No Citys on desert

[HazieDaVampire]

Has anybody tried making it impossible to make citys on desert squares, and maby even jungle squares?

[Willem]

Yes, I've done that with Tundra as well. I like the way it plays much better. I've also made most of my units wheeled, including my early Settler. It makes for a more strategic game.

[HazieDaVampire]

suppose that would be good, and after a nuclear war with pollution so high, you won't be able to build any more citys, hehe, will simulate a situation like that of the game fallout.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Yes, I have even allowed cities to be built on coastal tiles.

[Der PH]

I inhibited cities on deserts and tundra. For desert it works perfect. The problem I encountered is, that cities still could be founded on tundra-forests, so I had to inhibit cities on forests, too.
In order to enable cities on plain- and grassland-forests, I gave settlers the ability to clean forests, but the AI doesn't know how to do it. So this is a slight advantage for me, but not a big problem, since there seldom are big areas of forest without any glades in it.

I also tried to inhibit cities in jungle, but again the AI didn't know how to use its workers to clean it. And since there often are big areas densely covered with jungle this was a major disadvantage for the AI and I made cities possible on jungle again.

It's a bit illogical to be able to build cities in jungle, but not on forest, but it is the best solution I found so far and it works quite good.

[Der PH]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
Yes, I have even allowed cities to be built on coastal tiles.

Do you ship them there by boat?
Does the AI make use of it?

[Willem]

Originally posted by Der PH


It's a bit illogical to be able to build cities in jungle, but not on forest, but it is the best solution I found so far and it works quite good.

Why not just let them build on Forests? It's not really that much of an issue, there's only so many places it can build, and those cities usually don't amount to much. It would seem to be far less restrictive that way.

[Der PH]

Originally posted by Willem
Why not just let them build on Forests?

If I'd allow cities on forests, the tundras would be covered with cities again, which I don't like. The tundra-cities mostly don't have very much influence on the game, but by inhibiting them some regions of wilderness are preserved throughout the game, where barbarians pop up.
Too bad, you can only have two different barb units.

Edit: By inhibiting cities in certain regions of the map, colonies get much more important, especially for oil!

[HazieDaVampire]

Yeah, i left colonies, and i suppose it would also make forts more useful to, since you'll have to gaurd the roads that go to the colonies from your nearest city, which could actualy be quite far away.

I just like the idea of large areas without citys cuz then the AI won't build so meny roads around those areas, so you can have a nice Monty and Rommel desert battle!

[Ozymandias]

Also don't forget that by setting the road trade value of terrain to "0" you'll prohibit roads from being able to be built in that terrain.

-Oz

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ozymandias
Also don't forget that by setting the road trade value of terrain to "0" you'll prohibit roads from being able to be built in that terrain.

-Oz

But then it's impossible to build a colony, or even connect a resource within your cultural boundary.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by Willem


But then it's impossible to build a colony, or even connect a resource within your cultural boundary.

Correct -- you'd have to adjust resource locations accordingly.

-Oz

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ozymandias


Correct -- you'd have to adjust resource locations accordingly.

-Oz

That doesn't sound very realistic to me, I prefer it a bit more true to life.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by Willem


That doesn't sound very realistic to me, I prefer it a bit more true to life.

It depends upon what you're trying to model. Addressing Europe (recall, I'm pretty much a real-Earth player) on even a 256x256 map, one quickly appreciates that the Alps et.al. have essentially always been impenetrable military barriers (I simulate passes, such as the St. Bernard, by diagonally-adjacent Hills). This allows something like historical development to take place, which is at the heart of my oh-give-it-a-month-or-so-more "1071 CE" mod.

I use hills for those ranges, such as those enclosing the Sudeten, which have been military obstacles, not barriers, and transfer mountain resources to hills accordingly.

In brief -- if it can reasonably be warred over, it's a hill; if not, it's a mountain.

Insofar as tundra and desert go, personally I allow roads for both and allow colonies but disallow cities on tundra and am contemplating the same for desert while placing grassland tiles where major oases exist(ed).

Best,

Oz

[HazieDaVampire]

Ok, i did this and i now have a very interesting terrain!

My empire spans a quarter of a continent, its split quite equaly (I'll put in brackets what civs i/we have taken over) between me (I'm Britain, and i've also taken over America very early) Germany (Taken over Babylon), Rome/italy and Greece, Greece is a little smaller than the rest of us.

Right where my part of the continent connects to the rest of the continent, it turns into a choke point in some mountains with a desert to its south (I'm in the north, nice grass land and snow!)

I'm at war with Rome who are to the West/north west of the my choke point, they've been trying to take the city that i built on the south side of the mountain range, i named it Helms Deep, ha! They Enemys never managed to take it in the 400years its been standing!
I've also made a line of forts to hold the choke point, before i made the line the enemy got to Helms deep and thort "**** that" and carried on passed it! lol.