Should players be allowed to build cities on Mountain hexes?

[DirkZelwis]

Hello!
To Mad Monk: I never counted the number of tiles/squares for Civ2, I did it for Civ1, it was 80 tiles. When you divide the 40,000 kilometres around the equator through 80 tiles, you get 50 km for each, in Civ1. In Civ2, go to the "View"-mode so you get the number x/y for that tile, move the cursor over the 00/yy-line (the day/night-line) so you get the highest xx-number, divide the kilometres/miles around the equator through that number, and you get an idea. For me, it was 266 kilometres. Now you'd probably need Pythagoras, but it's 3:20 o'clock around here.
Anyone ever been to Switzerland? And what do mountains in Civ2 represent? High altitude? Or sheer cliffs?
Bye, Dirk
"Dirks and Daggers."


[This message has been edited by DirkZelwis (edited March 25, 2000).]

[Dorsai]

A.H., the goal of MP games is to win. If someone wants the defensive position a mountain gives, then so be it. You'll just have to deal with it. 'All is fair in love and war'.

Also, as for cities not being built on mountains, the big island of Hawaii (if I remember correctly) is the tallest mountain on Earth - from base to top. I do believe there is at least one city on that island.

------------------
The surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in this universe is that none of it has contacted us!

[The Mad Viking]

LOL

Khanman:
You can claim your piece of string is longer than AH's, but the horse certainly has a longer...

thread!

AH: I just looked back at the "Holocaust Never Happened" thread, and a greater percentage of posts supported that idea than support your whinnying here.

Yes, a tile represents roughly 200 miles each way, presuming that the ice caps are left off. AH: how many mountains have an area of 40,000 square miles? As has repeatedly been stated, the mountain terrain symbol is not exclusively a mountain. IT IS A REGION OF MOUNTAINOUS TERRAIN. Some areas are kinda tough to conquer. As already suggested, see Switzerland. Whole country could be best modelled as a single Civ city, uh, built IN A REGION OF MOUNTAINOUS TERRAIN.

PS: Congratulations on another long, lively, on-topic thread!
[This message has been edited by The Mad Viking (edited March 27, 2000).]

[Alexander's Horse]

Hey guys, could you hurry up? I want to start another thread

And nice to see a few Settlers showing up. We'll give your views the appropriate weight


------------------
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 27, 2000).]

[The Mad Monk]

Dirk: sorry about the delay, things kinda got busy elsewhere...
Anyway, I've done similar calcs and gotten similar results. The thing to remember is that the world you're playing is not necessarily Earth, and (in the case of flat worlds)may not even cover and entire planet. Because of these considerations, I tend to base my estimates on the ablilities of the playing pieces, rather than the size of the map.
For example, a city has a two square range; given that what would its 'sphere of influence' logically be? If you consider squares to be twenty miles on a side, you get a range of about fifty miles, including one-half of the city square. When you try to go to a "realistic" scale based on the map, this can easily result in a range exceeding 500 miles (using the Mad Viking's estimate). This is not realistic in ancient times; as for modern times, it would put New York City's range somewhere near Indiana...

As for your mountain question...mountains, at this scale, would include passes, valleys, moraines, alpine meadows, etc. In short, plenty of spots to found a city. The mountain squares are not impassable; if they are supposed to have nothing but jagged peaks and sheer cliffs, they would be.

Comments?
[This message has been edited by The Mad Monk (edited March 27, 2000).]

[Crustacian]

so what if someone builds on a mountain?

and what was that about Gilligan's island? hehe

[War4ever]

in my win over AH i didnt build one city on a mountain.... although i did use a hill twice

[The Mad Monk]

I had a postage stamp island with a fruit special on just off the coast of "my" continent. I landed a settler on it early on and founded a city called "Gilligan's Island", for kicks; I ignored it after that.
It eventually grew to 22 pop. and became one hell of a trade city.

[Andz83]

Can anybody explain me what's so funny with all these jokes about Gilligan's Island? I might have missed some starting joke but can really not understand how so many guys can so long have fun with such a ridiculous thing.

hehe, one more post

------------------
"When a man lies, he murders some part of the world. These are the pale deaths, which men miscall their lives. All this I cannot bear to witness any longer. Cannot the kingdom of salvation take me home?"
Cliff Burton (1962-1986), 1988 ("To Live Is To Die")

[Alexander's Horse]

You guys are really shooting yourselves in the foot with your crazed arguments about the size of civ hexes. They really make my case. Take Switzerland, which Monk mentioned. All of the major Swiss cities are on the flat, why should you get a mountain defensive advantage for any of them? Contrary to Swiss mythmaking, the Germans calculated they could have taken all of the major cities in about two days. Geneva in about two hours.

Andz83, Gilligans Island is an Anglo thing - you wouldn't understand. Its part of reason we anglos don't go around murdering our neighbours every generation or so - unlike some


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

Convenor of the Threadjacking Appreciation Society (new members welcome)

[My Wife Hates CIV]

This whole freakin game is luck. The terrain you get decides it. I can beat (destroy) anyone here with the right terrain and if you get dirt. Luck. Now, if everyone gets pretty much the same kind of starting terrain you can get a good game - and the games like that I've been in are pretty close games. I mean, what else is there to this game. We all what techs to research in the tree. We all know how to run our cities to max out the production/trade/food.

So as far as building on rivers, hills or mountains. There's really nothing to talk about. The AI wouldnt be such a push over if it built on more defensive terrain. Heck, you build on grassland in a MP game your dead. Really, you get a good river system to start with, enough for 6 or 8 good cities, thats it - your going to do very well.

[Mark von Wagner]

quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse on 03-30-2000 06:23 PM Take Switzerland, which Monk mentioned. All of the major Swiss cities are on the flat, why should you get a mountain defensive advantage for any of them? Contrary to Swiss mythmaking, the Germans calculated they could have taken all of the major cities in about two days. Geneva in about two hours.

Can you say "partisans"? Switzerland is perfect terrain for guerrilla warfare.

Mark

[Alexander's Horse]

yes Mark you can have partisans, just like in civ - but the cites are gone, so why should they get the mountain bonus?


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

Convenor of the Threadjacking Appreciation Society (new members welcome)

[The Mad Monk]

Avalanches.

Guys up top can start 'em, guys below can't stop 'em.

[Sten Sture]

Save the Hungry Mountain Computer People!!!