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

[Jason Short <vze2zq63@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mike Jing wrote:

> 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 :-)
Personally, I like the patch (and liked the idea from when I first saw 
it, many months ago).

> > 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.
It is certainly true that the system doesn't degrade well.  Here's a 
more complicated system that would:
cities = "Washington" (capital, river, coastal), "New York" (river, 
coastal), "Boston" (river, coastal), "Philadelphia" (river), "Los 
Angeles" (coastal), etc...
Note here I've made "capital" a description.  It is also possible for 
more than one description to apply.
When you want to name a new city, you go through all cities and give 
them a value - say, exponentially decreasing based on how low down they 
are in the list.  Then you multiply that value by whatever terrain 
features match - and possibly divide if they don't match.  So if America 
founds a coastal river city first, washington will always become their 
capital - but if they found a river city first it might be philadelphia 
(if you work the numbers right).  A mountain capital would be given a 
third name.
This is just rambling, though.  I don't have a problem with the current 
system; only time will tell if it needs to be improved.

> >    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!
Manchester isn't categorized at all, which I guess means it'll only show 
up if no terrain-matching city name exists.  This means that adding more 
cities to a ruleset will exacerbate the problem, which is certainly not 
a good thing.

> > 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?
I live in America, and I've never heard of Riverside.  But it only shows 
up because it is listed at the top of the "river cities", which it 
clearly should not be.  In time the rulesets will catch up.  If 
"philadelphia" were there instead, wouldn't that be better?
As for Blackpool...well, scales in FreeCiv are different than in the 
real world.  In FreeCiv, Manchester would probably be considered a 
coastal city.  <checks "earth" scenario> But then, so would London - in 
fact, it's *impossible* to get London as your capital in the 160x90 v1 
"Earth" scenario.
This does illustrate a problem, though: partially converting a ruleset 
to the new system gives bad behavior like this.  "Washington" isn't 
categorized under a terrain at all (it should be "river" or "coastal 
river"), and neither are most of the other "major" cities.  Does this 
mean they'll never show up?

> 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.
This isn't intended to prevent that behavior (nor can it).  As I 
understand it, in addition to being cool in itself (which it is, IMO) it 
is intended to prevent experienced players from taking advantage of new 
players who always name their cities in order.

> > 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.
Can't you just not categorize the cities?  If you leave them all under 
the "cities" entry, I imagine the behavior will be the same as before.
Really, this patch to the code doesn't change behavior _at all_, it just 
introduces a new feature into the rulesets.  Only when the rulesets are 
changed will the behavior of the game change.  So if you want this not 
to happen, you should (IMO) be talking to the ruleset writers.

> > 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.
I like the unique city names patch as well.  It addresses a different 
problem.
In summary, I think the system can be improved in the future (I'd like 
to see island cities), but I don't think it's a bad system.
jason