Cant build cities here

[dreadknought]

This is an idea I just had about building cities. I have always felt that there are just too many cities that overrun all the land masses which is kinda unrealistic. I mean even now how many big cities are in a jungle-forest-tundra. Of couse you can still clear these jungles and forest to build on but in my current game im trying a mod that you can build no cities in forests jungles and tundra. Im thinking on deserts as well because its also hard to see early cities being built in a harsh desert with little nearby water. Settlements maybe but big cities hmmm.....I think that land will be harder to come by and your need for airfields,fortress,outpost,and colonies will be much more usefull. Lets test it some anyway....thx...dread

 

[Rammstein]

Not being able to build cities in those environments seems less realistic to me. There are and have been cities in all those environments, and some have prospered.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Cities? prospered?

villages, yes, but in Civ with a harbor or irrigation in the desert then grow larger quickly...

In my personal mod I disabled the ability to build cities in jungles Tundra and desert - and it works just fine!

 

[alva848]

hmm, I tried that to, but the AI was still able to settle on forest tundra for some reason
(didn't try if I could too)

 

[sealman]

Originally posted by alva848
hmm, I tried that to, but the AI was still able to settle on forest tundra for some reason
(didn't try if I could too)

He actually places a city on the tundra/forest square. Since cities are allowed in forests, it is a way around it.

In my personal mods, I have taken away the ability to irrigate deserts thus making it harder for them to grow. 0 shields for deserts as well but 1 w/ a mine.

 

[satchel]

Don't tell the folks in LA that you can't build a city in the desert. They had to divert the entire flow of the Colorado river to do it, that's all.

 

[Rammstein]

Originally posted by Lt. 'Killer' M.
Cities? prospered?

villages, yes, but in Civ with a harbor or irrigation in the desert then grow larger quickly...

In my personal mod I disabled the ability to build cities in jungles Tundra and desert - and it works just fine!

The Mayan civilization built several cities right in the middle of the jungle. They did succumb to draught, but before that, they certainly prospered.

Anyway, I don't see the point, the cities built on tundra or desert in civ3 rarely grow very large, and stay villages the entire game (at least mine do).

 

[etj4Eagle]

Originally posted by alva848
hmm, I tried that to, but the AI was still able to settle on forest tundra for some reason
(didn't try if I could too)

Made the same change in my recent game and discovered the same problem. Unfortunately forest is a land type in of its self, not a "terrain improvement" to a base land type. Hence even though you can't build cities on tundra, you can if there is a forest there since you can build cities on forests.

I haven't tried this following modification out, but a way around it would be to make towns unbuildable on forests as well. But then give your settler (and maybe warriors as well) the ability to clear forests. That way you can still build your city in a forestry area after a little work. Though don't know how the AI will take to the change.

 

[Willem]

Originally posted by etj4Eagle


I haven't tried this following modification out, but a way around it would be to make towns unbuildable on forests as well. But then give your settler (and maybe warriors as well) the ability to clear forests. That way you can still build your city in a forestry area after a little work. Though don't know how the AI will take to the change.

It won't understand the change, giving the human player a huge advantage.

 

[Sparrowhawk]

I think banning city building in any terrain is ridiculous. There have been historical examples of settlements built in all terrains. There are south american and asian settlements built in mountains, canadian and russian settlements built on tundra, south american and southeast asian settlements built in jungle, and african, asian, and north american settlements built in deserts. The fact that these are less than ideal locations is reflected by the limitations imposed on city growth by the lack of food.

On a related topic, I am also disgusted that irrigation is not allowed on hills. Haven't any of the civ III designers even seen pictures of terraced rice paddies in asia?

 

[sealman]

Originally posted by Sparrowhawk
I think banning city building in any terrain is ridiculous. There have been historical examples of settlements built in all terrains. There are south american and asian settlements built in mountains, canadian and russian settlements built on tundra, south american and southeast asian settlements built in jungle, and african, asian, and north american settlements built in deserts. The fact that these are less than ideal locations is reflected by the limitations imposed on city growth by the lack of food.

