fitchn
Civ Fanatic
I fail to see the advantage of building a city by a volcano. A volcano provides 0.3.0 (F.S.C) and gains no benefits from mining, irigation, or roads. On the other hand, a hill provides 1.1.0 (F.S.C), and can be 'upgaded' to 1.3.1 (F.S.C) with a mine and roads, and poses no threat to the city. A standard mountain tile can even be enhanced to 0.3.1 (F.S.C) with a mine and roads, and also poses no danger. Furthermore, both hills and mines may contain bonus, luxury, or strategic resources, while a volcano does not.
Taking this into account, why would I choose to build a city near a distinctly-inferior terrain tile that could ultimately destroy the city, rather than a safer and more productive hill or mountain tile? I like the idea of a potentially-dangerous terrain type, but I do not see how there is any incentive to take the risk. Am I missing something here...?
Taking this into account, why would I choose to build a city near a distinctly-inferior terrain tile that could ultimately destroy the city, rather than a safer and more productive hill or mountain tile? I like the idea of a potentially-dangerous terrain type, but I do not see how there is any incentive to take the risk. Am I missing something here...?