1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Mountains=Useless?

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Zaimejs, May 11, 2010.

  1. Zaimejs

    Zaimejs Emperor

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Messages:
    1,014
    Location:
    Nebraska
    One little issue I have had with Civ IV (and all others) is that mountain ranges are generally useless. But as we know, they create tourism and happiness and all kinds of other things in real life not to mention mining and skiing etc. etc.

    I noticed in a screen shot that there are mountains with peaks in Civ V and then smaller mountains. I wonder if the developers are "fixing" this misunderstanding about the uselessness of mountains.

    I also hope we can terraform deserts. We know this is possible.
     
  2. Tylerryan79

    Tylerryan79 Emperor

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2010
    Messages:
    1,091
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    Ya in civ iv you'd either have the volcano random event or holy mountain quest. I think they should at the least have a positive random event for mountains, maybe adding health or happiness to the city it is in. I can see there being no hammers or anything (the hammers for a mountain would have to be huge compared to a dinky hill) just to give the game a little bit more of a challenge.

    I dont have a view with the desert. I dont like them, but either way Id be fine.
     
  3. xenobiotic

    xenobiotic Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    61
    I mine mountains in civ3
     
  4. Alki

    Alki Prince

    Joined:
    May 30, 2003
    Messages:
    448
    Location:
    München
    We can terraform desert? Is that why the Sahara is expanding with global warming and we're powerless to stop it?

    Tourism is a very late game benefit for mountains (valid I suppose) but mining and railroads etc should be possible early on, perhaps at increased time for the workers to carry out tasks.
     
  5. Chalks

    Chalks The blue pieces

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2010
    Messages:
    1,097
    I don't think "happiness" caused by mountains is something that would be significant enough to model.

    As far as tourist stuff goes, this would be much better represented by a building constructed in the city rather than some sort of tourism farm as a terrain improvement. It would need to be unrestricted too, since you don't have to have a mountain or any particular terrain feature to have a tourist industry so it doesn't really relate to mountains in particular.
     
  6. Shurdus

    Shurdus Am I Napoleon?

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    2,301
    Location:
    Settle in place
    In terms of tile-yield mountains are useless. If you place a city next to it however this city gets trade routes' and the commerce from that can very well account for the tourism that mountains may provide, although this is highly abstracted and not really related to the mountain pass per se.

    Mountains however are not useless in civ in the sense that they provide no benefot whatsoever. mountains can be very much important for blocking purposes and for creating natural military chokepoints.
     
  7. Disgustipated

    Disgustipated Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,081
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    I believe the decision made in civ4 was to ease the ai ability to found decent cities, and improve ai. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Restricting the choices an ai has to make, makes it easier to program that ai.

    That said, I dislike mountains being entirely useless. I can understand not allowing settling on them, but to give no tile yield? Give us 1 hammer at least. I believe civ2 gave 2 hammers, that might be too much.

    Because I have to ask why have mountains if they don't do anything other than block troops. Most random map scripts don't give enough mountains to effectively block troops. Only on earth maps do mountain ranges offer better strategic options. But then on earth maps you have problems with cities with lots of mountains in them that can't be worked in any way.

    As for deserts, an above post summed it up. We had another thread with a big discussion on it. It's something dear to my heart as I live in a big city in the mojave desert. I won't get into it too much here, as it's off subject. See that thread for more details. I just wanted to agree that our terraforming is extremely limited. We can't transform deserts. We can pump water from the ground if there is an aquifer, and if there's a river flowing through, we can irrigate from that. But the amount of water is still limited.
     
  8. Chalks

    Chalks The blue pieces

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2010
    Messages:
    1,097
    That sounds like a problem with the map script rather than with the concept of a mountain.

    I disagree that mountains should provide a hammer just because you want it to be of some benefit. Not every tile has to be of benefit to a city.
     
  9. Shurdus

    Shurdus Am I Napoleon?

