Should players be allowed to build cities on Mountain hexes?

[Glohithia]

Seems to me there is another type of terrain you shouldnt be able to build cities on. Thats an ocean square.

HEY!!! Wait a second...that is not allowed by virtue of the games programming. Yet the game will let you build a city on a mountain square. Hmmm......

[Alexander's Horse]

Empress, none of the 5 cities you mention are built ON a mountain.


------------------
Founder of the People's Republic of Topics (PROT)

Convenor of the Threadjacking Appreciation Society (new members welcome)

[KhanMan]

AH-You say that this debate has generated more discussion than any thread in a long time...but you forgot about your own "Satanic Messages in Civ2" thread. That was just as lame (since you were trying to convince the entire civ2 community of something that is BS), and just as long.

As for cities built on a mountain, what about Quito, Ecuador? Or the entire series of Third Mesa Pueblos...ever tried to scale a sheer cliff-face? Those people do it daily.

You still haven't published your requirements for "city" and "mountain". Until you do, you will continue to look like an idiot for all this whiying.

-KhanMan

[finbar]

Horse, the length of your tongue and the depth of your cheek should be deemed Wonders of the World in themselves.

------------------
finbar
Mono Rules!
#33984591

[Paul Hanson]

Sheesh, this topic`s still going? I`ll try and settle this once and for all.

1.Cities are built on mountains.

2.Even if they weren`t, it can be done on Civ2.

3.Civ2 isn`t real.

4.Shut up, AH.

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

[Alexander's Horse]

Khanman, I NEVER said there were Satanic messages in Civ II. I ASKED if people would play if there were. To my amusement and that of others, many people replied to that thread. We had fun - a term you should acquaint yourself with before its too late.

Also, I think you'll find I have defined city and mountain in this thread. Don't avoid the issue. And again all you can come up with are piss poor examples to support your flimsy arguments. "Third Mesa Pueblo" if you please!!! Gee Khanman, that's clinched it!!

Finbar, you think so?

Paul, you sound more like Pauline Hanson everday. "Shut up" is not an argument.

------------------
Founder of the People's Republic of Topics (PROT)

Convenor of the Threadjacking Appreciation Society (new members welcome)
[This message has been edited by Alexander's Horse (edited March 14, 2000).]

[Captain Nemo]

I am surprised that no-one mentioned the two most obvious cities, real large cities built ON mountains:
Quito and LaPaz... Both over a million people and both well up above 9000 Ft in the Andes, built on mountain sides and passes not in valleys and not on a plateau. It's not "convenient" and it's not a great place for a city, but it can be done as it can in Civ2...

Typically Civ2 mountain cities won't grow very large due to lack of food on half or more of the city squares (If you play on a realistic map, mountains are in large chains so at least one side of the city will produce no food). That's the same price a real city would pay for gaining that defensive advantage. Typically a mountain city in Civ II rarely grown to more than size 6 or 7 whereas a "Megacity" grows to size 20-30.

[KhanMan]

AH-Let me spell it out simply: give me the exact minimum elevation for a hill to qualify as a mountain, and the exact size in population for a settlement to qualify as a city, and we WILL find a Real World City that fits.

If you look at your past threads, that's the one thing you haven't defined. Give me the numbers, and we settle this once and for all.

-KhanMan

[Alexander's Horse]

Khanman, how long is a piece of string?


------------------
Founder of the People's Republic of Topics (PROT)

Convenor of the Threadjacking Appreciation Society (new members welcome)

[My Wife Hates CIV]

As long as we're talking about mountains. I love it when someone builds next to a mountain!

Oh, and nukes... probably easier to have SDI before nukes anyway.

[KhanMan]

LOL!

That's what spies are for...planting nuclear devices in all their SDI-Defense cities...

AH-My string is longer than your string!
:P

That said, you're still avoiding the questions: Tell us exactly how large (population) and how high (elevation) a city needs to be to satisfy YOUR definitions.

-KhanMan
"Sic semper pax mundis"

[klesh]

I hope I don't get too much flak for this, but AH sorta has a bit of a point. A BIT. See, debating the Civ vs. Reality won't work. If it did, we'd have tanks the size of giant cities (they take up the same amount of space on the screen). So debating whether there are cities on mountains in real life isn't worth it. I try to play Civ within the reality that the game supplies. An advancing army should build a fort on a mountain, because they plan to advance. Why would an army on the war-path bother to build nice houses, a granary, harbor, etc just to shelter their troops? Answer: they wouldn't. They'd quick hook up a fort/fortress and abandon it when they advance. It just makes practical sense in Civ to build a city, because it can be done within the turn. If you are into "priming" a settler, you could build the fort in the same ammount of time.

I agree with all the examples given here. I don't want to answer everybody's pick of best mountain city. I just see an army on the move using a fort rather than a city. But hey, if it works...do it. I got smoked by War4ever cause he used a mountain city to stop my advances. I give him props, he did it before I got a chance to!
[This message has been edited by Field Marshal Klesh (edited March 19, 2000).]

[Alexander's Horse]

You won't get any flak from this quarter.


------------------
Founder of the People's Republic of Topics (PROT)

Convenor of the Threadjacking Appreciation Society (new members welcome)

[KhanMan]

Klesh-First off, I agree with you totally that civ2 has its own internal logic. That said, whether or not there are mountain cities is kind of moot...

However, although I grant that an invading army won't build a city-that they'd rather build a fort-there are many cases of natives building cities in high places, so as to watch over and even rule large surrounding areas.

A perfect example of this are castle-cities: the army might set up the castle, but, as the English were careful to do in the conquest of Wales, it's equally important to set up a symbiotic city, so you convert the populous to the defense of your castle. Also, you gain a population of people to support your castle's defense. Shoemakers, blacksmiths, stone masons, all of these are necessary if you want a long term hold on a piece of land.

So, yes, an invading army might not set up cities. An army intent on permanent occupation would.

[Alexander's Horse]

quote: Originally posted by KhanMan on 03-19-2000 09:22 PM A perfect example of this are castle-cities: the army might set up the castle, but, as the English were careful to do in the conquest of Wales, it's equally important to set up a symbiotic city, so you convert the populous to the defense of your castle. Also, you gain a population of people to support your castle's defense. Shoemakers, blacksmiths, stone masons, all of these are necessary if you want a long term hold on a piece of land.

THAT'S A FORT YOU MORON!!!!!




------------------
Founder of the People's Republic of Topics (PROT)

Convenor of the Threadjacking Appreciation Society (new members welcome)