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

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Darkstar
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.

Why not just build a fort then? I agree with Sir Ralph.

[molly bloom]

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

It depends where exactly you mean- in South America some capital cities are high up, but in mountain valleys:

La Paz has different climate environments according to each zone's altitude. While the center of town is at 3,650 meters above sea level, the zone of Aranjuez is at 3,300 m. El Alto (where the international airport is located) is at 4,082 m. The average temperature in winter is 15C (59F) and 22C (72F) in summer. In the summer, rain falls on most afternoons, In the winter, days are slightly cooler, but the sky is mostly clear and sunny.

http://www.boliviaweb.com/cities/lapaz.htm

In Ecuador there is Quito:

Quito, the capital of Ecuador, has many attractions for all kinds of visitors. The Andean City, at an altitude of 2850 metres, is located in a valley at the foot of the active volcano Pichincha. Although Quito lies only 13 km south of the equator, it always has a springlike climate.

http://www.inquito.com/first.htm

[Darkstar]

LordShiva, there is the matter of how you determine what land is in your sphere/ownership. Why build a fort, when the land's border will walk and you will lose ownership of the land?

Again, as a strategic decision, you put down a small town to firm your claim on that area/resource. Just as human empires have done throughout time.

[Verenti]

waaait a tick, Isn't it impossible in Civ4 to MOVE on mountains let alone build cities on them?

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Darkstar
LordShiva, there is the matter of how you determine what land is in your sphere/ownership. Why build a fort, when the land's border will walk and you will lose ownership of the land?

That would be a shortcoming of the game mechanics. Colonies, outposts, forts, airfields and alike (speaking in Civ3 terms) should claim the tile, and may be a small amount of its environment, for the owner and the only way to destroy them should be to take the tile by force. Borders should not wander through culture or whatever and even if they do, they should "respect" such pre-claimed land.

This way, these colonies and outposts would be like small towns, but with the important difference, that they don't contain countable population, don't produce anything and what is most important, don't reproduce by building new settlers. They just grant control over a small patch of land and maybe access to a resource, the connection of which with the mainland would have to be guarded from pillagers as well.

Not claiming all land should be the way to go, but adding tactical choice.

[sophist]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


That would be a shortcoming of the game mechanics. Colonies, outposts, forts, airfields and alike (speaking in Civ3 terms) should claim the tile, and may be a small amount of its environment, for the owner and the only way to destroy them should be to take the tile by force. Borders should not wander through culture or whatever and even if they do, they should "respect" such pre-claimed land.

That's because "borders" were poorly named. They should have called them "sphere of influence" instead. Requiring that you found a city in order to establish a claim to me seems eminently reasonable, as it limits your ability to claim everything. You have to make a real investment that you defend, and it's clear what your claim comes from.

[Harovan]

My problem with this approach is, that again every single tile of the map will be claimed. This may be realistic, but makes up for a boring game. As I said, realism is not my beef, I'd prefer less realism for better tactical choice.

Besides, the point, that it limits my ability to claim everything, is moot. A city (as opposed of a colony, outpost or alike) adds to the production output and is even able to reproduce itself. And last but not least, building outposts or colonies can also be made a fairly large investment.

[Mahdimael]

It's my belief that you should be able to found cities anywhere, but they should be limited in size by technology.

[Darkstar]

Sir Ralph, that's an excellent suggestion.

However, it should be possible for any such item to grow into a city. Outposts, forts, and such, if in a reasonable location, tend to grow into towns.

In the framework of Civ/SMAC, I see nothing wrong with having to build a town to establish a legitimate claim on a section of land. The main difference is how far your actual border should extend from your nodes of influence. Civ3's border system was a step up from Civ2 (border = city radius), but a step *backwards* from SMAC (where you claimed up to 8 tiles away from your city, where unopposed by other influence centers). This would make a lot of the necessary filling of land space in Civ3 unneeded.

[sophist]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
My problem with this approach is, that again every single tile of the map will be claimed. This may be realistic, but makes up for a boring game.

Not necessarily. I agree with you that the map is too densely packed with cities. Let's say that the maps are tweaked to be 4x the area, but with enough unusable terrain that you still build the same number of cities. Unit movement rates, roads, and the like are tweaked as appropriate. This would lead to empty, "useless" space in the hinterlands. You could have a nation like Chile, with all the population squeezed up against the coast. Another factor in slowing the tendency to carpet the land with cities is that growth is directly tied to food. It sounds like Civ4 is changing that at least a little bit. Ideally, a paucity of food slows or stops the growth rate, but an excess of food doesn't increase it. Growing more food wouldn't help you grow any faster, so you wouldn't bother, leaving much more unworked terrain. Obviously, I haven't thought this all through, but I think we agree more than we disagree.

[Trifna]

I agree that we should not see cities anywhere and everywhere. But in certain situation, the cost to settle in unfriendly areas can still be paid back by different advantages, should it be trade or else.

The silk road got some cities to flourish, even though it was very dependent on this road. Thus, some cities might see the population dwindle in favor of other cities if certain factors disappear. Including cities in harsh sectors demands that environment be a factor for migrations (so it's not for Civ4 release ).

[conmcb25]

No I want mountains to have restrictions.

[Ecthy]

The mountain in Civ is a mountain, not a plateu, so plateus don't count.

So far I've only heard of minor places on mountains, what about real big cities as they grow in Civ?

[Harovan]

You are a Saupreiß and hence have no ****ing clue, what a mountain is.

[Martinus]

Actually it would be nice if this worked somewhat like this:

At the beginning of the game you can only settle plains. With the development of technology, you gain advances allowing you to settle forests, jungles, hills and eventually mountains, tundras and deserts.

Now, before you develop a technology to settle a given area, you would be able to send a settler there and start a "colony" or "outpost", which would be effectively a 1-pop city, allowed to build only units.

Once you develop the technology necessary to settle that land, such outpost would automatically become a normal 1-pop city and start behaving normally (i.e. would be able to grow and build normal buildings etc.)