Should terraforming been brought back?

[Harovan]

The poll about bringing back caravans made me think about another feature, that disappeared in Civ3, while it was in Civ2 and even in CtP1/2, the terraforming. Personally I am glad that we're rid of it. I'm sure, many people disagree. At least I think, that the terraforming should be reduced, not to change the relief. No mountains in hills, or hills in plains, and vice versa. What do you think?

[FrustratedPoet]

it was always useful in civ2 to terraform any inconvenient terrain into something that suited you better, but it did seem very unrealistic. i'm glad it's gone, but i wouldn't be all that upset if it ever came back either ... having it is an option you could toggle on/off would be good.

[Sinapus]

Well, I'm one of the people who's mentioned a desire to see terraforming back, so I'll agree. I think you should be able to reduce mountains to hills, then hills to plains, though not be able to go *back* to it. It should take quite a few turns to complete, even with Industrious, Democratic workers with Replaceable parts advance.

A twist to try might be to have a chance for terrain to revert back to the original terrain type (except for mountains and hills) so grasslands can be turned back into deserts and such.

With sufficient quantities of high explosives, even mountains have to yield.

[Immortal Wombat]

Yes, but put it later in the game. Its not too unrealistic, but it wouldn't be easy early on, and it should be expensive to do , in time or resources.

[Richelieu]

I agree. It should be an ability that comes later in the game : Replaceable parts sounds about right.

[SpencerH]

I agree. It should be an ability that comes later in the game : Replaceable parts sounds about right.

Sounds about right. We've never been able to make bridges, I'd like to have seen that.

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by SpencerH


Sounds about right. We've never been able to make bridges, I'd like to have seen that.

Again, i gree. Bridges and tunnels.

[dunk]

In Civ I & II, you built bridges. You weren't allowed to build roads in river squares until Bridge Building was discovered.

I think there should be terraforming. Hills should be able to be leveled. That's the only terrain I would think is ok, no way on mountains. I will point to Manhatten for an example of hill flattening in real life.

You shouldn't be able to convert the flat land types save by planting trees. I don't care how much dynamite you have, you can't blast a desert or tundra into plains. Deserts and tundras are climate conditions, not terrains.

[Sinapus]

Oh, the converting desert to plains, plains to grassland, etc can be handwaved away with some other method besides explosives.

The reducing of mountains and hills, etc can still use HE. I guess some sort of "tectonic manipulation" can be used to make hills.

[dunk]

Originally posted by Sinapus
Oh, the converting desert to plains, plains to grassland, etc can be handwaved away with some other method besides explosives.

What method?

[Highlander_two]

Just my 2 cents worth -

I'm all for bringing back terraforming as it was in Civ2. Realistically, it is the best way for the player to overcome the horrendous starting locations the Civ3 seems to so often give out. Also, it allows the player to modify and improve his or her civ's productivity. I'm also a firm believer that players should be able to irrigate hills (if they choose to).

I agree that it makes no sense to turn plains and/or grasslands into desert (that is best left to global warming). Also, it should not be possible to turn plains to hills or hills to mountains. And terraforming should NOT be easy, inexpensive or quick. I think a great way to implement this would be to bring back the Civ2 Engineer unit. Make him available in the early Industial Age and possibly reduce the number of turns for him to terraform once Internal Combustion has been researched (because this would then allow terraforming using heavy construction equipment).

For those who think that terraforming is a futuristic sci-fi concept with no basis in history, THINK AGAIN! Mankind has terraformed the earth's surface in one way or another for thousands of years. Irrigation and mining were just early forms of terraforming that allowed man to produce or acquire resources that would oherwise not have been available. Ancient civilizations terraced, irrigated and farmed hillsides to provide crops that otherwise could not have been grown. They also dug canals for irrigation, water power and transportation. Lets not forget the Suez and Panama Canals - massive terraforming projects! We have even taken mountains and turned them into monuments (of all things) such as Mt. Rushmore and the Crazy Horse monument which is not yet finished. We have taken old open-pit and strip mines and "reclaimed" the land for other uses. We have even taken mounds of trash and turned them into hills. We affectionately refer to these as "landfills".

All potential naysayers should stop for a moment and think what the land their homes sit on would look like if no one had "terraformed" the land during construction.

[SpencerH]

In Civ I & II, you built bridges. You weren't allowed to build roads in river squares until Bridge Building was discovered.

Sorry, I was unclear. I meant bridges between continents (especially those divided by one sea square). Ships were used in CIV and CIV2 (which led to the cheat where you could load and unload a land unit across an ocean on a bridge of ships). In SMAC/SMACX there weren't bridges but you could terraform a land bridge. I dont recall bridges in Ctp2 but I liked the underwater tunnels.

[simwiz2]

no, i am glad terraforming is gone. Other than clearing off forests or jungle, the terrain shouldnt be able to be changed because having every single tile at grassland isnt the point of the game. Also in civ2 terraforming made global warming a joke.

[Harovan]

Hmmm, at this point 7 against, 5 pro (w/o hills+mountains), 5 pro and 4 banana lovers. Just like I thought, opinions widely vary.

[Dis]

workers need so many improvements I cannot count.

most of them should not be available until modern times. all the current improvements are find for older times.

Canals would be real nice and realistic. Something that is sorely missed from civ games. Although you could lower terrain in smac if you liked- planet busters also worked .

I don't like levelling mountains. Not very realistic. We have built on mountains, but Mt. McKinley still exists. We aren't doing anything with it. So mountains should stay as is.

plains into grassland etc. No. you can't alter rainfall patterns. Although maybe you can make this an option in 2050.

hills should be able to be levelled. But along with a time requirement it should cost an enourmous amount of gold.

swamps. I don't like swamps being converted into grassland. The terrain squares represent too much land area. It is impractical for us to do that in modern times. But you should be able to build cities on swamps of course. Although there are no swamps in civ3 for some reason. They need to be there . What kind of earth is this? Who designed this game?

jungles: I have no complaints. They can be cut down in the current game. I'm fine with this.

Tundra: no complains.

glaciers: they are missing for some reason. Inhospitable terrain was a nice feature of civ2. There are islands above Canada that are nice to see on world maps, but I don't want the ai building on them. Same with polar caps. They just add flavour to the game. Maybe global warming can melt these. Put these in the game firaxis along with swamps!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

forests: bring back shield bonus. there must be some reason not to cover the entire planet with plains and grassland. I like to see forests.