Name your city in MP

[Xin Yu]

This should be the 1000th message for strategy category, unless somebody posts one at this moment.

I'd like to hear opinions about the following idea: In MP, name all your cities the same name. This way, even if a spy get into one of your cities, he will have no way to tell anything about your other cities; If he use the diplomatic screen to check your cities, he will see a bunch of cities with the same name!

You can always rename your cities at the beginning of each turn to avoid confusion, then at the end of the turn name them back to the common name.

[LeMay]

I think that the strategy forum hit critical mass a few days ago, and now people come here because there are always interesting topics being discussed, and they contribute, helping to keep the forum active. At least, that's what I hope. As to your idea, I'm not sure it would be worth the pain to rename everything each turn. Plus, the other players would kill you for taking 20 min. just to rename cities. However, if you could learn to live with it, it might be a smart strategy. A side note: in scenario games where events are attached to a certain city, renaming can be used to abusive effect. For instance, in Midgard, every time a race loses their capital, they receive a powerful unit nearby. However, since the event triggers on the name, it is possible to name all your cities the same name as your capital and thus get the unit any time a city is captured. Obviously, this is cheating of the worst degree, and I hope MPS undertakes to fix this bug sometime.

[SeanD]

Xin Yu, that sounds like a very useful idea, but it would make the game less fun for yourself and everyone else. Perhaps it should be 'good ettiquette' to give all your cities different name and not change them all the time

[Sergeant Sheets]

I like it. One note: It'd work well if you had 15-20 cities in close proximity but not if you had 60 cities tossed all over the globe. Also, you'd have to keep a sheet on hand telling you were this city 'Xin Yu' is at versus another city 'Xin Yu.' Also, trade routes would be a bear. I think this would work better: Name the cities as usual, then if your building a powerful wonder, and you suspect an enemy is on the prowl, rename every city the name of the city the wonder is being built in, or simply shuffle city names ever five or six turns.

[Xin Yu]

There are some variations to the naming scheme. First, do not give names to all of your cities; second, name your cities the same name of the nearest foreign city.

Yes, the naming also has effects on trading commodity menu. If you want to facilitate trading, just add to your city names the continent name, then you will see very clearly whether you can apply the two continent trading strategy.

[St Leo]

If I play multiplayer, I will be Borg with the capital of Borg with wonders in several cities named Borg.:-)

[Saganaga Canoer]

I hate to say this, but this is a really lame strategy. I'm surprised that naming all your cities the same is even allowed in the game. It certainly shouldn't be! Using a strategy like this will only create ill will and make people less likely to want to play you in the future. Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD!

[barefootbadass]

As my cities become specialized, I like to rename them based on their function in my empire so I know right away what they are supposed to be doing.

[Ming]

Pretty sleazy trick Xin Yu...
I love it. The possibilities are indeed endless. But the Sarge is right, after 15 or so cities it could become a real pain in the neck. So I might use it selectivly.
And naming the city the same as the nearest foreign city... PRICELESS!
He he he he he he... I hope you're still interested in playing MP. I look forward to it whether we are on the same side or not.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

Reading everyones comments I'm thinking MP will be good. All of the methods here will be used. I might name my cities the same to confuse another player. It's all part of the game, and a big part is information. I think most of us will be careful as to what info we give out (and who gets it!). Those who are not will be wiped out.

[Prince_Pixie]

I intend to devise a complex mathematical algorithm to condense strateigic and geographic information about a city into a simple 15-character code. No, really.

[Sergeant Sheets]

'Bet I can do it in ten characters.

Another thing, when sending frieght to a certain city, rename the city something distinct, send the caravan, then rename the city what it originally was [this is for if you name all your cities the same].

[Orcus]

While I must agree that "All's fair in love and war", there will be no love from me for anyone using this dirty (and quite clever) exploitation of an oversight in the program. Granted, anyone can use it, but I hereby vow to utterly antagonize to death anyone foolish enough to attempt this in a game with me. (St. Leo, you can go ahead, cuz anyone callling themselves "BORG" is a threat already)

[gambler]

Do you want to get your opponents really confused?
Just use empty name for your cities.
In the Diplomacy screen they can't see how many cities you have!
I discovered it because in the italian version there is a bug in city.txt, Zulu' instead of Zulu, and so Zulu cities had all an empty name (Now I fixed the bug).

[Ming]

Orcus, get real! Any advantage you get over your fellow players is key. This isn't a tea party!
Gambler brings up a good way to confuse people. That's the whole idea behind winning.

[Coug]

Sorry fella, I go with Orcus. My great military (If there will ever be chance to build one) will be turned towards those people with "dirty" tricks. And hey, don't come blaming me for playing dirty myself, I didn't start the naming thing.

[Colon™]

This kind of ideas could make someone win the game, but for what price ?
As SeanD said it would make the game less fun for everyone.
I want to win (or lose) a game cos I'm the best (or the worst) not with such kind of tricks.

[FanatiC_KaBaN]

I think that making all your cities with the same name would be just boring and confusing.
I mean no country in the world has same names for cities (except U.S. they have like 50 greenville's and 5 charelstons.. ext)
It would just suck to have all your cities have same names, now if you have 3 cities with same names that would be good, like one is capitol one is with Wonders and the other one is build on a mountain near the enemy.

[Ming]

Colon
Being the best means understanding how to beat the game, and your opponents.
Believe me, this is a competitve bunch, they (and myself) will use every trick in the book. And why not. Anything that gives you an advantage is a must. Now granted, I wouldn't name all my cities the same, or leave them blank (that would probably drive me more nuts than the enemy, but it is a funny thought) But, I may change the names of one or two every turn in key areas of the world.

