ALERT: India Changing Name of Cities

[Gatekeeper]

Everyone:

I was scanning the wires at work earlier tonight and came upon a brief on the World wire about how India is changing the name of some of its major cities. In order to keep authenticity, perhaps some of you would like to change the appropriate city names in your Civ II support folder.

Apparently this is an effort by parties in India to reassert the old names of these cities, rather than the ones used under colonialism. The cities in question include:

1. Calcutta = Kolkata
2. Madras = Chennai
3. Bombay = Mumbai (many Indians still refer to the city by "Bombay" though)

The following is the full text of the article in question:

quote: NEW DELHI, India (AP) — Calcutta reverted to its indigenous name of "Kolkata" on Saturday, joining a growing number of Indian cities trying to shrug off their colonial legacy by bringing back their old monikers. The capital of India's West Bengal state will now be known by the Bengali version of its name, the federal government announced in a statement. "The government of India, after careful consideration, accepted the proposal of the State Government of West Bengal to change the name of the city of Calcutta to Kolkata," the statement read. New Delhi deliberated on the request for a year and a half before agreeing to the change. All government departments and agencies will have to change their names to comply with the directive, made after more than 50 years of independence from Great Britain. Bombay, India's financial capital, was renamed Mumbai more than four years ago by the Hindu nationalist Shiv Sena government. Most Indians, though, still call it Bombay. Many other cities followed its example. Madras in southern India was renamed Chennai, and Trivandrum was changed to Thiruvananthapuram. For Calcutta, the change may not be so noticeable. Bengali speakers have always called it Kolkata, preferring the local pronunciation.

CYBERAmazon

[Wiglaf]

I'll miss Bombay Thanks for the info, interesting stuff.

[DarkCloud]

What is civ III going to do under this new crisis! Stay with the old or go with the new (unknown) names.

[ruoxiaohai]

Well, I guess it's a good opportunity to say that the city names for the Chinese aren't up to modern spelling. It's also very interesting how the Civilization II team were so good at finding out the only female leader China ever had, yet they fail to spell Sun Zi's (Sun Tze's) correctly.
Well, I guess it's unfair to say this type of stuff, I mean I would not expect myself to be able to spell the Russian city names correctly.
Food for thought, then.

[Wiglaf]

I think they'll go with the old ones in civ3. It would be too much trouble because you'd probably end up with a newly named city in early BC.

[shamrock]

quote: Originally posted by ruoxiaohai on 12-31-2000 10:28 AM It's also very interesting how the Civilization II team were so good at finding out the only female leader China ever had, yet they fail to spell Sun Zi's (Sun Tze's) correctly.

Huh? In my version (MGE), it says Sun Tzu's War Academy, which is correct.

[ruoxiaohai]

Sorry, I made that look wrong. Mao Zedong is the CORRECT spelling, Sun Zi's is the CORRECT spelling.
Come to think of it, Beijing is not a very good place to have the Chinese capital. The Mongols made Beijing the capital of China during their conquest (Yuan dynasty).
Yes, and while I'm at it, I may as well redesign the whole game. Ok, I think I'd better stop here.

[jcarkey]

Why not call Beijing Peking? Or any of the other Englishinized names.

[Dis]

because civ2 designers would have pissed off china thus causing premptive nuclear strike against western U.S. targets creating ww3. This is why they went with Beijing .

[Wiglaf]

quote: causing premptive nuclear strike against western U.S. targets

Why the west? You must know they have far greater range than that

[Hawkman]

I think we should do them one better and change New York to Noo Yawk, etc.

[Theoderik]

Almost none of the "capitals" (ie. first city the AI builds) have "correct" names.

Some tribes are just strange. Like having the "Americans" build D.C. in 4000 BC. The Americans are of course a product of European colonization, and as such shouldn't even exist until at least after 1600 AD.

"The Vikings" are another strange "tribe", as "vikings" is a name for the Scandianavians that was only used for about 200 years. And "Trondheim" should not be their capital. There are lots of towns that are older and more important than Trondheim.

