Should players be allowed to build cities on Mountain hexes?

[Alexander's Horse]

I think this is ridiculous, especially in multiplayer games.


------------------
Founder of the People's Republic of Off Topic (PROT)

[SlowHand]

You think building on a mountain is ridiculous, A.H.? How so? Why would it not be allowed? Actually surprised to see this from you.

[Tom DeMille]

I would like to think of mountain settlements as being akin to crusader castles being built in very rugged terrain (Krak de Chevalier springs to mind). This still doesn't stop an enemy from pillaging the surrounding land, however.

[Ming]

Just deal with it. Building cities on mountains at key choke points is just solid defensive planning.

[DaveV]

I would rather see my opponent build a city on a mountain than a fort, since the city can be taken out by bribery. You don't have that option with a pair of units.

[War4ever]

Although mountains are almost impossible to siege early in the game...... a nuke will work just fine. Mountains are just a part of the game go around if you dont' want to war

[Smash]

If you don't like seeing cities on mountains,hills and forests then play 1x production.These cities are not nearly as viable on 1x

[Alexander's Horse]

My point is its not realistic or sporting.


------------------
Founder of the People's Republic of Off Topic (PROT)

[Seeker]

It's very realistic...Gibraltar, Lhasa (the Potala), the fortress-cities of Central Asia..

[KhanMan]

It's very realistic: look at all the fortresses in Greece and Asia Minor, and all the trouble people went to to laying seige to them...

If you want to take a mountain city, by all means, use bribery. Or, if you'd rather, fortify a whole bunch of units around their city, doing nothing else, and they'll starve out.

Whining about people building well defended cities is on par with complaining about the existance of city walls, or phalanxs, for that matter. If you can't take a city, beseig it and take the surrounding lands...

"Sic semper pax mundis"
-KhanMan

[Alexander's Horse]

I'm not whining about it, I'm sayings its wrong, almost a form of cheating in multiplayer games. Single player games, I don't care. And look at the examples - LHasa, Gibraltar, wow!


------------------
Founder of the People's Republic of Off Topic (PROT)

[Paul Hanson]

Just stop whining about it. Like people have said, it`s possible to get rid of such a city (albeit late in the game, with more powerful weapons). Look at the facts:

A)It`s clever tactical planning.
B)No-one`s stopping you from using the same tactics.
C)How would you enforce such a rule?
D)Stopping people from building on mountains is like asking them to surrender without force. You might as well ban the building of military units altogether.
E)It is realistic...one of the main rules of military planning is to take control of the high ground if at all possible.
F)It is sporting...no-one`s forcing you to attack such a city. You could get rid off everything else and force them to give up.

------------------
D`oh!
Homer Simpson
Choppa
Briton Villager, AOE II

[Alexander's Horse]

yep, all the city/mountain builders are coming out. I say sure, build on hills, build on forests and rivers, but build on mountains? Get real!!!!


------------------
Founder of the People's Republic of Off Topic (PROT)

[Paul Hanson]

Why shouldn`t people build on mountains? Give us a list of good reasons why not, and then we might start listening to you.

And the reason that all the city/mountain buildes are coming out is because the people that don`t do this sort of thing are perfectly content to let others do it.

[Alexander's Horse]

1. Cities are not built on mountains.

2. See point 1.

Lhasa for example is not built on a mountain, it is built in a mountain valley (like most so-called mountain cities). Gibraltar is a town not a city.

Sorry but I find it hard to justify the bleeeding obvious. I am not opposed to building forts on mountains.