Should players be allowed to build cities on Mountain hexes?

Building on a mountain with a good special near is great.
Last night I built a city on a mountain with access to 3 whales! I split useage after a point, but that was a powerful city.

[SandMonkey]

(i hope no one else said this, but....) isn't Denver up in the mountains??

[Mao]

Isn't Buchephalus in the mountains too?

[myrlyn]

Naw the whole Denver area is on the east slope of the rockies. Not much of anything up near the peaks.

Didnt the Peublo Indians build thier cities right into the sides of mountains??

"Here i am standing pretty, in this dust that was a city. "
Nena

[KhanMan]

Yep.

Ever been to Mesa Verde? Those Cliff-dwellings are actually harder to take than the average mountain, because they have sheer cliff faces below, and cave outcroppings above. You either have to scale the really rough terrain leading up to it (avalanche, anyone or repell down the cliff face from above...

-KhanMan

"Falling rocks over head-thus the superior man finds shelter fast, and decides to leave mountain-strongholds be..."

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah, AH, you're just wrong! Cities on mountains are very smart strategy.

As far as I am concerned, anyone who builds cities on mountains is a wimp and a cheat - in the sense of acting against the spirit of the game.

Noone has yet named a major city built on a mountain. Those named are all towns. Who are kidding?


------------------
huFWEYFLWS sdbcSIB;BIU,N wnbuUHEW;hnb hFFPfpi IUHPISufhhufWPEIUFHPUH DPIhhf[ FSIUEWIFPI n2f879hfgb hw8098gf-98hj *(G-9-8h wpfg3q-[9h4-hfe [0eqridkji]kEW ;J[VENSDQK eijfqeioeiqgr ajvnq[oa'fdiveqioijifvbjw 087ef0q vswvb[qj9 fs9igbw9qwui 09jvbqe99jv09q9 vjawndggqw'[i

[myrlyn]

Then it is simple then Alexander. If you are
playing someone that builds a city on a
mountain QUIT.
Since this gets your goat so bad i imagine
people will do it do you on purpose.

Now how many people does a settlement need to go from town to city? I grew up in a town that
has over 30,000 in population and it is called a town.
I live in the city of Glasford, IL which has
barely 600 people I work out of the village
of Elk Grove, IL which has has over 100,000
in population.
Im sure if you want to do the research you could find many examples of settlements with populations over 50,000 people in theses mountain ranges.
Andes,Carpathians,Rockies,Pyrenees,aw heck with it do the research yourself
bye for now

"The war machine springs to life, opens up
one eager eye"
Nena

MWHC is right, its overkill, so nerdy and defensive, as well as being unrealistic.

[Emperor10]

Well being a Civer, I'd never attack another Civilization when they're down(Yeah, Right) Sorry AH, gotta say that the idea that city building somehow cheating is silly...mountains make great defensive choke points, among other things.
[This message has been edited by Emperor10 (edited March 12, 2000).]

Some of my multiplayer "friends", especially the mountain builders, are really enjoying watching me get bashed up on this thread

Not a single supporter, YOU sheep!



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

Convenor of the Threadjacking Appreciation Society (TAS)

[KhanMan]

If you don't want to get beaten up in threads like these, don't post undefendable accusations. You said that the only reasons you have for calling this a cheat are:

1. all real world mountain cities are villages, or not "real mountains"

Specify the exact elivation and populations necessary to make a city a "real city in real mountains", and I *will* find a city that fits your nit-picking qualifications.

2. this gives a defender an unfair advantage.

To which I join everyone else in replying that one dip or nuke can take down nearly any city, regardless of where it is!


Of course, I don't think I'm the only one who's surprized to see you whining again about an unsupportable claim...Anyone remember the thread where Horsebrains here said civ2 is full of satanic messages?

Here it is, if you've forgotten:
http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum1/HT...tml?date=19:58

"Small men with small brains deserve to be beaten"
-KhanMan

Khanman LOL, I appreciate that playing a game in the spirit in which it was intended is a concept alien to most Americans. The virtue of not kicking someone when they are down also seems to escape most Americans too

If I didn't have a point, you would not be replying. I think you do protest too much (sorry, another difficult abstract concept).


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

Convenor of the Threadjacking Appreciation Society (TAS)

Don't forget that the squares in civ are symbolic of the pre-dominant terrain in that area.
I think choke points and taking advantage of them by using the available terain adds an interest to the game.
I took out a reasonably well defended mountain city once by landing an engineer nearby, building a city, linked it to the mtn city by rail, docked the transport full of vet howies in my new city and pumped them into the mtn city
All in one turn of course!!

------------------
*THE DEITY*
#8388924

What I meant to say is that I thoroughly enjoyed this challenge.

But then, AHorse, you like it easy don't you?
You'd rather stab winners in the back rather than win on your own
LOL


------------------
*THE DEITY*
#8388924

Deity, you are SUCH a mug lair

Build forts on mountains people, most of the so-called cities were forts!!! I have no objection to that



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

Convenor of the Threadjacking Appreciation Society (new members welcome)

[My Wife Hates CIV]

What difference does it make? Your not taking out a city on a hill by force thats well defended. Mountains, to me, are just overkill in terms of defense. A hill city with coastal fortress and SAM can defend against anything. Even marines will sink battleship after battleship. Armor will do no good. Maybe if a dip or spy can take the walls down.

