Impassable terrrain

[hoplite505]

I think expansion should be slower at the beginning and techs should take a really long time. Because on a standard size emperor game two continents are filled wtih citiesby 1000BC. In the real 1000BC Babylon, Assyria, Egypt, and the Hittites were powerful, with about five cities.

You should only be able to build cities on Grassland, Plains, and Floodplain, in the begining. As you get new technology you should be able to build them on these terrains, Forest, Hills, Jungle, Desert, never on mountains. Furthermore Desert and Jungle should be impassableuntil new techs a aqquired, Galleys should never survive ocean terrain and there should be new disasters Floods, Earthquakes. All starting positions should be on floodplain

This would make the game a lot better IMHO

 

[dylanhatesyou]

Good idea. I think another good way to slow expansion is to simply have settlers cost more sheilds to build.

 

[Cuivienen]

I prefer the impassability idea and the unbuildable idea. Thus:

Cities can be built on Grassland and Floodplains from the beginning.

Our people have discovered Pottery! They think that we can now support cities on the Plains and in the Forests.

Our people have discovered Construction! It may now be possible to establish lasting settlements in the Hills.

Our people have discovered Engineering! Perhaps now our civilization can extend far into the Desert.

Just an idea. Similarly, Jungle should be impassable until some AA tech, or else not allow Settlers and Workers in until Engineering or something. After all Warriors could explore a Jungle, but a Horseman certainly couldn't.

 

[Gogf]

Why not let them be built on mountains? Look at Machu Pichu!

Great idea!

 

[Colonel]

M make it for a tech towards A the end of ancient era if i remember correctly they K had cities that were E on mountians, make it T so less time between turn like H pass 5 years instead of E 20 in the begining G and make tech A advance slower M have it so E settlers take double what they do now maybe anyways

LONGER

 

[Punkymonkey]

Inventive Colonel, but you do make a good point, how can it take you 50 years to move one terrain block. It just doen't make any sense.

 

[Evie]

Cuivienen - the system is generally good, but you're putting hills way too far back. They should be "buildable" just as early as forests IMHO - building a city on a hill is no big feat (whereas for a forest it requires clearing off the whole surrounding forest).

 

[Colonel]

um actually it would be harder to build on a hill beacuse u would need to level terrian and things of that sort but forests would just take a bit longer as they knew how to cut trees down they had axes and cutting tools but hills it would take construction skills and engenerring skills

 

[Mgoering]

I don't have anything against this idea, but I don't think first, that it will change the game and secondly that they have some sense.

First, I don't know if you saw it, but at the beginning, turns take some 50 years away. Then, it is 20 years and 5 to finaly, in the modern ages, 1 turn. So, an 8 turns tech will burn 400 years in the early ages and only 8 in modern ages. Don't you think that this reletivisation is enough ?

Seondly, about the possibilities of building cities in such terrain or not. Everybody knows that the Egyptians have had (and still have) a lot (if not most) of their cities in deserts. The English have begunn their cities around rivers, but also in forests.

Thirdly, the deserts and jungle impassibility. I always thought that explorers and soldiers could defend themselves against nature or were able to prepare themselves for every climatic contidtions. Don't you ? By the way, if a unit stays too long in the same tale of desert or jungle, it can die by illness.

Fourthly, disasters. Civ3 as already included volcanoes and possible irruptions that can destroy a city. I have nothing against floods and earthquakes, but what would their effect be and when should they happen.

Finaly, and the only thing that I really am ok with you, galeys. In fact, they can't already survive on an ocean terrain if it finishes on it. However, you can make them explore an ocean terrain, but have to make them finish on a see terrain to make it survive. Do you want them to not ever have the ability to travel on oceans, even with a wonder ?

Tell me please.

 

[Evie]

Hm, Colonel, not particularly right on that one. Level ground is not particularly hard to obtain in hills - it's rarer than in plains for sure, but ground level enough to build a village on? That's no problem.

