Mountains=Useless?

[Ahriman]

Four elevation types would make much more logical scene.
Flatland > Hills > Mountains > Peaks

If you can't handle just one major terrain change then how can you possibly handle hexes?
Just go play Civ Rev because you clearly can't handle the PC game.

No, clearly this is insufficient!
Damp sea level clear grasslands at sealevel are the same as wet scrub rolling grasslands at 150 feet? WTH is with that?

We must have 5 levels of slope (flat, rolling, hilly, mountainous, cliffs) 6 levels of elevation (sea level, 100-1000 feet, 1000-3000 feet, 3-5000 feet, 5-10000 feet, 10,000+ feet) 5 levels of vegetation cover (clear, scrub, light forest, heavy forest, jungle) and 6 degrees of precipitation (desert, arid, dry, damp, wet, soaking).
For a total of 900 different distinct terrain types.

Otherwise the game is clearly insufficiently realistic!
Anyone who says otherwise is clearly just too stupid to handle it, and should go back to console games cos they can't handle the truth!

/end sarcasm

 

[civ_king]

That wont work, you need temperatures too, Antarctic is not same as Mojave Desert

 

[Ahriman]

That wont work, you need temperatures too, Antarctic is not same as Mojave Desert

Damn. We need 7 temperature bands too (freezing, cold, brisk, moderate, warm, hot, roasting). 6300 terrain types. Sorry.

 

[anti_strunt]

Are you silly, we need soil types too. China is founded on Fluvisols!

In all seriousness, I think Mountains need be more common, and thus not completely useless. I base this entirely on the aesthetic consideration: hills are just somewhat undulating grass textiles: BORING. A mountain, or better yet, mountain chain, is EPIC. Civ always needs more EPIC.

So, we need more mountains, to make the map look more EPIC. But too many unworkable mountains would screw balance, so maybe make them somewhat usable? How about: they have zero base production, and can't be improved at all (roads, maybe?), unless they have a resource, in which case they can be mined. Thus you'd have to accept a bunch of unproductive mountains to get that 10-hammer Adamantium mine, like Oil in the desert...

Also, how many mountain chains have effectively cut off ALL military invasions? The Himalayas are the ONLY example I can think off... Every world really shouldn't have it's own Himalaya, it's a pretty unique Tectonic occurance...

 

[civ_king]

Damn. We need 7 temperature bands too (freezing, cold, brisk, moderate, warm, hot, roasting). 6300 terrain types. Sorry.

actually 13 types

 

[Ahriman]

In all seriousness, I think Mountains need be more common, and thus not completely useless. I base this entirely on the aesthetic consideration: hills are just somewhat undulating grass textiles: BORING. A mountain, or better yet, mountain chain, is EPIC. Civ always needs more EPIC.

Looking at the screenshots, this is exactly what we're getting.
eg
http://www.civfanatics.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=2823&c=36
http://www.civfanatics.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=2813&c=36
http://www.civfanatics.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=2812&c=36

 

[anti_strunt]

Well, I think it looks great. Would it really make sense to make all those mountains permanently unworkable and impassable?

Has any screens shown mountains being worked or passed by units?

 

[Ahriman]

Would it really make sense to make all those mountains permanently unworkable and impassable?

Yes, absolutely. Chokepoints! Which they've said will be important.

Has any screens shown mountains being worked or passed by units?

No, but we haven't seen any tiles being worked, and we've hardly seen any units, so that doesn't mean anything.

Those mountains certainly don't look like they're designed to have improvements build on them though.