Rhye's and Fall RAND: Preview #2

I suggest that the French list needs to have more African colonial cities.... Libreville, Fort-Lamy, Dakar, Gorée. And especially more Algerian cities; don't forget that the French considered Algeria to be an integral part of metropolitan France -- Algiers, Oran, Philippeville, Constantine, Cherchell, Boné.
 
Here's an attempt at the Inca lists:

1
Qusqu
Wantar Chawin (oldest settlement in America, should be renamed as Chavín de Huántar if conquered by Spain))
Ariqipaya
Quitu
In RFC files Cajamarca (A Spanish name. Kashamarka in Quechua)
Huamanga
Willkapampa (should be renamed to Vilcabamba if conquered by Spain)
Machu-Pikchu
Ullantaytanpu
Andahuailas
In RFC files Huaraz (Definitely a Spanish name, Waras in Quechua)
Tomebamba
Kuélap

2
Chan-Chan
Nazca
Tiyawanaku (used to be on Titicaca, but as close as what the original Incan knew as a sea)
Tucume
Pachacamaq
Punu (on Titicaca, but as close as what the original Incan knew as a sea, should be renamed as Puno if conquered by Spain)
 
I suggest that the French list needs to have more African colonial cities.... Libreville, Fort-Lamy, Dakar, Gorée. And especially more Algerian cities; don't forget that the French considered Algeria to be an integral part of metropolitan France -- Algiers, Oran, Philippeville, Constantine, Cherchell, Boné.

I agree with you for sub-saharian African cities, as long as they're not on the Mali lists. On the other hand, for Maghreb cities, they should be on Carthage lists, or on Arabian lists rather than the French lists.
 
I agree with you for sub-saharian African cities, as long as they're not on the Mali lists. On the other hand, for Maghreb cities, they should be on Carthage lists, or on Arabian lists rather than the French lists.

I disagree -- the Carthaginians never had cities named Philippeville, Constantine, or Oran, and it would be ahistorical to include those in the Carthage list. Some of these -- such as Philippeville -- were French-specific names anyway (the city was renamed Skikda after the French left in '62.)
 
jkp1187, if the French founded these cities then go ahead and add them to the list. If they conquered these cities then they should be on the founding civ's list.
 
I'll ask my labmate to know what they think of it ;)

What about Nara? It was, after all, a capital of Japan
Also, may we consider Sapporo as "non continental" ?

I completely missed Nara, but it would be a good inclusion. I left Hokkaido as noncontinental (you see Sapporo, Hakodate and Kushiro on the noncontinental lists) because it wasn't settled by ethnic Japanese until far later than the rest of the major islands. Hakodate was the only Japanese settlement on the island for centuries before settlement began in earnest in the 1800s.

I could probably do better than that list if I made a serious attempt at it; that was a half-hour sitting.
 
I disagree -- the Carthaginians never had cities named Philippeville, Constantine, or Oran, and it would be ahistorical to include those in the Carthage list. Some of these -- such as Philippeville -- were French-specific names anyway (the city was renamed Skikda after the French left in '62.)

Actually Constantine was called Sarim Batim under Carthaginian rule, then named after the Roman emperor Constantin, by the Romans, then renamed Qusantina by the Arabs. The French call it Constantine, but it's only one city, one can't have a game with 3 separate cities on the same map having 3 different names, but representing only one city in history.

Likewise, Oran (Wahran in Arabic), Has been Arab, Spanish and also Turkish for a long time.

Philippeville on the other hand was built on the ruins of Roman Rusicada, and it looks like it wasn't a significant city under Carthaginian or Arab rule, so it may be a good candidate for the French list.
 
jkp1187, if the French founded these cities then go ahead and add them to the list. If they conquered these cities then they should be on the founding civ's list.

Fair point. The French definitely founded/organized most of the cities on the sub-Saharan list (Libreville, Dakar, Fort-Lamy, etc.) And they did found Philippeville and Boné. Some of the other Algerian cities are a bit harder to say....Algiers was really founded as "Ikosim" under the Phoenicians. Constantine was founded by the Byzantines. All else being equal, "Algiers" probably belongs on the Arab list, but it just doesn't seem right to include a few French Algerian cities but leave Algiers off the French list.

I suggest that Mers El Kébir go on the French list, even though it wasn't a French "original city" because of its importance as a French Navy base -- it was also the location of the British attack on the French fleet during WW2 (to keep it out of German hands). The French also used it as a location for underground nuclear testing later on.

