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

[Raimar Falke <hawk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 11:49:50PM +0100, Takacs Gabor wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> 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 :-)

You should have mentioned these things earlier.

> 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.

AFAIK people build most cities near freshwater (a river) (either
coastal or non-coastal).

>    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?

This may be a problem. However I don't see a solution.

> 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.

A small problem IMHO.

> 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.

Yes it is some work. And no way around it.

> 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.

So far.

> What is the opinion of others?

Good question.

        Raimar

-- 
 email: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 "USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!"