Should/will players be allowed to build cities on mountain hexes?

[Ecthy]

A bit unfair isn't it?

[GeoModder]

Can you imagine a million people in a city on a mountain?

[Trifna]

I can imagine at least SOMETHING in the mountains, even if severely limiting. It might bring some advantages sometimes. There are even some cities in the Himmalayas!

[Addled Platypus]

dont forget the Mayan city

true, not million, Let it be done

[MrFun]

the cities of the Incans in the Andes

[Harovan]

I am against cities on mountains. I am also against cities in deserts, tundra and other inhospitable terrain. My considerations for this matter are not much realism-driven, but rather of tactical and fun nature. It would improve the creation of large unsettled areas. But large, unsettled areas is where much of the fun lies. Hard fights for resources located there and accessible only through colonies. Unexpected troop approaches. And last but not least, barbarians breed there too - if only they would scale their power a bit throughout the time.

[Jaybe]

Considering how much of Earth's land mass is of low population density, Civ probably allows way too much land to be settled as it is. Consider a composite NASA or National Geographic image of lights at night over the whole planet.

I agree with Sir Ralph, and haven't allowed cities even in forests for over a year.

[Darkstar]

Strategically speaking, it is a necessity at times. You could do it in Civ1, and Civ3 is seriously missing it, especially with how Civ3 does it.

Cities formed in mountains should get a -1 on its center food yielded. After all, they are having to do farming wherever they can.

Speaking of which, cities in deserts should also get the same -1 on its center food yield.

Doing this, would allow you to build a strategic fort/city up in the mountains to guard critical land passes or resources. But the city isn't going to be a huge city in the future.

On the whole attacking a mountain city, the city should only gain half mountain defending bonus. After all, the city will have been making it easier to get around, reducing the defensive advantages possible.

From a strategic point of view, it should be done. The only real done side is the computer's ICSing. Allowing it to build on Mountains will allow it to build more cities to help support its hording. Hopefully, the ICS algorithms will calculate that the potential growth in that location is very low, and would therefore put its city in a slightly better location, but that's just a wild dream on my part, I know.

[Ecthy]

Are there any proper cities on mountains in the real world? I mean civ-sized ones, with 10,000+ people?

[Philotas]

Are there any proper cities on mountains in the real world? I mean civ-sized ones, with 10,000+ people?

Denver

[Dinner]

Originally posted by GeoModder
Can you imagine a million people in a city on a mountain?

Would it look like Denver?

[Darkstar]

Lots more then just Denver.

There are lots of cities built on the mountains, from their lower slopes to the tops. And they've been founded/built throughout time, not just in the last few centuries.

[GeoModder]

Guess not, since Denver isn't situated on a mountain.

[Darkstar]

Technically, almost half the towns in the state of New York are situated *on* a mountain. A tableau/mesa, actually, but still, it's a type of mountain. So, we best be careful about trying to drag actual geology into this.

Of course, wasn't the original "Seven Hills of Civilization" situated on a "mountain"? At least, to hear these flatlanders talk about some minor bumps as if they were real mountains.

[GeoModder]

I took it like the situation that Machu Picchu is in. Constructed a couple of thousands meters above sealevel on more or less a slope/peak, not a broad valley floor in a mountain range or something similar.