[freeciv-data] Re: Cities in rulesets
[Top] [All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 08:37:01AM -0700, Thanasis Kinias wrote:
> scripsit Miguel Farah:
> > Mark Metson [30/04/2002 12:39] dijo/said:
> > >I would think that the nation that *built* the city ought to be the one it
> > >is listed with, and the name it was *built* with should be the name given
> > >it when it is built. The fact that historically a city changed its name is
> > So Buenos Aires would be spanish? Rio De Janeiro would be portuguese?
> That would be appropriate. For that matter, all the Spanish-named
> cities of the former republics of California and Texas ought to be
> Spanish also.
Any conflict resolution rule based on history is much harder to follow
than the "modern nations = cities in present state" rule. This rule
Take Mexico City. The Spanish invaders burnt the Aztec capital down
and built the Mexican one on top of it. Is this a name change? Who
can tell us whether the city existed before the Aztecs arrived?
Take Rome. Historians do not agree on when it was settled or by whom
(see e.g. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/6946/romulus.html).
But most likely it was settled by the kingdom of Alba. So according
to your rule, it wouldn't be a Roman city.
Most nations would lose their capitals for the same reason: the capital
is older than the nation it is the capital of. London and Paris are
Celtic or older; Berlin may be a Wendic settlement; Athens may have been
settled by the Mycenaeans, who can be considered Greek, but it may also
be older, and it certainly wasn't capital of Greece until 2500 years later.
I suppose you can make the rule that a city must be part of the first
historic nation present in the ruleset to which it once belonged.
This makes sense in a ruleset with only historic nations. But in a
general ruleset it causes less controversy to stick to the present day
status as much as possible. You might still get controversy over names,
but at least the assignment of cities will be unambiguous. (You know
which recently formed state I'm thinking of.)
> Think of it in terms of a Freeciv game:
> The Spanish player starts building cities on a new continent, including
> one called Ciudad de los Angeles. He screws up and gets a rebellion.
> Computer calls the rebel nation `Mexicans'. Now the `Americans' (a
> rebel nation broken off from the English) use a combination of diplomats
> and riflemen to conquer Ciudad de los Angeles. They then shorten the
> name so it doesn't cover up so much terrain on the client display.
> Isn't that pretty much what happened?
Yes, but it would still be nice to play with a Californian nation.
And it would be silly to play with a Spanish nation that contains
Buenos Aires and Los Angeles, while most cities in Spain are excluded.