Tweet
Re: 2850
Yes. Goal of the game was to add tactical choice and not taking them away.
We already are restrained by being unable to build for instance on desert, tundra and jungle. This is good, because these terrain types tend to exist in comparatively large patches and thus, create those unsettled areas, which will later be our battlegrounds and a permanent nuisance due to barbarians. The restriction on forest exists only, because it otherwise would be possible to plant it on tundra and then settle. It has no other tactical reason.
However, hills are everywhere, in desert areas, plains areas, grassland areas and tundra areas. To restraint settling on hills does not add to the main goal (more tactical options) by creating undercrowded maps. At the countrary, it takes options away, because now the players can not decide to use the defense bonus the hills provide.
By the way, the turn was sent to Krill quite a while ago.
Originally posted by Rommel2D
What were the concerns? That we would be too limited in our city placement options?
What were the concerns? That we would be too limited in our city placement options?
We already are restrained by being unable to build for instance on desert, tundra and jungle. This is good, because these terrain types tend to exist in comparatively large patches and thus, create those unsettled areas, which will later be our battlegrounds and a permanent nuisance due to barbarians. The restriction on forest exists only, because it otherwise would be possible to plant it on tundra and then settle. It has no other tactical reason.
However, hills are everywhere, in desert areas, plains areas, grassland areas and tundra areas. To restraint settling on hills does not add to the main goal (more tactical options) by creating undercrowded maps. At the countrary, it takes options away, because now the players can not decide to use the defense bonus the hills provide.
By the way, the turn was sent to Krill quite a while ago.
Comment