[Colon™]

Do you know much about soccer ?
Well you can say there are two ways to play it. (Professional soccer ofcourse)
1. Attack, try to score as much as possible.
If two teams play offensive you'll likely to have an interesting and spectacular game.
2.Play defensive, do not attack, prohibite the enemy from scoring. And try to wine the game in only one chance.
Matches with these kind of teams tend to be boring and not very spectacular.
The 2nd strategy tends to work best, but if everyone does it, it kills soccer.
Xin Yu's trick looks a lot like this.
As I said before, these kind of tricks could make someone win the game, but for what price ?

[My Wife Hates CIV]

I wana play Ming!!!

Everyone here will do what it takes. Re-naming cities is not a 'dirty trick', it's a tactic. Whoever learns how to work this tactic well will have an advantage.

[Colon™]

Do you know what the word tactic means ?
This is what the dictionary said.
"Art of placing moving fighting forces for or during battle => strategy: plan(s) or method(s) for carrying out a policy."
Changing names is not a strategy or tactic it's a trick. I never said it was a dirty one, but these kind of tricks could make the game less fun.

[Robert Stevens]

I wonder whether people will prefer "bloodlust" or starship construction in multiplayer? If starships are allowed, players will be desperate to hide their capitals any way they can...

Completion of the Apollo project reveals the whole map at the time, but I don't think it gets updated thereafter. If players don't use the renaming strategy, I can imagine everyone launching shiploads of Engineers to the most obscure city locations on the map to build new capitals in remote places.

[Ming]

Colon
From another Dictionary
Strategy = a plan for achieving some end
Tactics = Any maneuvering to gain an objective.

Actually renaming your cities could fall under both.
If the objective is to confuse the enemy, and make it difficult to target key cities, renaming your cities is indeed a tactic.
And on the other hand, misinformation is indeed a strategy used by most poeple in war.

I'm glad you say it's not a dirty trick, but everybody has their own definition of the word FUN.
You also use the line "at what price".
In all games or sports there are rules. In everyday life, people take advantage of what they can, just as they do in civ. If the machine lets you do it, why not. If it is so important to the game that you can't do it, then the game should be changed to not allow you to do it. In MP, I will use every trick and bug I can. I don't think it will cheapen the game. And why will I use these "tricks", because somebody else will if I don't.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

Oh well. maybe some will not like the way I play. Thats the price I'll pay to be one of the last two CIV's alive. Than I'll just have to beat Ming!

[My Wife Hates CIV]

Flavor Dave:

why would the world attack a CIV that changes city names?? It's more of a defensive *TACTIC* more than anything else.

Why would others be upset with a player trying to defend his/her land and cities.

I would like you less if you park a sub with nukes off my coast - thats a threat!

I think it will be fun. I hope they leave this 'feature' in. It's stuff like this that make the game what it is.

[Colon™]

The last few days I was playing 2 games in civ2. In one I was trying to build as much cities, and was I trying to expand my civ as much as I could, to get as much points as possible in the end( I wanted to break my personal record). in an other game I played in a small map, I had about 7cities and I didn't try to expand as much as I could. I didn't try to get as much points as possible.
Which game do you think I liked most ? The 2nd one ofcourse. When I was playing a relaxed game without thinking about the final score or the HOF.
I believe some are forgetting something in their rush of getting as much points as possible and wiping everybody else out as fast as you can in order getting as much points as possible.
And that is the fun of playing the game. I like playing civ2 cos I like the feeling of ruling an own kingdom. (changing names would ruin that feeling)
I get the impression some only think about points and about being the best, "by any means necessary".
When I say that this could make the game less fun, people ignore like it's not important. I say that it is **** important, having fun is all what the game is about.
Don't forget that.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

how many people here would rather play a peaceful (for the most part) game or a game more geared around war????

myself - a little of both. But I won't label someone for playing dirty, unless they do every single time.

[Ming]

Colon, you are right about one thing, If you are not having fun, why play.
But, why should everybody think that the only way to have fun is to play it your way.
That's the great thing about civ. You can fun in many different ways. You can build an empire, go for point, kill everybody, play scenarios, build your own maps and units.
Everybody has a different Idea of what fun is. I stopped playing civ, until ChrisH tempted my into some fastest kill games. It revitalized my interest, and I started playing again. After a run at 20,000 plus points, it was indeed boring.
If all you are interested in is building an empire, and not being competitive, then you probably won't enjoy MP. Because if you have ever played any MP type game, you know how competitive and cut throat it can be. People will do what ever they need to to win... that's the whole idea of MP. If it's easer to kill people than build an empire to win, guess what people are going to do.
And Flavor Dave, as usual, you are the voice of reason. People will indeed set limitations, new rules, and other things when they play MP. As colon as pointed out, everybody will probably look for a game that they will enjoy. I will personally look for the most cut throat bunch I can find, and other people will look for a group they are comfortable with.
However, I still think renaming cites can be considered clever. It's as clever as some of the other tricks I see people talking about all the time. Just because everybody might do it doesn't mean it's not clever, it just means that everybody sees value in it.
I'm with you on airbases on mountains. I don't do it, and that will be one of the rules I will probably ask for.... But just think about some of the rules sessions that might occur before a game even begins... The games will last too long as it is.

[Xin Yu]

I think it is OK to rename your cities to confuse other civs during war time. It's a part of intellegence war. The game should let a spy to rename a foreign city--the two civs can call the same city different names.

As for the airbase trick, the game should allow building farms as well as mining hills squares the same time. Now the farm and mine can not coexist, so airbasing it is the only way to maximize its output.

Hope the problems can be solved by civ3.