*Official* DISCUSSION: Renaming units & cities

[General_W]

A thread was just begun today in the UN forums about renaming units

Read the thread here:

I think our official team response should be something like what I wrote below, But I don't want to speak for the team without some time for input and discussion first.

Besides - maybe Yabbor should be the one to post for us anyway?

Here's my take on a response:

1 - What do the teams think about being allowed to rename a city as often as the team that owns the city likes ??

We agree with this being allowed as long as there is no intent to deceive. This would, in most cases, prevent cities from having their names changed once rivals know of their location. (Exceptions would include major game events that would warrant an obvious/non-deceptive name change – ie the recent capture of a city) Name calling of any sort should be prohibited.

2 - What do the teams think about under which conditions a unit can be renamed? (standard PBEM good conduct is to keep units identifyable for unit-type).

Units should retain their normal name – but you can add anything else a team would like. (ie "Worker – OurSlave1" or "Warrior – Barbarian Killer Dude")

3a - Does a renamed city or unit have to have a "renamed"-identifier in its name ?

Only if this is necessary to avoid confusing another team

3b - If so, must that identifier display the previous name ?

Again – only if necessary.

 

[Meleager]

I think that too be safe a renamed city could have the name of the old city in brackets for 3 turns or so.... Like: "Meleagerville (Athens)" then after 3 turns get rid of the "(Athens)"

 

[fe3333au]

I say NO to renaming cities ... or half of the Looking Glass is for nought !!!

Damn it ... big problem is how to say this without referencing our F-11 analysis ... I suspect not every team (if any) have a full analysis thang a'happenin

Aside ... just quietly I think that the "Teams" mentioned for beginning to discuss renaming issues ... may very well only be us ...

My reasoning is this, No response so far is really written from a team persepective ...

ie. the thread response have No "We think ... blah blah blah" only operatic answers ... lots of me .. me .. me's and I .. I .. I's

I don't think Provo does much consultation ... he responded too fast ... 28 minutes fast in fact

1. No, we should only be able to rename cities PRIOR to having met a Civ, as we rely on making screenies for making planning, and this will just make planning, communication and so on harder. However, unseen cities or in particular before a Civ is met, is fair game, and everyone could do as they please.

How do you know a civilization has not 'seen' another's cities prior to 'official' meeting ... eg. coastal seen by ship which has then moved out of view ... ditto with horse ... added to that what if a goody pops map ... or maps have been traded

3.A Not needed to have a renamed label, as long as city name changes take place prior to a civilization is met. Units are not to be renamed after first name given, unless this is notified to other teams.

See above ...

Therefore we should vote for absolutely NO change once named !!!

OR

Additional suggestion:

We could have each team send a record of renames to the admins, and if any team has a question about another team's rename they can send the question to the admins, who can sort it out. This way neither the renaming team nor the team who sees the rename needs to reveal knowledge the other teams might not have.

Agreed ... therefore the administrator would have to correcxt the post3 to post5 of Looking Glass ... this may very well be a better option ...


Anyway be very very carefull with how the questions are answered ... ONLY as a last resort should F-11 be mentioned ... and then only in a most general of terms.

EDIT - I think the only fair thing for the administrators to do (and this of course is strictly a personal comment) ... would be keeping track of name changes and correcting any information in the Posts3-5 of Looking Glass ... they should definitely not inform other teams of F-11 ... if a team has not discovered this or choose to ignore data then so be it ...

 

[peter grimes]

I would go one step further: No renaming from this point forward. And to keep things fair, maybe it should be extended to Military Units as well?

I don't think F-11 should be mentioned even in oblique, general terms. If a point needs to be brougth up in the UN about that, try to explain things in terms of the coastal or horseman peek. I'd hate to lose any intelligence advantage we have.

Again, Fe - outstanding analysis of the actors and their motivations.... I tip my hat.

 

[General_W]

Again, Fe - outstanding analysis of the actors and their motivations.... I tip my hat.

I agree. Great analysis.

However – I still think cities ought to be able to be re-named under certain circumstances. When we start capturing cities I want to be able to give them great Greek names! Not leave them with their ridiculous barbarian names.
What if the "NewName (oldname)" change was allowed – but the (oldname) part has to remain permanently.

Example: "Istanbul (Constantinople)"

Finally – if we hope to put the brakes on the way the discussion is currently going in the UN forum – someone ought to say something soon.

Yabbor?

 

[fe3333au]

Renaming after capture ... yes ... even if incorporating original name

> we capture Amsterdam and rename X-Amsterdam or Amsterdam Red

or

If we want a total rename Amsterdam -> Kryll Bacon ... there should be an official UN notification

We need to be able to keep Looking Glass information upto date

>>>>>>>>>

I would name our warriors now as well ... and do it next turn and being the Prez you don't have to consult ...

Both warriors have met Barbs
Western Warriors - who killed the Ligurians
Northern Warriors - poped Assyrians

The Suren have sacked our city Black Hole

So what about that theme for the two we have ...

West = 'Warrior - Ligurian Reapers'
north = 'Warrior - Assyrian Bane'
* Must keep Warrior in name

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

[peter grimes]

I wasn't thinking of captured cities. General W is right: Each civ should have the right to rename a conquered city, and I think his solution (parenthetical) is perfect.

