Another idea for those mountains.

[aimeeandbeatles]

Perhaps only certain units could go on mountains, such as explorers and scouts, perhaps late-game special alpine troops (like in Civ2). Helicopter units for sure.

However, it's possible to make them passable for other units:

After a certain tech (not too late in the game, perhaps engineering), it is possible for workers to go on mountains and build roads across them. It would take maybe 6-7 turns, and allow any unit to cross it. Oh, and non-buggy graphics (e.g. try worldbuildering a road onto a mountain -- looks weird!)

If a non-mountain unit pillages a mountain road, they can still get down from the mountain (or onto a roaded tile), but not be able to go back. If they're stuck in the middle of a mountain chain, well you can guess

Perhaps if a mountain tile is roaded, it could be possible to put mines in them. Cottages would be a little too tricky.

Also if volcano goes off, bye-bye road. And any units on them.

 

[Gamemaster77]

It's not impossible to be on a mountain. No moantain passing is stupid

 

[pesgores]

Tunnels. Act as Roads through Mountains. Take more time to be built and moving penalty for terrain type is nullified, while roads (RL: curves and curves when passing through a mountain road) have a -1Move penalty.

 

[Bozorgh]

Something along these lines is good. My idea would be for certina types of terrain to do random damage to units, possibly even killing them. Jungles, deserts, and tundra might have this effect as well as mountains.

This would force different strategies for different terrain, making a better game, and be more realistic, as usually there are more deaths from starvation, disease, and accidents, as opposed to combat.

 

[Gamemaster77]

If tunnels are used instead of making them passable if it is bombed units inside should be destroyed.

 

[pesgores]

Deserts: after 2 turns on deserted tiles without exiting, units start losing 10% health, and without any chance to recover even if fortified, unless they fortify on a fort tile.

But the topic here is not about other stuff than mountains

 

[Camikaze]

If this is combined with numerous elevations, then it would make sense to only make the highest mountains impassable, and perhaps the level below that only passable by certain units or after certain techs. Tunnels is a reasonable idea, but it isn't very realistic to tunnel through something that is meant to represent, for example, Mt. Everest. Tunnels would have to go, IMO, with a lower elevation mountain, as prescribed in the other thread.

 

[CivMyWay]

Tunnels could apply to hills. So early techs give you roads, which you can build over a hill. A later tech allows you to build a tunnel, which improves the movement cost even more (after all, going in a reasonably straight line on flat ground is much quicker than winding up and down mountain roads).
Perhaps a later tech would allow tunnels through mountains, though I imagine this should be a very long building project (perhaps the first one to build it gets some kind of a low-level world wonder?)

Bombing units inside a tunnel should not destroy them (I'm thinking air raids)... after all, tunnels are effectively long bunkers and there are many times in WW2 where such structures were made mainly for defensive purposes. Perhaps to destroy a tunnel you have to use ground forces, or a saboteur unit.

I think passing a mountain without roads should be very hard (e.g. massive health losses). Small techs could improve it. I dont know how Civ handles it atm; does a road built on a mountain take longer than a road built on a plain? If not, it should.

 

[Gamemaster77]

Civ3 had it right. roads cost like 4 (or 8, I forgot) times more to build on mountains then on plains

 

[Naokaukodem]

I think that moutains being impassable can be a good thing when there are chains of them, creating special strategies.

So I can see the idea that made the birth of them. For example, in multiplayer, it happens some times (very few time in reality) that one side in Inland Sea is totally blocked by mountains. Now that changes slightly the strategies of war, being safer to plant cities earlier without defense, and implying galleys a little later and for the rest of the game.

But this feature is somekind null in standard Continents or Pangaeas: i never saw a chain of mountain that created interesting strategic situations.

So impassable mountains was a good first intention, but somewhat forgotten in the course of the game creation.

And anyway, if there had been large chains of mountains like in Civ3, impassable mountains would have make the game implayable, because the strategy involved in this would have been too much of an extremum, while in reality it would still be possible to travel through those chains. (plus you can't work mountains in Civ4)

So developers reduced the number of mountains in Civ4 map generator, making them useless with no reason to exist, while it was first a good intention.

Personnally, I propose to use the 3D engine in order to shape the land in adequation with its altitude. There could be infinite values of altitudes, with possible great laps of altitude between two adjacent squares, representing canyons, cliffs and so on. Well, it would be exactly like Alpha Centauri, at the exception that it would be visible on the map, and with cliffs and the like allowing ambuscades. (and forbiddening the connexion of roads between two "unlinked" squares)

Additionnally, you can't count only the bare altitude of each square, because the map would only be a chain of "plateau". You have also to take into account the average difference of altitude from each squares to others. For that, you could model a map with a much higher definition than bare tiles, or liking the different average altitude coherently. (but with this last one there would not be cliffs anymore). Anyway, that would be pretty ressource demanding.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Sometimes I've seen a mountain block off part of an entire continent (e.g. think of the Earth map and North-South America). This is one of the situations where roads could be useful.

Also, possible built forts on mountains.

 

[Gamemaster77]

Cliffs would be a good idea or slopes. This could make like a grand canyon in the earth scenerio

 

[exhile]

What will Civ5 entail? In civ1&2, mountains were passable. In civ3&4, mountains were impassable. In civ5&6, mountains will both be passable & impassable.

Satisfied!?

 

[Gamemaster77]

Mountains were passable in civ3

 

[exhile]

Mountains were passable in civ3

Mountains in Civ3&4 were impassable (unpassable) just as lakes were.

 

[Gamemaster77]

No. I have the game. In Civ3 it is possible to go on a mountain tile except for catapults and cannons.

 

[exhile]

No. I have the game. In Civ3 it is possible to go on a mountain tile except for catapults and cannons.

Perhaps going over mountains should cost more movement points than a unit can move in one turn. Therefore a cannon would have to stay in one square for 3-5 turns before passing a mountain using up all its turns and movement points.

 

[Gamemaster77]

Perhaps going over mountains should cost more movement points than a unit can move in one turn. Therefore a cannon would have to stay in one square for 3-5 turns before passing a mountain using up all its turns and movement points.

That is a bit more realistic and can't up set game balance that much. Could it?

 

[Camikaze]

I don't like the idea of a unit using up more than one turn's movement by going on a tile. It just doesn't seem right to me. What if you accidently click the wrong button. You're doubly screwed. And even in the modern era, it would mean 2 years for a unit to pass a mountain, which is pretty unrealistic. It's better to either just leave them impassable, or have different types of mountains, some of which are passable and some of which are not.

 

[Naokaukodem]

or have different types of mountains, some of which are passable and some of which are not.

Within a mountain chain, you could have peaks and passes.