 

[Espírito]

you dont need to level terrain to build on it, the Celts even built hills to put their villages on, building in the hills was also done mostly in valleys so there is no problem.
I like putting building on Deserts to Construction showing you need to transport water, but Forests cold be cleared early with a simple axe, building on Mountains should never be allowed simply because it would give such a great defensive bonus and not lose any food since all cities produce 2 as base, so this is tactical rather than historical. Jungles could be pentrated early an in fact provided a rich source of foods to native populations so I disagree with this.

Regarding triremes, I think the loss rate should be increased to like lose it 9 times out of 10, but it did happen that galleys made it across seas and oceans rarely so this shouldnt be eliminated completely.

 

[covenant]

This is great and makes tons of sense.

You can build in deserts with the aqueduct.

@Mgoering- The Egyptians built mostly along the nile, hardly ever in the desert away from the river.

 

[dh_epic]

I think this is a realistic and natural way to limit early game expansionism.

I also think a maximum settler radius might be a good idea, until there are new health / food / travel technologies. Or perhaps just an increasing upkeep the further / longer that a settler wanders.

 

[t3h_m013]

i like the idea of settlers needing techs but one could start in deserts and then be completey stuck. Maybe this could be a civ trait as well... not sure how.
going on the celts building hills maybe after some tech one can build hills?

or maybe a max amount of cities until you gain something... e.g. five cities before 200 points, 10 cities before 1000 or something like that...?

 

[Yom]

The idea is certainly interesting, but it would make for a much more frustrating game. You woul be putting your fate even more into the hands of the Map generator. What if you were surrounded by jungle? You wouldn't be able to expand at all for a long time, even if you built a lot of workers (since the terrain is impassible and not-unsettlable). The concept of food tiles already limits expansion. Plus, cities aren't as restricted as you think they were. Though Mesopotamia, the Indus river valley, and the Huang He and Chang Jiang rivers were the major areas of settlement in Ancient times, cities were built on less favorable terrain as well. Take Greece and Ethiopia, for instance. Both are very mountainous countries and many cities are located on hills. Antolia (present-day Turkey), another mountainous area, was settled in ancient times before the discovery of technologies to level terrain as well. Though Civ3 does not directly deal with this issue, it is understood that every settler you build has the ability to settle where you direct it. Under adverse conditions, you don't have the choice to settle in the most fertile of areas. Civilizations didn't flourish along rivers because that was the only place they could survive, but, rather, because it was the terrain best-suited for civilization. Furthermore, I think the concept of food effectively takes care of this problem.

 

[t3h_m013]

"think the concept of food effectively takes care of this problem."

i would disagree as settling becomes almost unstategic, its more as much land as you can get not the best cities you can ger

 

[covenant]

This is a good point and something that is basically set by the designers at the outset. Is it about building fewer more powerful cities or building lots of cities.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Personally, I think the entire population and population growth system needs to be reworked-to make it dependant on more than mere food. Access to potable water, happiness, health, wealth/poverty, secularity and overcrowding should all be determinants in a population growth algorithm (as should emigration/immigration).
As for expansion, I personally feel that ALL units should have a limited range, and that going beyond that range should put the unit at risk of slowly dying (losing hp). The further it is from home, the more chance it has of losing hp each turn! Hostile terrains (like deserts, jungles and mountains) should act to reduce the maximum range of a unit-though some units should have an 'ignore terrain costs' flag to reflect their ability to function in such terrains (so, a desert rider might ignore terrain costs of deserts, and a Jaguar Warrior could ignore Jungle terrain costs!) Also improving techs could increase the max range of a unit (and should control what terrain a city can be founded on). I think that a blanket 'impassable' effect is NOT the best way to limit expansion, though, as it prevents players and the AI from taking 'calculated risks'!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[dylanhatesyou]

Well, to counter the random generated map. A civ that is spawned on a hill will already be able to adapt(have the necessary tech) to that condition, their ancestors have lived on Hills for thousands of years. Same with jungle/forest.

There should be major limitations to building towns/cities in tundra, jungle, and desert in my opinion. Not sure how yet.

 

[naf4ever]

A simpler way would be to just let people build anywhere like now. But make cities built on difficult terrains early on have max pop limits. Maybe 3 people for a place built on a hill without the proper technology, maybe 1 for a jungle. This way at too represent the little villages and settlements that people did have in places like those a long time ago.