] = melting brain

As per my post above yours, simply code all the names in the city lists with tags. Similar to how every airport in the world has a unique letter code.

If any of already settled settlements have a name tag that match with one found on the city list of the next civ you play, the name changes automatically when you swap civs.
if there is no matching tag, you keep the city name as is.

No need to turn London suddenly into 'Londre' when you're becoming the French. That inconvenience is better left for modders. (ie: SeelingCat)

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

My latest game had Neapolis and Scythian Neapolis right next to each other, which amused me.

To be fair, 'Neapolis' simply meant 'New City' and was a very common name for Greek colonies wherever they founded them.

'Scythian Neapolis', like many of the 'cities' in the Scythian territories, was a Greek colony taken over by the Scythians - like Dioscurias, Nymphaion, Theodosia, etc.

There were also sites named 'Neapolis' in North Africa, Thrace, Palestine, (modern) Turkeyi and most famously in Italy, where Neapolis became Naples under the Romans.

 

[Navelgazer]

To be fair, 'Neapolis' simply meant 'New City' and was a very common name for Greek colonies wherever they founded them.

'Scythian Neapolis', like many of the 'cities' in the Scythian territories, was a Greek colony taken over by the Scythians - like Dioscurias, Nymphaion, Theodosia, etc.

There were also sites named 'Neapolis' in North Africa, Thrace, Palestine, (modern) Turkeyi and most famously in Italy, where Neapolis became Naples under the Romans.

Oh to be sure, and this wasn't immersion-breaking or anything. It just made me chuckle that Neapolis was right here, owned by Augustus, my closest ally, and then Scythian Neapolis popped up right next to it sending wave after wave of marauders after both of us.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Oh to be sure, and this wasn't immersion-breaking or anything. It just made me chuckle that Neapolis was right here, owned by Augustus, my closest ally, and then Scythian Neapolis popped up right next to it sending wave after wave of marauders after both of us.

One of my minor beefs with the game as released is that an IP labeled "Scythian Neapolis" doesn't send waves of Horse Archers against you. I consider it a major missed opportunity for the game . . .

 

[moondog385]

I heartily agree with @Lord Lakely ’s idea.

As for Britain, I suspect they left the Scottish and Irish names off because those civs may be coming later (or they just wanted to be safe even if they don’t have the entire game’s lifespan planned out).

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

This might just be me, but if they’re going to include a Great Britain civ, that civ should include British not just English city names, regardless of any later plans the devs may have.

They can just change the lists later to avoid confusion. Please, no more of the England = Britain stuff we got in Civ VI.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

As for Britain, I suspect they left the Scottish and Irish names off because those civs may be coming later (or they just wanted to be safe even if they don’t have the entire game’s lifespan planned out).

Maybe. Still, it's weird that they went with the name Great Britain if that would be the case.

Of course, I'd be fine if Scotland sat out this iteration and we get Ireland instead. Ireland is a separate island from Great Britain so there would be no confusion, in my opinion.

 

[CliffCo]

Maybe. Still, it's weird that they went with the name Great Britain if that would be the case.

Of course, I'd be fine if Scotland sat out this iteration and we get Ireland instead. Ireland is a separate island from Great Britain so there would be no confusion, in my opinion.

Has Ireland been in a Civ game, other than as a modded leader?