09-06-2005 00:11									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Alexander01 That's correct. Turks always called it Istanbul, it being the name of the city in their language.

That's not strictly true. Under Ottoman rule, the official name of the city was Konstantiniyye; Istanbul was the common vernacular name, but only became official under Atatürk.

People who are actually into the historical development of Greek and Turkish tell me that a derivation of Istanbul from Konstantinopolis is highly unlikely. The best bet seems to be it derives from of Greek eis ten polin "to/in the city", which will have been pronounced something like "stin bul" in northern Greek dialects of the late medieval period.

	09-06-2005 00:19									#32
	Tired of ads?

more good and evil options ,maybe even a very subtle interface change aka light side\dark side

not being able to slaughter cities in civ3

...or you can just eat bananas and keep playing

edit: ive been to dozens+ of forums for about a zillion games and i swear ive seen the (city on the bosphorus) argument on every single forum in existance and seen about every varation you can possibly make on the words involved :/

	09-06-2005 00:34									#33
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Cataphract887 more good and evil options ,maybe even a very subtle interface change aka light side\dark side

That sort of thing is absurd in a civ game. It worked in GalCiv; it doesn't fit with Civ at all.

quote: not being able to slaughter cities in civ3

Eh, you COULD do so in Civ3.

	09-06-2005 01:47									#34
	Support Apolyton

not really,only on capture

	09-06-2005 04:41									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Cataphract887 not really,only on capture

Is an implication on the destruction of a city through bombardment means is accurate?

	09-06-2005 05:02									#36
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

the penalties for destruction of citys should be far higher, world outrage at your treatment of civilians.

	09-06-2005 05:06									#37
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Rasputin the penalties for destruction of citys should be far higher, world outrage at your treatment of civilians.

Hmm... I look forward to destroying cities of a specific religion (one not of my country - which ever I select for my Civ).

	09-06-2005 05:11									#38
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Rasputin the penalties for destruction of citys should be far higher, world outrage at your treatment of civilians.

I agree, but only after a certain technological level.

if I destroy a city in 2000 B.C., I dont think a country that is halfway around the known world should care very much.

If I destroy a city in 2000 A.D, I think it should almost cause instant war with other nations.

	09-06-2005 05:14									#39
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

disagree slightly

all nations that have contact with you, or any nations that have contact with nations that have contact with you will soon know what you have done.

so providing the other civs can trace a link back to someone that knows you then yes they should hat eyou more and more the more citysdestryoed.

	09-06-2005 08:06									#40
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: all nations that have contact with you, or any nations that have contact with nations that have contact with you will soon know what you have done.

Before modern times, no Civ should be concerned regarding the destruction of cities. And so, any sort of penalty should be minimal. Once the modern times come in - where sissy policies of war come in; then there should be a severe penalty for destroying a city.

	09-06-2005 08:20									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

If one reads the various stellae of ancient empires, not only was destroying cities not frowned upon, it was something to brag about. Destroying enemy cities should only have penalties in the modern period.

The modern period is also when it would be most tricky to convert well-established cities to your religion and culture, too, which would add another element to the game: not only is it then more difficult to convert them, it is much more difficult to obliterate them outright.

	09-06-2005 08:41									#42
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: The modern period is also when it would be most tricky to convert well-established cities to your religion and culture, too, which would add another element to the game: not only is it then more difficult to convert them, it is much more difficult to obliterate them outright.

After all, it was a shocker enough as it is watching airplanes deliberately crashed into buildings.

	09-06-2005 09:24									#43
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Cataphract887 not really,only on capture

How the hell else would you slaughter a city?

	10-06-2005 04:22									#44
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

modern era of nuke weopons easier to wipe out whole citys..

	10-06-2005 04:53									#45
	Re: Re: Destruction of Cities Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Vince278 Wonderful. Ethnic cleansing in Civ. What next? Starving cities to keep unrest down like Stalin? (oh wait, I already do that )

you a badddd man Vince

	10-06-2005 04:56									#46
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

very bad man

	10-06-2005 09:04									#47
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Thats my good side.

	10-06-2005 18:39									#48
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker They added that in C3C.

Great, sounds like there´s a good chance then that it´s in Civ IV, too

Maybe I should also buy C3C and PtW before Civ IV comes out if I can find it for a low price.

	11-06-2005 08:44									#49
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Check out Call to Power 2 while you're at it.

	11-06-2005 09:25									#50
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Don't. Not only is the game bad, but it's cripplingly buggy IME.

	11-06-2005 10:06									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Alexander01 Well, they could always eliminate the redudnancies among civs... though that way the Romans would have no Londinium. The Byzantines would have Constantinople, but the Greeks, Romans, and Turks couldn't, unless they conquered it... Hmm... maybe just in a scenario...

Of course, the slight problem, in Constantinople's case, is that the Greeks founded the city, while Constantine transformed the city and transferred the Roman Empire's capital from Rome to Constantinople. Thus in civ 3 i believe the Romans had Byzantium, the Byzantines possessed Constantinople, and the Ottomans ruled Istanbul.

quote: Originally posted by Alexander01 Well, Istanbul is simply Constantinople in Turkish. It's a Turkish "I" prefix plus the main consonantal trunk of the word. Examples: Constantinople --> Istanbul (I + Stan + Ple) Smyrna --> Izmir (I + Smyr)

I have always understood it to be simply a Turkish adaptation of the Greek eis ten polin, which means in the city, or to the city (I don't know Greek, sorry). To the Greeks, and probably the Turks, Constantinople was THE city. Therefore Istanbul is just the phonetic result of the Turks picking up on the Greek colloquialism.

	11-06-2005 10:45									#52
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Don't. Not only is the game bad, but it's cripplingly buggy IME.

True, but its better with the AoM mod that just appeared on Apolyton.

	11-06-2005 13:39									#53
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

patches - smatches....

buggy programmes way way to many of them

	11-06-2005 14:01									#54
	Support Apolyton

Almost all of them.

Of course, nobody has had me as a player tester. I excelled at finding bugs for the government. I already found three issues with the new AoM mod for CtP2.

	11-06-2005 15:39									#55
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

good man

* Paddy the Scot sends word to Sid

"Sid, ring Vince NOW!!!"

	11-06-2005 18:13									#56
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Vince278 Check out Call to Power 2 while you're at it.

No need to,
I already have it since it came out

And yes, this game rocks
(well, it really would if it were combined with certain things from Civ 3)

	13-06-2005 15:18									#57
	Put an end to popups!

would this be a good or bad idea:

Include selling the city to another civ?, maybe even to the enemy civ, if there is one

yea or nay

	13-06-2005 15:33									#58
	Got spare money?

good

certainly add an interesting curve to diplomacy in pbem games

	13-06-2005 18:12									#59
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Should be easy to implement within the Civ - Diplomacy System we know (assuming it hasn´t changed too much from Civ III to IV ).

Just "I give You" [name of the City] and "I want" [Gold/Ress whatever]

And yes, it wouldn´t be a bad idea.

	13-06-2005 19:18									#60
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Don't know if this has been mentioned elsewhere, but I would like to see the razing of cities be tied to their size. Ok, I can understand wiping out a size 1 or 2 city in the span of a turn (it's basically just a big village), but erasing all evidence of a size 20 city in one fell swoop? Not only is this unrealistic in general, but it also gives rise to some terrible tactics. There is often no incentive to keep your opponents cities in most cases later in the game; you just raze them instantly and move on. This eliminates any chance for them to retake them, and cuts out a lot of strategic options. And should there not be consequences for wiping out the great cities of the world? I would say eliminating a couple of million people would probably have an effect greater than just leaving a pile of rubble behind...