[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Is the city names patch good?

["Mike Jing" <miky40@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Takacs Gabor <tg330@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I write about a patch added to Freeciv on Dec 6.
>
> The description of the patch (from changes.txt):
>
> > Add the ability to structure the city names of nations based
> > on the (surrounding) terrain. For this city_name_suggestion now
> > take the position of the city.
>
> I think this patch has more disadvantages than advantages:
> (I apologize to the author :-)
>
> 1. In an "avarage" Freeciv game I think there are a lot more
>    coastal cities than non coastal cities.
>    And there are only few river cities.
>    In the real world there are a lot of river cities, and a
>    lot of non-coastal cities too.
As a side note, I have always thought the default rivers value is too low.

>    The effect:
>    Big & important & historical cities have great chance not to
>    appear in the game. (If they are river or non-coastal cities)
>    I tried the patch with the English and after playing for a long
>    time the server hasn't offered Manchester as a city name yet!
>
> 2. I like when the capital of a nation is their real capital.
>    It makes the game more interesting.
>
>    Why is it good that the capital of the English is mostly Blackpool?
>    Or if there is a chance that the American capital will be Riverside?
Well, some players deliberately hide their capital through obscure city 
naming, e.g. duplicate city names.  I very much prefer the way it is in 
Civ3, where it is impossible to hide your capital at all as it is clearly 
visible on the map.  Also, civil war should be dropped as losing your 
capital is enough of a blow in itself.  Also, if you lose your captical to 
an opponent, it should be automatcally relocated to one of your remaining 
cities (Isn't someone working on a patch to do just that?).
> 3. The patch makes the development of the nation rulesets more difficult.
>    For example the developer has to decide what to rank as a river.
>    And if the ranking of 2 developers is is different that will appear
>    as confusion and chaos for the Freeciv players.
Agreed.  I don't think the extra work is worth it.

> 4. Currently more then half of the nations (especially small and fantasy
>    countries) doesn't use the new city naming method. Updating the
>    rulesets of these nations is particulary difficult.
>
> I think the old city naming method (sorting the cities by economical and
> historical importance) is simple and excellent.
> I suggest to go back to it.
>
> I know I am only one opposer.
> What is the opinion of others?
You are not the only one.  I never liked this patch.  BTW, I like the uniqe 
city names patch much better.
Mike

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp