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).]

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.

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")

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

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!!!

quote: Originally posted by The Mad Monk on 03-31-2000 11:45 AM Avalanches. Guys up top can start 'em, guys below can't stop 'em.

Getting desperate are we?

Hey, AH; how can I become member of the Threadjacking Appreciation Society?

Anyway, the discussion seems to be becoming SPAM for itself. The thread started with the question about city-construction and now deals with guys who try to defend their position with silly arguments (Avalanches? I think somebody here was getting high just before posting ).
Can't you guys realize that there's no way to convince the opponents in this discussion? There are some who think that it should be allowed and some who don't. So, if you only want to spam around, you should in fact move it to OT. There's enough space for Threadjacking, Spamming, and all the things that make OTF real fun, don't you think?

------------------
"No life 'til leather, we gonna kick some ass tonight"

-"Hit The Lights" by Metallica, 1983

the first text-line that's mentioned in the first song published by Metallica on their first album...

What gets me about some of you people is as soon as you start to lose the argument, you want the thread closed!!!!! Admit defeat, move on!!

Hey AH, do you talk with me?

1. I don't want the thread closed, I was just wondering why it's still active.

2. I don't think that I lost an argument, I don't even think that I'm against you. I for myself am not sure whether it should be allowed or not (city on mountain).
So I don't have to admit defeat, b/c that defeat would be the defeat for both sides.

Actually, why does the thread title question deal with mountain "hexes"? Isn't civ2 a game with "squares"...? Or are you guys talking about things different than I thought...?!

[KhanMan]

Andz83-Take it from someone who knows, AH is not at all interested in a real discussion of the issue, he merely wants to cloud it, as was proven about 50 threads back, when he refused to define what is a "mountain" and a "city" in his view (he had been arguing the there are no real world mountain cities).

So it's basically pointless to talk to him, since he always evades the issue. Rest confident, however, that over 90% of the mp community doesn't agree with his anti-mountains stance.

-KhanMan
Mountaineering ally of War
Member of the Sayen Tribe

And yet you keep coming back for more

[Neon Deon]

AH,
Did the Germans take Switzerland in 2 days???
Did the Germans win the war?????
Did every thing the German Army calculate come true? Is Geneva surrounded by flat land? Can you take a city in 2 hours if the occupants fight for it? Was the Swiss Army better equiped than the Ghetto jews of Warsaw? Did the German Army crush the Warsaw uprising in 2 hours? Can i have some of what your smoking?

quote: Originally posted by Sten Sture on 04-03-2000 12:25 PM Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

Are you Americans really that stupid? As I thought, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor... Don't you really know this???

Anyway, I don't understand your argument. Is this even a contribution to our "discussion"?

[DaveV]

Andz83 - Sten Sture is NOT that stupid. He's quoting from the movie "Animal House". It's getting increasingly hard to judge whether any particular post is germane to this thread, but I think SS's post was meant to poke fun at AH's preceding post.

OK, since I don't know "animal House", I couldn't know.
But I think that's no problem, is it?

I think we are disgressing, aren't we?

So, here's the final question. 1,000,000$ for the first to answer it:

Should players be allowed to build cities on Mountain hexes?



I think the answer to this question is not a general one. Everybody has to know it for himself (whether to do it nor not), and if anyone other does that: there were mentioned many possibilities to come along with it. Shall I count them again?

1. emm
1. well

OK, I don't remember at least one, but I think you know what I wanted to say!

[Ming]

I vote yes.
In single production games, you need to have a food source handy to make it work. It is very easy to seige the city by fortifing a vet pikeman on their food source, and then sit back and watch the fun. In double production games, I would recommend bribes or nukes

My rationale is simple. The game allows you to do it. Now granted, the game allows you to do a lot of things that most people consider as cheating... but, the designers went out of their way to not allow cities on glaciers... if they felt the same way about mountains... I rest my case

[Bird]

TOGA,TOGA,TOGA.

[Sten Sture]

Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.

Reference: http://us.imdb.com/Quotes?0077975


------------
A vote "yes" for Mountains is a vote for peace and humanity.


[This message has been edited by Sten Sture (edited April 03, 2000).]

[Bird]

Hey, I'm not fat.