And I too think that Ybbor should be the one and only person to post in the UN on this topic... hopefully really really soon. Before they all think too much!

 

[fe3333au]

OK ... just tested now ... the total spaces in city name text bar is

And the magic text length for a city issss ... 23

 

[General_W]

I have PMed Yabbor to make sure he is aware of what we are asking of him.
Hopefully we'll hear from him soon!

 

[fe3333au]

Just realised praise Rik ... if not already thought of ... all teams are now considering re-naming units

Fantsitic and Funtastic ... every unique name makes it easier to track military and I'm sure ... Meleet willing, that there will be at least one team to number their units ...

 

[peter grimes]

So..... naturally.... I propose no names on military units if the enemy can gain intelligence from it. At least, no names that the enemy might be able to use to their advantage in planning or anything.

Am I even making sense?

Early in the game I don't think it'll matter. But if we're in a long war or something, we might want to consider nonaming.

 

[fe3333au]

But for the fun ... cheering our boys of the XXX onwards to victory or the sad telling of the Last Great Stand of the YYY who against overwhelming odds did fall to the last against wave after bloody wave of ....

And then every military unit can have its own history of combat ...

Don't know ... just a thought

 

[peter grimes]

I'm all in favor... let's just not be stupid about giving too much info. Are we able to 'unname' a unit? I guess that's considered a rename.

 

[General_W]

I really love the idea of each military unit having it's own history.

Units could have abstract (non-info-revealing) names.
But these names could be tied to a detailed history in a special thread in our forums.

Maybe each Minister of Defense could be responsible for maintaining the list.
Or this could be the President's job (as I currently keep track of everything for my Turn updates – this wouldn't be hard for me to do.)

The rules also require us to give a combat update to any teams we attack. So we might as well get in the habit of recording what our units kill!

Should I create a unit history thread to get this started?
I don't see any point in delaying. We already have units with a history!

 

[fe3333au]

I agree and once you have named them start a history of combat and scalps taken and campaigne medals ... and to totally get carried away if they get redlined that would deserve an award surely

PS. I think we have started with the role play through this type of thing ... I'm sure that a Grafitti Scrawler could come up with a patriotic and stirring tale of deed and daring do

 

[fe3333au]

Just thought of another thing ... and I think that it is fair in pbem and therefore should be fair in this as well ...

>it concerns reporting combat

Example Scenario -
Our Warrior - XXX attacks and kills rival Spearman REX III and gets promoted ...

I would report thusly :

MIA (3/3) -> (1/3) -> (2/4) promoted
vs
Rival Spear - REX III (4/4) -> RIP

It indicates that combat has occured and not necessarily which UNIT ... important as we may have a new line of units that have yet to be shown to the world ... and a dead unit shouldn't necessarily report back home with too many (only basic IMHO) details ...

Our internal reports would have all details of course

Another combat ... our Horse - XXX attacked swordman ... and with the extra movement either move or fortify

MIA (4/4) -> (1/4)
vs
Rival Sword Y (3/3) -> (2/3) -> (3/4) promoted

or we are attacked ... our Horse - XXX attacked by swordman and forced to retreat

Rival Sword JJJ (3/3) -> (3/3)
vs
MIA (4/4) -> (1/4) Retreat

>> What I'm saying is that the combat results required by the turn report can be with the bare minimum from us ...

Also hidden nationality and invisible units do NOT get reported in combat ...

although the last team is advantaged as they see the Barbs move ... this is not that much of a biggy

 

[General_W]

In making tactical dispositions, the highest pitch you can attain is to conceal them.
- Sun Tzu

Or in modern terms: The less information we give the enemy... the better!

 

[fe3333au]

Exactly Mr. Prez ... the examples above are the bare minimum

 

[ybbor]

appologies for not following this thread, I don't have much of an opinion.

What is it you want me to say? (I'm representing you guys after all)

 

[General_W]

How about this...

1 - What do the teams think about being allowed to rename a city as often as the team that owns the city likes ??

We would argue that renaming cities would cause too much confusion and difficulty for other teams trying to make plans - or even just trying discus what they can see. Thus giving an unfair advantage to teams the frequently rename (even non-maliciously) their cities.
However, when a city has been conquered – the conquering forces should be allowed to rename the city – as long as the old city name is left in brackets.
Example. City "Constantinople" is conquered by the Turks. City name then becomes "Istanbul (Constantinople)"

Of course, any name calling of any sort should be prohibited in the re-naming of cities.

2 - What do the teams think about under which conditions a unit can be renamed? (standard PBEM good conduct is to keep units identifyable for unit-type).

Units should retain their normal name – but you can add anything else a team would like. (ie "Worker – OurSlave1" or "Warrior – CapitalDefence3")
Units should NOT be allowed to change their names once named.

3a - Does a renamed city or unit have to have a "renamed"-identifier in its name ?

Yes - in brackets.

3b - If so, must that identifier display the previous name ?

Yes - see above.


Of course - other citizens may have input - and you should feel free to edit this language as you see fit!
Thanks Ybbor!