To be correct, modern "French", "Spanish" and "English" are all mixes of various tribes that settled their lands. For France they were Gauls (Celts), Romans and germanic Franks. For Spain they were Iberians, Celts, Basques, Romans, Goths and Moors. And for Britain Celts, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings and Normans.

But then again, Normans were simply a mixture between French and Vikings, and the Viking culture was closely related to the Anglo-Saxon one.

A perfect simulation of history would be interesting, but hardly fun to play.

T

[Theoderik]

Just thought about one thing; why is such large and important tribes as the "Arabs", the (Ottoman) "Turks" or the Hebrews (/Jews/Israelites) missing from Civ2?

[Bereta_Eder]

Well, at least they got Athens right

[Wiglaf]

quote: Originally posted by Theoderik on 01-04-2001 08:39 AM Just thought about one thing; why is such large and important tribes as the "Arabs", the (Ottoman) "Turks" or the Hebrews (/Jews/Israelites) missing from Civ2?

To me it really doesn't matter, the names don't affect the civs anyway.

[Bereta_Eder]

Theoderik, I remember reading in the manual of civ 1 (I still must have it around somewhere) that the turks were replaced the last minute with the germans. They even had a nice supplement describing the german tribe. It had to do with the limitation of the number of civs I think (#7).

Like any of this matters of course

[Seeker]

Also, the Russki city names have the ' left off them, as in Arkangelsk', Petropavlosk', ect.

[Smokey tha nuke man]

two things.

1.WHO CARES ABOUT THE CITY NAMES. my capital city is whater keys get pushed when i let my cat walk across the keyboard . same fo the rest of the cities.
2. i think the tribes should have differences, like have roman legions 5/2/2 and chinese musketeers come earlier, and americans get first nukes, and germans get 13 attack tanks, if someone could do stuff like this with brth of the federation (very smiliar ti civ, only nicer combat) then they can doit with civ. anyone agree?

[Theoderik]

Smokes, I for one would not feel very involved in a game of Civ, if the Cities were named "fsfkf", "vgsdføglka" and "A98sdfjk".

When I play Civ, I can get quite involved in the game, and my Civ kinda gets a life of its own. (Well, at least if my Civ is winning, and I can rest on my laurels, If I'm strugglling to survive it's a whole different picture). So I usually rename all of my cities to something I like. And since I'm a history-buff, it's usually a historic name.

To me, it doesn't make sence to found "New York" around 1500BC, when there's no (old) "York". New York was of course named by the English after York, and as such the name "New York" would only be given by the Civ that already has "York" in my thinking.

It is perfectly legal to get involved in the game, and discuss trivial issues. Just because you don't care what you name your cities doesn't mean noone is allowed to care.

Theo

[Theoderik]

quote: Originally posted by Smokey tha nuke man on 01-06-2001 04:28 PM 2. i think the tribes should have differences, like have roman legions 5/2/2 and chinese musketeers come earlier, and americans get first nukes, and germans get 13 attack tanks, if someone could do stuff like this with brth of the federation (very smiliar ti civ, only nicer combat) then they can doit with civ. anyone agree?

Well, I get what you mean. Like "Legions" is something unique to the Romans, and "Phalanx" unique to the Greeks. But in a standard Civ2 game all civs are supposed to be equal from the start, and therefor limiting phalanxes to the Greeks would limit the other Civs. So I don't think it should be like that. However, in a scenario it would be totally ok. The same goes with Roman Legions being stronger than Persian Legions.

As for nukes, Americans should NOT automatically get them first. In reality there was a race, because the US feared that the Germans were developing nukes. Civ can model a race to develop nukes, and that is pretty realistic, as it really was a race between Germany, U.S. and the Soviet.

When would the Germans get their 13 tanks? 4000BC? When they discover automobile? When they switch Governament to something like Despotism or Fundamentalism? I don't think that would work, other than as an event in a WWII scenario.

[Wiglaf]

Civ does not try to relive or simulate history. The general idea behind the game is to change it. If the designers wanted a more true to life game they would've implemented some of da nuke man's ideas. Same goes with the New York/York problem. If you start to do that, and leave the legions and such to every civ, then you have a half relive/half change history game going on, and that won't cut it.

[Bereta_Eder]

I second that SMACed.

