Ozymandous
Prince
I didn't see anything about this in the readme or Civilopedia, but are we not supposed to build cities in marshland? I couldn't do so earlier, which is weird because we can build cities in jungle but not marshland?
City building in marshland?
- Thread starter Ozymandous
- Start date
Ozymandous
Prince
Well you're correct except for a few things:
1) Modern day Mexico City was started originally as a city build on a marshy island in the middle of a lake by the Mayan civilization if I remember correctly. Cities like Venice, which was built on a lot of small islands, have been built where ever people could figure out where to put them through-out history.
2) This is a game, not real life. Except mountains (where cities were still built, check the Incan cities in South America) there should be no land tile in the game where a city can't be built. If the designers want to make marshes have a larger chance of disease to impose their will on the player then do that but let the player take the chance.
Anywho, I was and still am looking mainly for some confirmation that others have seen this, not if it makes sens in real life. Thanks for the reply.
1) Modern day Mexico City was started originally as a city build on a marshy island in the middle of a lake by the Mayan civilization if I remember correctly. Cities like Venice, which was built on a lot of small islands, have been built where ever people could figure out where to put them through-out history.
2) This is a game, not real life. Except mountains (where cities were still built, check the Incan cities in South America) there should be no land tile in the game where a city can't be built. If the designers want to make marshes have a larger chance of disease to impose their will on the player then do that but let the player take the chance.
Anywho, I was and still am looking mainly for some confirmation that others have seen this, not if it makes sens in real life. Thanks for the reply.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
Well, there's been a few cities in marshes also. Thing is, they've usually drained the marshes, which is what you do in CivIII - 'Clear Wetlands' is there for a reason.
Ozymandous
Prince
So you're saying, that to be fair, the game shouldn't let you build a city in the forest or jungle unless you clear the terrain first. If that's NOT what you're saying then why the double standard with this ONE new terrain feature?
Ozymandous
Prince
I am relaxed just waiting to hear if this is a bug or not. I am not really concerned with the justifications others have for why this works like it does or not, just if it's a bug, and if not a bug then i'll know to go in the editor and change it to be like jungle instead.
Sorry but I have little patience for people justifying a bug or crappy design decision in a game, seen way to many buggy and/or poorly designed games in the last year (2003) to tolerate that.
Sorry but I have little patience for people justifying a bug or crappy design decision in a game, seen way to many buggy and/or poorly designed games in the last year (2003) to tolerate that.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
I'm saying that, effectively, you can build cities in Marshes - it just takes a bit extra work.
I fail to see what fairness have to do with the issue, and your reasons for thinking that Marsh should pattern with Jungle rather than Mountains are perfectly opaque to me.
There appears to be every reason to believe that the inability to build cities on Marsh is intentional. They also disallow Airfields, Rader Towers and Colonies(!) on them. There, however, seems to be no mention whatsoever of Marshes in the C3C manual.
Edit: I previously wrote you can't build Outposts on Marsh, but actually you can. Main post above corrected.
kring
Asst Cook & Bottle Washer
It was intentional; it's not a bug.
As to not being able to build in Marshes IRL, there are plenty of cities that have done so, without clearing the Marsh first.
As to not being able to build in Marshes IRL, there are plenty of cities that have done so, without clearing the Marsh first.
Falconlynx
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2003
- Messages
- 3
The Aztecs founded Mexico City as Tenochtitlan, their capital
JustBen
Prince
You have the right reason but reached the wrong conclusion. They added an interesting concept that is a new strategic consideration in the game. Be happy, not angry.
WilliamOfOrange
King
I like not being able to build cities on the marsh terrain, that is cool, but why can one not irrigate a tile next to the marsh. Seems to me that that should be possible. Sure, irrigating the actual tile would be silly, but ones next to it, why not? Perhaps the value of rivers would be deminished, but still....
Ozymandous
Prince
1. I am not angry.
2. Ok, so why was the Civilopedia not updated with the news of what is prohbited in marshland? I didn't see anything in the actual paper manual, and since it would seem to be easier to update a little text in the civilopedia I thought it might be a bug since there was no reference anywhere.
3. Let's hope when the "official" patch comes out and fixes all the problems in this expansion (deja vu' apparently) Firaxis or whomever decides to put ALL RELEVANT INFORMATION in the updated Civilopedia. It's sad when the mechanism the player is supposed to use to get information about the game doesn't have said information...
Pounder
Phaethon was here
I tend to agree with Ozymandous
I would say that there is a lot of work to clear/empty both jungles and marshes. I think they should be treated the same, one way or the other, clear first for both or don't clear first for both.
Living in the mountains, seems that the Icans, Tibetans, etc... should be able to build cities in the mountains.
Maybe it could be introduced as a new Civ trait, to be aloud to build cities in the mountains, give it to the Civs that have a history of building in mountains. They could have the advantage of better defense in there cities and be able to expand where other Civs can't. Even Denver and Colorada Springs are both a mile above sea level. Cripple Creek with Casinos is almost 2 miles above sea level.
Speaking of Casinos, maybe they should be added as a city improvement. Government run, could be a cash cow.
I would say that there is a lot of work to clear/empty both jungles and marshes. I think they should be treated the same, one way or the other, clear first for both or don't clear first for both.
Living in the mountains, seems that the Icans, Tibetans, etc... should be able to build cities in the mountains.
Maybe it could be introduced as a new Civ trait, to be aloud to build cities in the mountains, give it to the Civs that have a history of building in mountains. They could have the advantage of better defense in there cities and be able to expand where other Civs can't. Even Denver and Colorada Springs are both a mile above sea level. Cripple Creek with Casinos is almost 2 miles above sea level.
Speaking of Casinos, maybe they should be added as a city improvement. Government run, could be a cash cow.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
If it's a 'dry' jungle, clearing it is pretty simple; just burn it down. 'Wet' jungles are a whole ther kettle of teak ...
Have you ever been in a marsh land?
sickness paradise, waste drifts around, quick sand, bugs (jungle has that too) and the city sinks away, and it offers NO shield production to u're city...
in other words, only a fool would settle there, and even he would think twice
sickness paradise, waste drifts around, quick sand, bugs (jungle has that too) and the city sinks away, and it offers NO shield production to u're city...
in other words, only a fool would settle there, and even he would think twice