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    2,301
    Location:
    Settle in place
    On the subject of tile yield from mountains: if mountains grant two hammers, then this will result in a whopping maybe 4 hammer increase in the city output overall. The limiting factor is food, and having a 2-hammer yield is very very inefficient. If mountains would grant two hammers then you are better off running a specialist. It gets worse with one hammer of course. Considering this, mountains may as well have no yield. A one-hammer mountain tile has the same output as a peasant-specialist...
     
  10. Shurdus

    Shurdus Am I Napoleon?

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    2,301
    Location:
    Settle in place
    And if you want one single hammer from the tile - that is you want to sacrifice two food for one single lousy hammer - then you can run the cheapest of all specialists. It grants one hammer for two food too! :p
     
  11. Chalks

    Chalks The blue pieces

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2010
    Messages:
    1,097
    I can tell you are better at this game than I am ;)
     
  12. De Begerac

    De Begerac Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2006
    Messages:
    76
    We're not powerless to stop it. But the scale of the budget and resources needed against the projected gains makes it not worthwhile. The worlds eyes are elsewhere. Most projects are possible. Give me a big enough budget and no ethical or moral constraints and I can turn Everest into a 3 storey car park.

    Cyrano
     
  13. Shurdus

    Shurdus Am I Napoleon?

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    2,301
    Location:
    Settle in place
    why stop at three storeys?
     
  14. Ahriman

    Ahriman Tyrant

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    13,266
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    Mountains and deserts *are* pretty useless economically (in relative terms) IRL even in the present day, let alone throughout human history.

    By definition, moutain tiles represent the really high peaks that are impassible and economically useless. Anything else counts as hills.

    If you make mountains useable and passible then you're just making them boring weak versions of hills, rather than something that is actually strategically different.
     
  15. Pazyryk

    Pazyryk Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Messages:
    3,584
    It would be pretty bland if all tiles were equally valuable or equally passable. I like having some economic and strategic diversity in land tiles, and mountains really were barriers to travel. Deserts should provide some form of barrier too. However, I do wish there were some other way to make these difficult to traverse without having the strict "impassible" mechanic.

    I'm fine with tourism on mountains and massive irrigation of deserts, but both of these should be very modern developments.
     
  16. Zaimejs

    Zaimejs Emperor

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Messages:
    1,014
    Location:
    Nebraska
    I don't know where you all live, but I'm in Nebraska. And many thousands of Nebraskans travel to Colorado and Wyoming. Do you know why? No, it isn't the people or the cities. It's the mountains. I flew to Portland, OR recently right over Mt. Hood, and there is a definite appeal to living near these mountain ranges. Let's not forget the Olympics...

    And as far as terraforming... we have future techs!!! Space ships! Dubai is terraforming deserts already... it's a matter of money, not tech.
     
  17. Schuesseled

    Schuesseled Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    2,081
    moutains should be traversible in the late game, and deserts should be able to be irrigated at around the same time. Until then they can go on being ugly useless tiles.
     
  18. Chalks

    Chalks The blue pieces

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2010
    Messages:
    1,097
    This is something I wouldn't object to. A big expensive modern era terrain improvement that allows the traversal of mountains. A tunnel improvement that has to be constructed on either side of the mountain to connect it.

    Terrain improvements can be destroyed by troops so it doesn't undermine the defensive features of mountains, but it would make life easier in the modern era. More realistic too.
     
  19. moscaverde

    moscaverde Prince

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Messages:
    403
    Location:
    Brazil
    The OP said mountains are useless, but they're not; I saw in many maps mountains creating shockpoints (sp?) helping to shape some nations, slowing down units by having to move along the mountain ranges etc.
     
  20. hclass

    hclass Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2003
    Messages:
    518
    For easy naming in memory of the EVEREST.:D

    First storey is called "valley" floor
    Mid storey is called "mountainside"
    and the top one is called "mountaintop"
     

Share This Page