23-11-2002 18:44									#1
	Should the president name cities and armies? Remove this text

Several people voted in the poll to decide the ministers the governement our DG will have.

But we havent decide who will name the armies and the naming of cities is controlled by the Minister of Domestic Affairs. So my question is if we shouldnt give this task for the presindent since he is the one directed involved to the game.

If the president is not going to be naming the armies it is clear that this will be a task for the Minister of Defense. (keep in mid this is a task that may shall be happening dozens of times every turn and is going to be obligatory so that we (citizens) dont become lost in the discussions).

If the president is not going to be naming the cities it is clear that this will be a task for the Minister of Domestic Affairs.

Here is a summary of the ministery of our government and their function (I have propositaly not added the city and army naming in any of the positions) so that you can decide if the president should name be encharging of any naming.


President
- government type
- Running the game

Minister of Defense
- Military Units
- Special units, except settlers

Minister of Domestic Affairs
- City build orders
- City Management, specialists


Minister of Infrastructure
- Terraforming/Infrastructure

Minister of Trade, Science and Diplomacy
- Trade
- Science
- Diplomacy

	23-11-2002 19:03									#2
	Put an end to popups!

I voted he should naming both cities and armies!

	23-11-2002 20:05									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I voted Pres should name only cities, i think Minister of Defence should name armies.

	23-11-2002 20:50									#4
	Support Apolyton

I think the naming of cities should be left to the community, that won't be so many anyway. And in most cases we should use the names offered by the game, and that will depend on the civ we will use in the game.

-Martin

	24-11-2002 00:14									#5
	Increase Your PM Length

if the president wishes to ask for suggestions about city names/armies, i think that that would fine, otherwise let the pres come up with a suitable name for them

	24-11-2002 00:32									#6
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Naming the cities should be done by the community, as for armies, who cares!?! Pres, SMC, whoever...

	24-11-2002 03:57									#7
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by mapfi Naming the cities should be done by the community, as for armies, who cares!?! Pres, SMC, whoever...

Yes who cares about army names, usuall all my armies have jsut the number that was given by the game, and actual there a lot of armies in the game so we can't name a settler that will build a new city in the next few turns anyway. Our orders will rather be like found at that spot a city no matter which settler you use. As I don't care about army naming, this can be left to the president wheather he does it or not. And of course the selection of the names is left to him as he plays the game he just has to report us what his choice is, so that we can say no if it for example something offensive or similar.

-Martin

	24-11-2002 07:08									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

What if we ALL vote on city names

I don't care about the armies- if the president wants to name them- let him

	24-11-2002 08:38									#9
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

i think we should all be able to contribute some city and army name ideas.. although i think there are far too many government positions and polls etc already....

	24-11-2002 09:24									#10
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by DarkCloud What if we ALL vote on city names I don't care about the armies- if the president wants to name them- let him

I just think all armies to be named.

And the president should be the one to do it because he is the one directed involvde with the game. And he shouldnt have any bureacracy to do so. He could name of whatever he wants.

It is impossibe to have to get people invlved in the naming of armies except in very very special case. Too many armies changing, merging, spliting, created every turn. It just is impossible.
Although I believe we shoud have all armies named. This will make much easir to have a dicussion in a thread about an army and find them in the map of their saved games.

Afer all what would you like to read:

"Should Black Tigers 03 attack the enemy army beside it" or "Should army 03454 attack the enemy army beside it"

	24-11-2002 15:23									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Armies don't need names. Or let the Minister of Defense and the Prez do it if they need to communicate on the turnchats.

Cities can be named by the Prez. That's his priveledge.

	24-11-2002 18:57									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

We should just name the 10+ armies, not everyone thats garrisoned or on slave patrol. President or anyone i dont think it makes much difference. Its nice when theyre named in scenarios though.

	24-11-2002 20:14									#13
	Suffering from ads?

So maybe the president gets to do this, but to be nice he/ can take names from any suggestions other people have...

	25-11-2002 00:48									#14
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Heh... the community should name cities (I'd rather live in Rising Horizon than Fezville )

Armies... bleh.

	25-11-2002 04:50									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Well, if the president names the garisson armies "Pedrun Citadel Garrison" it would be useful, but if he starts naming them "X-pert Marines" or some other cryptic name... it could and will quickly become confusing

"What's X-Pert Marines?"
"They're in Pedrunn?"
"Then waht about the Pedrunn Cowboys?"
"They're the armor division in Nuevo Pedrunn"
"Well who's the Morlacks?"
"They're the garission in Nuevo Pedrunn"

"Why can't you just call them the Morlacks Musketeers!"
"Well, our President decided to call them Morlacks so..."
"Agh! Too much memorization!"

	25-11-2002 05:15									#16
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

DC has a good point there.

	25-11-2002 08:13									#17
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

yo cities dont matter so give it up to the pres.
as for armies... the commander of those units should name them

aight?

	25-11-2002 08:24									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

So i guess you rather go with:

"What's army #0879?"
"They're in Pedrunn?"
"Then waht about the army #0878?"
"They're the armor division in Nuevo Pedrunn"
"Well who's the army #0577?"
"They're the garission in Nuevo Pedrunn"

"Why can't you just call them the army #0677!"
"Agh! Too much memorization!"



The names will just make it easy not to mix them all and to give more atmosphere to the game. Dont you think?

They will be only used in specific moments and mostly alone. So it wont need any memorization. But the name should be there in case a resolution poll or a discussion uses it.

Last edited by Pedrunn on 25-11-2002 at 08:36

	25-11-2002 11:31									#19
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Pedrunn, thats what screenshots are for

	25-11-2002 14:01									#20
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

The community should name the cities; but why in the name of two-ply bog roll would you want to name the armies ? Complete Overkill! Simply refer to armies (or units) as: The mobile armour group stationed at Pedrunnia or whatever.

	25-11-2002 14:02									#21
	Tired of ads?

I voted neither,

The names of the cities should come from us here, the members of the DG.

Where is the problem, if people want to suggest a name, put it in a threat and the president goes from top to bottem. end of story....

We do it in a round-robbin manner, meaning only after the last posted, the first can post again.........

For the Armies, if there is a desire/wish to name, I don't care, the arguments mentioned earlier on, can be used in both ways..........

I would like to see only 'important' armies be named, doesn't mean that they have to be 10+. But why should we name garrision?

	25-11-2002 19:53									#22
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by H Tower if the president wishes to ask for suggestions about city names/armies, i think that that would fine, otherwise let the pres come up with a suitable name for them

My sentiments exactly...

And if people really insist that the names are for some reason not okay, they still have some tools to make the pres change his mind...

	25-11-2002 21:26									#23
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

So far 17 people voted.

9 x 8 so that the President should be the one to name cities.

9 x 8 so that The Minister of Defense should be the one to name armies.

As you see is a tight result!!!
One vote could change this.

Last edited by Pedrunn on 26-11-2002 at 00:08

	27-11-2002 22:34									#24
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Th things are getting hot

10 x 8 chose the President should be the one to name cities.
The person who should name armies is tied (9 x 9) I will make a run-off poll.

	27-11-2002 22:38									#25
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Now vote here: Who should name the armies? (final)

	28-11-2002 06:25									#26
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Actually, the way I read it- it's
6-8 that the president SHOULDNT name the cities?

	28-11-2002 15:59									#27
	Put an end to popups!

6 people voted both armies and cities, 5 people voted only cities.

Therefore 11 people voted that the president should be the one naming from 19 voters. And the 8 people who voted for the minister of domestic affairs 3 from the option "just armies" and 5 from "none".

You are forgeting the people who voted the option "only cities".