I think that Colonies should be able to eventually grow into cities. It should take a while but I would think that eventually the population would rise enough to be a city. IMHO

Great Job been discussed a few times before But i totally agree with this idea. Just to reinforce this idea, Think of all the mining town\colonies all over America that became cities, I think Denver was one of those.

How about they can grow into cities triggered by a tech which alows you to join another worker to it to gain ts city staus?

I haven't seen the previous discussions, but I agree that the concept of colonies is great. It merely needs to be enhanced. Colonies were established for two reasons: to secure resources and to make the sponsoring country/company money. Only one of these really exists in Civ3 --and only if there is a land link. Obviously, it should be automatic for an overseas colony to have a water link with the host nation.

As far as making money for the nation and eventually turning into cities, these are certainly some concepts I would like to see thougth through and fleshed out in Civ4.

--CK

I think that Colonies should be able to eventually grow into cities. It should take a while but I would think that eventually the population would rise enough to be a city. IMHO

And even more, they will become kind of a colonial village, with no corruption...

what about colonies in mountains?

At the very least it should become a city when your culture expands to envelop it...

what about colonies in mountains?


I never really understood why you couldn't have cities in the mountians. I think it was the Aztecs or the Mayans that had a large city in the mountians and would raid the Spanish who were trying to kill them. Also, cities like Denver, any city in Switzerland, ect were in the mountians.

Cities in Switzerand being in the mountains? Where did you hear that (****)? Sorry to discourage you, but I live in a swiss city (Basel), and I can't SEE the Alps ;)

But it's true, there were many cities in the mountains. Machu Pichu is just the most famous example (the incan city you meant) and the incas really built all of their cities on top of the mountains (or most). Then I'm not sure, but Lhasa could also be an example. (hmm, I doubt it, it's just high, but not on top of a mountain, right?).

but definately it should be able to be done (but it needs a tech to be researched... :))

mfG mitsho

It is true that there are cities on the mountains, but they never grow from little towns, maybe you could have cities in the mountains but never let them grow past 3 or something.

About colonies, anyone is aware that many many american cities were colonies in the beginning? I very much like the idea of them becaming cities when culture limit reaches them :goodjob:

Cities in Switzerand being in the mountains? Where did you hear that (****)? Sorry to discourage you, but I live in a swiss city (Basel), and I can't SEE the Alps ;)


"Switzerland hosts about 20% of the Alps. Approximately 100 peaks are close to or higher than 4000 meters (13125 feet) above sea level." (http://www.about.ch/geography/#CH_Geo_Mountains)

Also from Air and Space Magizine, specificly the "Thunder in the Alps" article.


It is true that there are cities on the mountains, but they never grow from little towns, maybe you could have cities in the mountains but never let them grow past 3 or something.

I don't know if you classify Denver as "in the mountians" or not, I know that I do and Denver is bigger than a "little town".

I thought Denver was built on a plateau, rather than on the side of a mountain. It'd be neat to see a Terraced Farming technology, though. I figure it'd allow you to get 1 Food in any worked Mountain tile.

- Rep.

Archeologist don't know for sure if Machu Pichu was a city or a ceremonial(monumental) city for the gods. Legend says that the city was build in to mountains to hide it from the spaniards.

Aside form Machu Pichu I don't really know if there are cities ON mountains.

There are a LOT of smallish fishing cities here in Japan like Aomori City, Towada, and Cape Tappi that are built on mountainsides; these mountainside parts of town are typically the most prosperous and respected. I think it would be interesting if cities and colonies could be built on mountainsides with the research of a technology like earthmoving or landscaping. And I believe Mohenjo-Daro was built on a mountain. Or possibly a plateau.

In the Game, mountainside and plateau mean a hill next to a mountain.

Perhaps if you say YES you can build cities on Mountains, but that their maximum population is restricted to around 6 in the current system (a system which I am PRAYING they will alter ;))!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

I think the reason they don't allow cities on mountains is because of the outrageous defensive bonus they would receive (I mean, come on, city on mountain, metropolis, civil defense, radar tower in range, fortified, etc.) It's just ridiculous. Units on mountains are bad enough, and restricting the size of the city isn't really practical IMO.

Also, I've been to Denver, and it is NOT in the mountains. If you want to talk about a city that's in the mountains (or, crawls up the mountains pretty far) come here, where I live.

In the Game, mountainside and plateau mean a hill next to a mountain.


From what I have read in other threads it seems that each square represents a 60+ square mile area (depending on map size). I would think you would be able to find a spot (At least in some mountians) to place a city in that area (also, in the case of 60+ square miles, each mountian square probably represents more than one mountian). I am from Tennessee origionally and the "mountians" there have several cities on them. You may not classify the Smokey Mountians as mountians but I do.

I don't know if you classify Denver as "in the mountians" or not, I know that I do and Denver is bigger than a "little town".

Sorry, never been in Denver ;) never seen a photo of it either.

Anyway, of course there are exceptions, Bolivia's capitol (I'm sure you 've never been there) is the highest capitol in the world, at 3.600m high. And it is not a little town. How high is Denver?

But I believe most of the cities placed higher than 3.000m (please do not ask me to put it in ft, I'm on the metric system) do not grow much.

@switchblade. And Switzerland geologically exists out of 60 % Alps, 30 % Middlelands and 9 % Jura (+1 % others). And I can tell you, that NO big swiss city lies inside the "alp zone". Don't discuss with me, I am swiss and had Geography in school, and btw. I think you understand wrong what mountain in civ3 means: It really means mountain, not a mountainous region. And few cities were actually built on top of a mountain. Of course, a tile can represent a regioin of 60 square miles, but civ3 is a game and it has simplified representation of geography: there are too few mountain lines and rivers and lakes and and and.... But this had to be done to keep the game playable. (Mega huge maps are to a part more realistic, but yes, play them and you see that they are not really playable (long long turn times, 512 city limit, ...).

mfG mitsho

Archeologist don't know for sure if Machu Pichu was a city or a ceremonial(monumental) city for the gods. Legend says that the city was build in to mountains to hide it from the spaniards.

Machu Pichu was built about 100 years before the Spainish came :rolleyes:

How high is Denver?

Not entirely sure what the exact elevation is but it is called "Mile High City" so I would assume at leats a mile up (probably more) seemed like more at least when I was there.

That was the Legend said. Besides I have seen pictures of it and it doesn't seen to have ever been a big city.

What about cities in Nepal, aren't they in the Himalayas?

The question is not, if the cities are in a mountainous region (that the nepalesian cities are for sure), but if they are on top of a mountain (and that is what I don't know :)).

mfG mitsho