Wetlands/marshlands provide valuable watersheds that retain moisture and provide a continuous source of water for streams and rivers. They also naturally filter water and provide flood control. They act as a nesting ground for many migratory species, including valuable pollinators that are vital for fruiting crops. While none of these are as immediately lucrative as a new sub-division, they each hold passive value that would be missed if lost.
Limited Cities
- Thread starter duckofspades
- Start date
Wetlands/marshlands provide valuable watersheds that retain moisture and provide a continuous source of water for streams and rivers. They also naturally filter water and provide flood control. They act as a nesting ground for many migratory species, including valuable pollinators that are vital for fruiting crops. While none of these are as immediately lucrative as a new sub-division, they each hold passive value that would be missed if lost.
Niptium
Warlord
If I remember correctly, in the end game with BTS I used to have a lot of forrested terrain I kept for production purpose. I remember in Civ2 it was all roads and irrigations but in Civ4, I kept a lot of forrested terrain around.
bjbrains
Man of U-235
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2007
- Messages
- 837
Well, you see, the reason those restrictions exist is to stop environmental destruction. Water laws to stop a complete drainage of the water supply, preservation laws for endangered species, and the environmental necessity of wetlands (See hbar's post). Take a look at what happened to much of the everglades before regulations were tightened.
But we don't build on everything at the moment. I don't know about elsewhere in teh world but in the UK it is almost bloody impossible to build housing on country side. In fact I think 98% of our population lives in towns and cities.
In America you have LOADS of space, which you choose not to build on. I am sure that, for example, Colarado, Calfornia and Texas could have lots of new towns and cities, but these wouldn't be popular!
Oh God, you should see Utah! I just drove through that state twice, one major highway had a stretch of 120 miles with absolutely nothing on it - no cities, no towns, no farmers, absolutely nothing.
I think the problem is, most map generators make far too little useless terrain, and make it in too small areas. There are also too few terrain types - Utah alone had about 7 different types of desert, with varying degrees of uselessness.
I think the problem is, most map generators make far too little useless terrain, and make it in too small areas. There are also too few terrain types - Utah alone had about 7 different types of desert, with varying degrees of uselessness.
ok well, what about say Ireland. That place is ALL green! Check it out on google earth.
If I'm correct it only has a population of 4 million. I think my point still stands - we don't act completly like a virus as a species, we do choose to leave things that are profitable. I mean don't you have debates about whether to drill Alaska, even though it would be free money?
Niptium
Warlord
I totally agree.migkillertwo
Prince
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2010
- Messages
- 404
did you just refer to real places on earth as "tiles"?
Man, you've been playing WAY too much civilization!
Ahriman
Tyrant
Ireland is not very big... it is by no means low density, and the low density areas are mostly too hilly to get much topography.
Ireland has also had mass emigration and famine deaths; it used to be ~10 million.
Its now a little over 6 million, plus another ~1.8 million in northern Ireland.
Humanity has approached the world with precisely this attitude.
Every decent grassland tile does have a farm improvement on it.
The areas in the world that are largely empty/low population density (most of Australia, Siberia, central US, central Asia, most of Canada, Sahara, most of Arabia, Amazonia, Greenland etc.) would be modeled in Civ as areas that are inhospitable/have low tile yields (deserts, tundra and jungle, some plains with no water sources nearby).
I thought it was clear what I meant.
THE GOVERNMENT IS TAKING THE LAND!!!!
It's a conspiracy, thier using it for Alien expermentation. Viva! Le! Revolution!. Free the Aliens.
Seriously though, most sensible places don't have governments walking up to your backyard pond and declaring it "protected" and you get turfed out of your house, thats just crazy American laws.
.
It's a conspiracy, thier using it for Alien expermentation. Viva! Le! Revolution!. Free the Aliens.
Seriously though, most sensible places don't have governments walking up to your backyard pond and declaring it "protected" and you get turfed out of your house, thats just crazy American laws.
.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
I did like how-in Civ4-you were encouraged to retain some forests for the purpose of building a lumber-yard or a Forest Preserve later in the game. Now in Civ5 we're also hearing how some places will be "Landmark Terrain", which can boost the revenue of a city built near to it. Hopefully this will further encourage players to leave some parts of the land untouched, without forcing artificial caps on them.
On a side-note, I *desperately* hope that these natural wonders are more easily discovered by scouts &/or explorers, because this will make these units more valuable than they currently are.
Aussie.
On a side-note, I *desperately* hope that these natural wonders are more easily discovered by scouts &/or explorers, because this will make these units more valuable than they currently are.
Aussie.
Truth be told, even with these natural wonder I don't see much more reason to explore than in Civ4 -where it's only worth to explore maybe a 20-square circle around your capital and some natural borders (mountains with 1 pass/land connections of 1 or 2 squares width).
There's little use in discovering a far-away natural wonder if there's no way you could ever settle the place. This way, natural wonders are no more encouragement for building scouts than early important resources (copper, gold etc).
Unless of course the discovery itself had some meaning, even without settling it. For example: the first civ to get to the top of the K2 gets some extra culture or GPP, the first to discover x ruin gets some free beakers or GPP, etc etc...
Schuesseled
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 2,081
its very helpful to map out the world, the more info you have on your neigbouring civs the better.
Sure it is, but -not including mapping the nearby places to settle your first 5/6 cities- it's far, far more useful to build other things than scouts and start "exploring neighbours" or just trade for maps AFTER you've established your borders, built your defenses, improved your lands and started some economy.
(Early rushes exluded maybe, but even those I usually explore with my invading army, just follwing roads.)
(Early rushes exluded maybe, but even those I usually explore with my invading army, just follwing roads.)
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Which is why there was an extensive discussion about how to make scouts & explorers more important-one of which would be to make natural wonders only discoverable-&/or claimable-by an exploration unit. Other methods were to allow exploration units to have a much, much lower cost for exploring land outside of your cultural borders. Hopefully they'll implement some of these ideas, or else they might as well remove scouts & explorers from the game!
Similar threads
