Hmm which is terrain is more useful?

general_kill

Deity
Joined
Apr 14, 2003
Messages
2,870
Two of the most useless terrains include the desert tile and the tundra tile. If both were unable to be improved(irrigated, mined etc.), which terrain would you prefer to have?

Personally, i would rather have the desert tile because it gives you a shield which is better than a food. I would just build a bunch of cities as close to each other as possible and have a bunch of 2 shield cities.
 
Gumby78 said:
Desert because of the resources(Oil, Saltpeter)
You can have OIL and ALUMINUM in tundra. :p
I would also prefer desert rather than tundra because desert will allow you to grow with irrigation and rails.
 
Deserts can become quite good pieces of land after irrigated and rail-roaded.
But before that it's pretty much impossible to make a productive city out of deserts. Still I think desert is better than tundra.
 
Since general kill's question was if they couldn't be improved, then yeah, desert, since shields are better than food.
 
Food is better than shields!!!!!!!

Extra food can be made into gold via specialists!
 
hey this thread reminded me of a game i played anyways i was americans and greeks got an entrie island minus one plain square of desert anyways

but on this topic i would take a desert and a tundra next to each other in one city just so i could say that this is the only city in the world with multiple climates (excluding cities with mountains)
 
Colonel said:
hey this thread reminded me of a game i played anyways i was americans and greeks got an entrie island minus one plain square of desert anyways

but on this topic i would take a desert and a tundra next to each other in one city just so i could say that this is the only city in the world with multiple climates (excluding cities with mountains)
Tundras cannot be next to Deserts or plains. For a your city, go see the Cuban Isolationists game.
 
The best case scenario in both cases are as followed:

A city with agricultural trait in either democracy or republic, with nothing but tundra and a river can support a population of 3 and can produce 6 gold from the work on tundra tiles next to the river.

so it comes down to 6 gold and 3 population from worked tiles.

A city with agriculural trait in democracy or republic, with nothing but desert can support a population of 1(and 1/2 but the extra population will die off). The worked desert tile can produce 1 shield and 1 gold.

So it comes down to 1 shield and 1 population.

If 4 gold=1 shield
The best scenario for an all tundra city(with a river) out weighs an all desert city by 1 gold.

Note: I did not include a river for the best scenario case for the desert city because the desert tiles would turn into flood plains (duh)
 
I prefer deserts over tundra. Deserts give you shields, and when irrigated and railroaded can be better than tundra IMO.
 
I too prefer deserts over tundra. Phoenix, located in a desert square, has an ice hockey team. Anchorage, located in a tundra square, does not. Phoenix has the NFL and MLB too. :)
 
SuperBeaverInc. said:
I prefer deserts over tundra. Deserts give you shields, and when irrigated and railroaded can be better than tundra IMO.

I mentioned which would u prefer if u cannot improve the tiles
 
Tomoyo said:
Tundras cannot be next to Deserts or plains. For a your city, go see the Cuban Isolationists game.



i was just jokeing when i said that but anyways take desert over tundra any day but tundra can get oil which is more important in modern era
 
Colonel said:
i was just jokeing when i said that but anyways take desert over tundra any day but tundra can get oil which is more important in modern era

desert can also get oil
 
Back
Top Bottom