(EDIT: I was typing this off and on while eating lunch, so I cross-posted with dionysos2048, who made similar points.)
 
Are there are going to be independents in RFC RAND? if they are in (I guess they are in because of civil wars and such) than Jerusalem and other cities should be independent and not on any civ's list.
 
Intersting point Lokolus, however, I think independents should only be created only from other civs collapsing. I don't think we really need to have independent cities spawn randomly as barbarian cities already fill this role to a certain extent. It just seems a little redundant to me to have a map covered with independent cities and barbarian cities when you spawn.
 
What would you think about that list then?

Spoiler :

1
Paris
Orléans
Lyon
Reims
Tours
Toulouse
Angers
Rennes
Avignon
Besançon


2
Bordeaux
Marseille
Nantes
Montpelier
Brest
La Rochelle
Calais
Toulon
Nice
Le Havre

3
Québec
Trois-Rivières
Montréal
Bâton-Rouge
Fort Détroit
Fort Toulouse
Fort Niagara
Fort Dauphin
Ste-Marie
Fort-Lamy

4
Saint-Louis-du-Sénégal
Nouvelle Orléans
Cayenne
Saint-Denis
Fort-de-France
Port-au-Prince
Libreville
Philippeville
Abidjan
Nouméa



Notes:
For 1 and 2, with the exception of Le Havre, all of these cities were founded before France was France, so I classified they by order of being part of France rather than by order of foundation, with the exceptions of Lyon and Marseille that should be lower on the lists as they were part of France later than other cities, but are so important they could have been Capital cities.
I also included more African cities in list 3 and 4.
Let the debate go on!
 
As we're talking of a random (i.e. fictional) map, not an historical one, I think we should focus on having the names peculiar to a civilization, rather than trying to re-create the actual geography.
Just remember that the expansion of a civilization shall be on a different land and with different neighbours than the historical situation.
So what's the problem with having Costantinopolis on one side of the map and Istanbul on the other, when none of them is on the focal point of the communications between Europe and Asia?
To me it's only important to have the list of the names belonging to a civilization, in order to keep the flavour of that civilization. Surely we can't have twice the same name; but in my opinion we can have both New York (American!) and Nieuw Amsterdam (Dutch, of course).
 
I like it (though I still think Mers El Kébir should be on list #4).

You know what else I forgot? Cayenne, the capital of French Guiana (also an integral department of France today).

Similarly, Bangui (list 3), Brazzaville (list 4), Djibouti (list 4), and Conakry (list 4).

All of them were founded by the French and/or during the French colonial era in Africa. Those French sure were busy, no?
 
I think Jerusalem should be in the Arab list.:run:


Ehhh... Really debatable. The sort of debate that ends in flame wars. :(

Perhaps best to give it to the Babylonians or Romans?
 
To me it's only important to have the list of the names belonging to a civilization, in order to keep the flavour of that civilization. Surely we can't have twice the same name; but in my opinion we can have both New York (American!) and Nieuw Amsterdam (Dutch, of course).

This is a good point. For that matter, I don't see anything wrong with two civs having a city with an identical name. For instance: let Algiers be on both the French #4 list and Arab #2 list. Whichever civs founds it first "wins" the name -- the other civ won't be able to found it, because the game won't allow two cities with identical names to be founded. Indeed, this might be the best solution to Jerusalem, too. It can be on the list for Arabs, Romans, Babylonians, heck, even the British.....
 
I think Jerusalem should be in the Arab list.:run:

As Jerusalem was under control of many civs that are in the game (Babylon, Egypt, Persia, Greece, Rome, Byzantion, Arabia, Crusaders-Germany or something, Turkey and Britain.) I think it should be independent and change it's name when conquered.
 
The American St. Louis should be on the French list for sure.

I like it (though I still think Mers El Kébir should be on list #4).

You know what else I forgot? Cayenne, the capital of French Guiana (also an integral department of France today).

Similarly, Bangui (list 3), Brazzaville (list 4), Djibouti (list 4), and Conakry (list 4).

All of them were founded by the French and/or during the French colonial era in Africa. Those French sure were busy, no?

So assuming we keep the lists to 10 names? Which ones should be removed?
I think St Louis is ok if there's a consensus with the Americans it should be in the French list. I disagree about Mers El Kébir because although it's been important military, it doesn't "feel" French to me. Djibouti is ok too, although it hasn't been French for long, same for Bangui (the fact it's in list 3 is a plus, though) and Conakry. The question is which cities should be removed, then?
 
Back
Top Bottom