On a related topic, I am also disgusted that irrigation is not allowed on hills. Haven't any of the civ III designers even seen pictures of terraced rice paddies in asia?

I ban cities in deserts and tundra as a means to stop massive ai expansion, or at least curtail it a bit.

you can also change the irrigation of hills in the editor. a lot of people have.

 

[zeeter]

I think that we should be able to settle anywhere we want. There certainly are examples of cities built in these less than ideal terrains.
My problem is that the AI often builds these cities just for the sole purpose of building cities. I sometimes find myself wasting a settler in the snow covered tundra only because I know that the AI will do it if I don't.
There should be a way to expand our territory without having to use up settlers. Maybe using some type of fort or something. Or at the very least allow us to set up a colony up there - maybe on caribou or something and have that colony count toward cultural borders.

 

[Zcylen]

have you seen cities like New York, Athens or Paris in places like antartica or siberia?
of course not.
the cities in those places are more like strategic cities not great capitol or world top cities.
the fact is that there are cities in every terrain of this world even water, like venece.

 

[Sim_One]

Banning cities in certain terrains would make colonies much more useful. For example, if a source of oil is in the middle of a desert, it could only be connected by colonies. However I believe banning cities on certain terrains should only be allowed in custom maps (such as world maps), because you can make sure that a civ who started in the middle of a desert or tundra won't be forced to move 20 tiles or something just to build the first city.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

try this: play a huge world map with a low OCC and no cities in rough terrain.

colonies add significantly to gameplay then!


btw, my hills CAN be irrigated!

 

[dreadknought]

Originally posted by Sim_One
Banning cities in certain terrains would make colonies much more useful. For example, if a source of oil is in the middle of a desert, it could only be connected by colonies. However I believe banning cities on certain terrains should only be allowed in custom maps (such as world maps), because you can make sure that a civ who started in the middle of a desert or tundra won't be forced to move 20 tiles or something just to build the first city.

Well its kinda hit or miss because I got stuck like that to and good point on the colonies. One of your opp. or you could be the loser on rough turf To me the whole point of trying this in a game is to have areas that are not developed like oil fields that every one would wont to protect. Thus the need for airfields,radar, troops out of cities ect... ty....dread

 

[sealman]

True... there are some shortfalls to baning cities in certain locales. In one of my games (with my ban) there was an 8 or 9 tile desert island which had a source of oil on it. It was in my area but I could not use it cause I could not build a road over the water to connect a colony to.

Oh, well. Tough luck. Makes things a little more realistic in my eyes. I mean there are sources of oil that we know about but can not get to.

 

[dreadknought]

Originally posted by zeeter
I think that we should be able to settle anywhere we want. There certainly are examples of cities built in these less than ideal terrains.
My problem is that the AI often builds these cities just for the sole purpose of building cities. I sometimes find myself wasting a settler in the snow covered tundra only because I know that the AI will do it if I don't.
There should be a way to expand our territory without having to use up settlers. Maybe using some type of fort or something. Or at the very least allow us to set up a colony up there - maybe on caribou or something and have that colony count toward cultural borders.

You know thats really a good idea about the territory idea. I think the game over builds on cities and thats kinda my whole point. If you can simply build a military producing city everywhere you dont need forts,colonies,airfields ect...All territory is soon gone anyway. I know that their are small cities in rough areas and even a few bigger ones but think about all the places on earth that dont have a large city in them as protection. Ares where you must set up bases-forts-outpost ect.. We should have a settlement build where no military is produced and there is a max size of say 6 and only certain basic improvements can be built but it is still your territory. This settlement build should cover harsh deserts,tundra,deep jungle ect...You could import military protection, airfields. radar ect... ty....dread

 

[warpstorm]

Or you could turn corruption higher so that nobody builds many cities...heresy

 

[hbdragon88]

If you turned corruption higher, you'd probably be more affected than the AI would. Because the AI seemingly doesn't care too much about corruption - lots of cities that they have built has had LOTS of corruption when they build in every crack of my empire.