[myrlyn]

Alexander,

So far i have found 13 settlements of populations over 50,000 that have mountain peaks within thier city limits and are over 5,000 feet in elevation.
Do these meet your requirements?
Also i have found 2 settlements of over 50,000 in population with mountain peaks within thier city limits and are 0ver 10,000
feet in elevation.
Would this meet your requirements?
The information is redily available on the net or at your local library. Do some research if ya dont mind.


bye for now


Myrlyn
founder of the build cities on mountains society

[WesW]

Just passing through to see what is happening with civ 2 these days.

I find it very amusing to see Horse taking it on the chin, after the things he has said in the past about CtP. It appears that people here don't think much of Horse's opinions either.

[KhanMan]

AH-LOL!

You think a lil' crack about Americans is going to rile me?

:P

By the way, you forgot to list what exactly constitutes a "city" in the "mountains". Put up your qualifications, big guy!

Wes-Yeah, he does tend to get creamed royally when he starts a' whinin'...


-KhanMan
"Sic semper pax mundis"

Christ, 50 posts and nobody has come to my aid - you guys would kill Kenny (you bastards)

Firstly, Myrlyn, put up or shut up. I'll bet half of the 50,000 plus mountain SETTLEMENTS are in China or South Asia. 50,000 is but a village in China - do your own research on that!

Wes, don't follow the herd


Khanman, thank you you touched on one of my core arguments, namely, the cities in civ represent mega cities. They are VAST. For example, you couldn't fit more than one or two cities in an area the size of France. They really represent whole regions rather than cities, narrowly defined. And yet we have people mentioning Machu Pichu!!! A fort/citadel built on a mountain spur!!! I've seen photos of it, have you?

Well, what do you say to that!



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

Convenor of the Threadjacking Appreciation Society (new members welcome)

[myrlyn]

Ok Alexander I'll shut up as soon as you do some research . These settlements are actully spread all over the world. You can find at least one on every continent.

You can insult Americans and me all you want.
It doesnt change the facts.

I remember another infamous person with the initials AH. He also whined and threw tantrums when he didnt get his way.

I am shutting up now. I know when im dealing
with a unbalanced personality. Bye........


Heil Horsie!!!!!!!!

[tobyr]

AHorse,
Jerusalem and Meggiddo (the site of the Armaggedon battle) are built on mountains, and I suspect they are not that unusual in ancient times.

Jerusalem's defense consisted of a wall around the city on three sides, enclosing the built-up high ground parts of the city, and enclosing the most important water source, which was on relatively low ground.

People surely did not live in the mountain's valley, because the simple sewer system consisted of letting refuse run down, on open conduits, into the valley.

- toby


------------------
toby robison
criticalpaths@mindspring.com

[Emperor10]

It appears that after Horse's exile from the CTP forum, he has launched a major invasion of our territory reminds me of the Huns heading west towards the Romans after being unceremoniously walled out by the chinese. As for mountain cities, the evidence is so overwhelming as to thier existence, I won't even dignify the whining with an answer.

[granite00]

Although I absolutely agree with all those against AH, isn't it about time to kill this thread?

[klesh]

quote: Originally posted by War4ever on 03-09-2000 04:07 PM Although mountains are almost impossible to siege early in the game...... a nuke will work just fine. Mountains are just a part of the game go around if you dont' want to war

Believe me....he knows what he's talking about....Damn Quinsay...



------------------
"We stand to stride the world like a Colosus noble leader"
-Military Advisor

Huh? I put arguments and noone addresses them? Must be right then

Myrlyn, play the man and not the ball. Does a settlement of 50,000 constitute a major city today? Gee, let's see, I think not. I'll bet Tokyo isn't in your list

Tobyr, Jerusalem is built on terrain which in civ would be no more than a hill. Megiddo was a fortress. As I said, I have no problem with building forts on mountains. Perfectly acceptable.

Emporer 10, but look what the huns did to the Romans

granite00, don't you like debate? This has generated more heat than a lot of threads for a loooong time

Klesh, I feel for you man


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

Convenor of the Threadjacking Appreciation Society (new members welcome)

[Empress]

Cities built at 5,000 ft above sea level (or about one mile) Thus it is possible in the real world. However, regardless, there are many aspects of civ that are not even close to the real world... In fact, I think there is a even a thread about it

Mexico city -14 million (it is in a swamp.. that is one mile above sea level)
Medellin Columbia- 2 million
Bandung, Indonesia- 2 million
Kabul, Afghanistan (10,000 ft)- 1.5 million
Kunming, China- 1.5 million

Here are five examples the world over who are not towns. Need any more?

[WhiteKnight]

Yeah, there are alot of cities in the mountains today. Not as many as there used to be, but still a bunch.

I think its ok to build on mountains. I mean in ancient times that was one of their major defenses. Not so much in modern times, but its already been pointed out that by that stage of the game we have more powerful weapons to make up for it.

[War4ever]

actually one of my favorite strats in a x2 production game is to build a city on gold early in the game especially if i find a nomad the trade boost is huge and noone..... and i mean noone is kicking me off that gold pile not before modern warfare anyways

Besides building on it prevents others from building on my gold and thus stealing the resources from out under me..... a mysterious ferret comes to mind although it was a silk and not gold he built on