City in the Mountains

[Destroyer]

Dunno if this has been raised before, but why can we not build cities in mountains. Its seems perfectly feasible, and Im sure there must be examples of peole living in mountains or caves or whatever.

Certainly in just about every fantasy/sci-fi world you have a fortress built into mountainside somewhere.

It just seems logical from a tactical viewpoint to have fortress cities in areas that are thick with mountains (obviously these kind of city squares should produce no food - which raises the point as to why all city square initially provide only 2 food).

[FNBrown]

You could probably mod the rules to allow mountainous cities... never tried it myself, tho..

[miccofl]

You can do it, it works fine. Use the terrain settings in the editor.

[Tuberski]

It will just cause more AI REXing though.

I don't allow cities on tundra, desert, or jungle either.

Although, jungle just has to be cleared to made livable.

[Dis]

I think you should be able to. No food in the city square of course.

but you can always put up fortresses in the mountains. They serve the tactical purpose almost as well.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Dissident
I think you should be able to. No food in the city square of course.

but you can always put up fortresses in the mountains. They serve the tactical purpose almost as well.

If it doesn't produce food in the city square, it won't be able to remain an even size 1 city.
1 pop point requires 2 food.

[Dis]

but cities can work 2 squares even at size one. So you just need 1 square that can produce 2 food.

[Destroyer]

Yeah, the point is not to have huge mountainous cities, but a way of expanding your bordrers in areas you coldnt otherwise claim (Ive seen Iron in some pretty unacessable areas).

[CiverDan]

Yeah, the point is not to have huge mountainous cities, but a way of expanding your bordrers in areas you coldnt otherwise claim (Ive seen Iron in some pretty unacessable areas).

That's what colonies are for

[punkbass2000]

Colonies are for something?