It's always funny to read Washington founded in 4000BC and Zulus discover Nuclear Power or Greeks arrive in Alpha Centauri (although this can happen with the European Space Agency. emm, maybe not

On the other hand, CIV is really the best «game of the world». I mean which other game encompasses so much of humanity's struggles throughout history, its achievements and cruelties, its aspirations and inherent faults(I am rambling here, somebody stop me). That goes to say that Civ is always a good motive to make references to historical milestones and facts or the ways of the modern world.

You can't do that playing Pac man.

Anyway, I don't really like the idea of giving a specific Civ a specific advantage. Just the general attitude of the leader (expansionist - civilizaed etc) is enough for me. I think that doing that would limit the game and its flexibility. IMHO you should get whatever civ you want and have the exact same opportunities of leading it to glory or destroying it.
Of course this just my opinion.
[This message has been edited by paiktis22 (edited January 08, 2001).]

[Smokey tha nuke man]

I meant 13attack for german tanks. i thought tanks had a telve attack. anyway, just add one attack to german tanks (whatever the hell the number is). ok, if not the whole game, how about a "history scenario" (grat for test of time 2, if they're going to make it.) it would be intrsting given the different tribes different unit stats and disadvantages and stuff. now, does that solve your complaints?

[Wiglaf]

quote: Originally posted by Smokey tha nuke man on 01-10-2001 05:02 PM I meant 13attack for german tanks. i thought tanks had a telve attack. anyway, just add one attack to german tanks (whatever the hell the number is). ok, if not the whole game, how about a "history scenario" (grat for test of time 2, if they're going to make it.) it would be intrsting given the different tribes different unit stats and disadvantages and stuff. now, does that solve your complaints?

It would solve complaints if an option were given: "Modified Civ Attributes On/Off."

[Smokey tha nuke man]

that would work, but i'd rather have a scenario pack filled with historicaly based scenarios, complete with tribe limitations. but now that you mention it, the option is a nice idea, i'd just like "american revolution", "civil war", "gulf war" etc. scenarios

[Wiglaf]

quote: Originally posted by Smokey tha nuke man on 01-11-2001 07:19 PM that would work, but i'd rather have a scenario pack filled with historicaly based scenarios, complete with tribe limitations. but now that you mention it, the option is a nice idea, i'd just like "american revolution", "civil war", "gulf war" etc. scenarios

Maybe you should email the civ3 team. We'd go down in history

[Anodyne]

Now, if you don't like the civilizations or cities, change them. I think that adding the Americans was a mistake, they, indeed, won their indepencence from England. So, as having Americans 4000B.C is extremely unrealistic, I DELETED the whole civilization. I also deleted Sioux, though they were a big civilization, they never built cities or advanced far in science. They were unrealistic also. So were the Zulus, which I deleted. I also deleted the Spanish.
AND I replaced them with:
Incas
Mayans
Assyrians
Arabs
If you wish, I can post the list of cities and leaders of the civilizations I created. Perhaps next I'll delete the French or Germans and add Turks. I could also change the French to the Gauls, also... well, we'll see.
And about the vikings:
Yes, they actually weren't a 'whole' civilization, but many minor tribes who were trading with the other civilizations of Europe. Such is the thing with Arabs, too. They were never a whole civilization before Islam. But, I think it still adds more realism to the game to have the Vikings and Arabs in. Just a little change in history, a strong leader here or there, and *pouf* the tribes unite.
btw, there's also a mistake in Babylonian cities. Ashur and Nineveh weren't Babylonian, but Assyrian, and Assur was the old capital of Assyria.

------------------
Eating people is fun.

[Smokey tha nuke man]

how did you deletae tribes and add new ones. i would like to add the sumarians (first true civillization in history). i'd like to delete the babylonians.

[SCDARS]

quote: Originally posted by Smokey tha nuke man on 01-12-2001 05:08 PM how did you deletae tribes and add new ones. i would like to add the sumarians (first true civillization in history). i'd like to delete the babylonians.

It's quite simple: open rules.txt, and look for the Babylonians in the section following @LEADERS to replace any civ you want. (Note: adding civs is impossible, just replacing)