Why Firaxians are so drammatically scared by mountains ?

[Gunter]

Call me a lost-crusade man but emphasizing terrain peculiarities in civ IV denying mountains access and denying fly mode over them seems to me more a kind of cruel ego massage done by programmers instead of real terrain feature, like that.... Programmer : " I introduced this feature, just in case you dind't notice it I force you to be slave of it in order to notice my wonderful idea. "

I saw here above several excellent ideas like promotions to gain mountain access ability.

Regarding helo and planes they must cross them from subito.


Gunter

[Zinegata]

Originally posted by Gunter
Call me a lost-crusade man but emphasizing terrain peculiarities in civ IV denying mountains access and denying fly mode over them seems to me more a kind of cruel ego massage done by programmers instead of real terrain feature, like that.... Programmer : " I introduced this feature, just in case you dind't notice it I force you to be slave of it in order to notice my wonderful idea. "

I saw here above several excellent ideas like promotions to gain mountain access ability.

Regarding helo and planes they must cross them from subito.


Gunter

As a D&D player, I tend to think of game designers as DMs. In D&D, players generally have no choice but to abide by the rule "the DM is always right". In a computer game, computer game players must abide by the rule "the game designer is always right". Thus, we've no choice but to abide by the rules on mountains for now (hopefully, they do make some changes like that mountaineering promotion I mentioned).

Problem is, of course, that sometimes DMs and game designers just seem to do some really silly things. =)

Thus, my own personal view on the matter is that while the game designer is always right, their choices aren't always good. =)

[Shogun Gunner]

This is a difficult concept as I'm sure the civ community is never truly unifed on *any* issue. I've seen years of raging arguments on Poly across every single imaginable topic.

Let's see...what size does these units represent? Divisions? Brigades?

What about spearman in the modern era? Are they really spearman? or are they spear AND RPG toting guerillas?

I think corruption should be stronger because human nature is naturally corrupt. I disagree humans can be trusted. I point to this philosopher, no I counter with the writings of this philospher!!!

Where did you get that information on the first use of masonry? Oh, on wikipedia? You can't trust wiki because people put up unverified information. I read a PhD's paper on first use of masonry, I know I'm right....

Spies are too powerful...spies aren't powerful enough.

Curraghs shouldn't sink in deep water because I'm writing a thesis on the first life preservers made out of bark and animal skins. The guys would simply float to the nearest landmass where they would make another hollowed out canoe.

I want more control over the interface. I don't want more micro-management. I want information all at my fingertips..I don't want too much information cluttering the screens.

I miss wonder movies, bring them back. I hate wonder movies, I want the game developer to use those funds to enhance the AI algorithms. The new wonder movies are underwhelming, it's either better than civ2 or not at all. You remember the civ2 wonder movies as being better than what they really are. No, I don't. I never played another version of civ, since civ2. Then how do you know the new wonder movies suck?

CtP is better. No, it isn't. SMAC is the best. Better than civ3, but not cIV. No, ToT rules. Civ1 is the best because it was the first. CtP isn't a real Sid M. game. Who likes Freeciv here? BAN HIM!

I don't think defensive bonuses should be +50%, it should be +40% for my arcane theory on baloney....

[Addled Platypus]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Kc7mxo


what about the incas?


they where tooo tired to go down the other side

killer post Shogun Gunner

[vee4473]

Re: Losses and terrain design

Originally posted by JohnUghrin


I don't see any reason why mountains should be more impassable that desert terrain for the majority of units. How does it make sense that I could park a large army in the middle of the Sahara without a supply line and they can remain there for 100's of years?

Another shining example of why realism should never be used to defend a civ feature.

There are many things that are unreal as well as real in the game.

So the "it's that way because it is more realistic" argument makes me laugh every time. Because with every real feature, there are others that make you go "say what?"



As for the impassable peaks. It's a feature and that's that.

[amicus curiae]

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner
This is a difficult concept as I'm sure the civ community is never truly unifed on *any* issue. I've seen years of raging arguments on Poly across every single imaginable topic....

Good post. And it's true. It's good that there is impassable terrain because it makes the game more interesting. There is very little realism in Civ so it makes no sense to base the game on realism.

Why is it that only one country can move their armies at a time? Do you really think that generals take turns on the battlefield? If you can answer this, then you will know why the developpers didn't make mountains impassable at first, then add alpine troops, then add and alpine promotion, etc...