Impassable terrrain

[t3h_m013]

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.

this would then prevent so speedy cultural expansion as temples would either have to be rushed or take ages to build. It would mean people would settle good spots first, then when available techs are researched settle the "dodgy spots" (Y)(Y)(Y)

 

[dh_epic]

Perhaps settlers ought to have hitpoints (a lifeforce). Expansionist civs settlers have more HP. Naturally, because they have no defence, they're easily attacked. But the HP explains their resilience to harsh conditions in travel.

Hanging out near a river is a way to keep your HP up. So is hanging out near wheat or cows and such. Venturing off into the wilderness, you're taking a chance your settler will essentially starve.

 

[dylanhatesyou]

dh_Epic, thats an interesting idea. People of course would ***** about "that will be too hard for noobs to handle blah blah blah"

I also really like the idea of population limit in jungles/artics/desert/what have you ,but isnt that already the case for the most part in games?

 

[dh_epic]

I think it's pretty easy to grasp, particularly if the UI is good.

Something to do with showing food availability / terrain harshness when you're using a settler, the same way you show the city radius around that settler. Stay out of the "foggy" or "red" (or whatever signifier they use for "harsh") squares.

 

[Espírito]

i love that idea! yopu could have it as an option to turn on/off or just implement it regent and above so noobs dont need to use it, id work it like this:

square in your territory - nothing happens
square with 3 food/river - note not cumulative (wheat/cattle)- +1 hp
square with 2 food (grassland/irrigated plains etc.) - no change square with 1 food (hills/jungles/forests) - -1 hp
square with no food (mountains) - -2hp
if u remain on a square for more than one turn, subsequent turns u lose/gain one less hp as u are 'using up the food supplies'
start with 10 hp and you limit the expansion of settlers considerably in nasty terrain areas, but would still allow travel over grasslands easily.

 

[Vizurok]

Dh_epic, Espirito, you make sense!
Personally I would like to see some bonuses witth settling on good spots (small food bonus etc.).

 

[hoplite505]

Civ3 as already included volcanoes and possible irruptions that can destroy a city

Or a civilization in one of my recent games 20 turns in my foreign advisor told me the porteugeuse have been destroyed a little later i found the ruins

 

[Espírito]

I didnt think volcanoes could erupt that early into the game.....

@ Vizurok: Definitely, although it is probably more realistic like this: Cities have surrounding farmland to feed the urban population wherever they are, and have enough industry as is needed by the population since they are concerned with the city itself primarily.

 

[Quasar1011]

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

Great idea!

I dated a lady from Bogota, Colombia. She says it is built on top of a mountain. It has a population of 6 million!

 

[MSTK]

I skimmed througbh this, thread, and I just want to make a mention that a Galley deserves to be able to survive on Ocean Terrain....by a very slim chance (how it is currently in C3C. Seafaring deserves some kind of bonus, and this adds more of the "brave luck and hard decisions" to the game.

Also, this was true in the time of Christopher Columbus. It was pretty hard convincing Spain of a voyage that would most likely sink in the ocean. But Spain is a Seafaring Civ, so they have a better chance.

 

[Slax]

I think players restart too much already.