What if hills were done like rivers?

Sandman · July 12, 2002, 14:00

That is, instead of hills appearing in squares, they appeared between squares, like rivers. So the defending bonus only occured if a unit attacked another over hills.

Perhaps the hills could generate an extra resource point in mined squares adjacent to them, like rivers generate an extra trade point.

If a square was bounded on three sides by hills, it would turn into a 'valley' or 'foothills' or something like that.

If a square was bounded on all sides by hills, then it would become a mountain, or maybe a plateau.

Inspired thinking or worthless guff?

Inverse Icarus · July 12, 2002, 14:06

Ispired thinking? maybe.

Worthless? maybe.

Civ4? maybe.

but the problem with that would be that large things of hills would have to have some sort of terrain in the middle.

I don't like the idea but i see it's merits.

zulu9812 · July 12, 2002, 14:18

if you did have hills between tiles, then you'd lose the concept of height for defense, which is why castles and towns were built on hills in the first place.

Pythagoras · July 12, 2002, 15:03

Well the elevation difference is what matters, so what you suggests sounds like it would end up like SMAC's 'mountains'

Free Enterprise · July 13, 2002, 14:20

I don't really think this would work well in Civ games. It would reduce the amounts of terrain types even further and it would make bonus terrain even more important. It was ok in Alpha Centuari since the system was different.

HazieDaVampire · July 13, 2002, 14:51

i don't like it, i dunno why, i just don't, why change it if theirs nothing wrong with it?

Dan Severn · July 13, 2002, 15:54

Also, Hills do not follow lines, as rivers do. Hilss spread out in all directions, and are much more a type of terrain than a barrier.

I was thinking, how about wooded hills? They appear in Civ3, but they are merely cosmetic.

HazieDaVampire · July 13, 2002, 16:29

Yeah, large mountaines areas would look stupid!