Mountains=Useless?

[Avs]

Mountains have always been the primary natural land barrier. Just like Oceans. They are incredibly important to the game in how they can shape where people expand and how they place cities down. Aside from that, no they should not be creating production on the tile simply because its a rocky snow capped mountain, not some rolling hills or plateau. If there are plateaus, I'll support production on those because that makes sense.

Now, certain events can also create production on mountains. There are plenty of situations where this happens in Civ4. When a mountain receives a food tile, you can put workers on it. You cannot improve it however.

Back to the point, mountains had a purpose. You had to play the right map types to really see how this worked out in games. Try Global Highlands, or Aboreal, or Boreal map types. Mountains are not single tiles in these maps, they are entire ranges that mean several things:

1. Need to travel around it
2. Modern warfare requires air/paratroopers to get around it
3. Strategic choke points
4. Requires better city planning in the absence of 20 workable plots.

 

[helpless_writer]

For easy naming in memory of the EVEREST.

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

I agree. But to add value to Mountains & Deserts look at it this way. A desert and mountain range can easily protect your city. Some deserts may cover oil resources and mountains simply need to be mine able. I mean jewelry, different types of plants, and ores are usually found in mountains right?

 

[hclass]

I agree. But to add value to Mountains & Deserts look at it this way. A desert and mountain range can easily protect your city. Some deserts may cover oil resources and mountains simply need to be mine able. I mean jewelry, different types of plants, and ores are usually found in mountains right?

I am sorry I have quite different view from yours regarding mountain and desert.
1) Mountain should produce 4 hammers and desert should produce 4 golds when worked.
2) Mountain is impassable and desert can only be passed by vehicles or camels.
3) They both should be easily terraformed into something else. e.g. it shall take about 10 turns to either flatten a mountain or transform desert to plain.

 

[Chalks]

it shall take about 10 turns to either flatten a mountain or transform desert to plain.

Sorry... what? When has any civilization flattened mountains??

Providing irrigation to deserts at great cost is one thing, but even then we don't magically turn the desert into fertile plains forever and the cost is so exorbitant that it is extremely rarely done.

 

[Schuesseled]

you should be able to tunnel mountains in the late game, and have some way of exploiting them economically, maybe set an expedition post or something that generates gold from tourists.

Deserts should have something useful, although im not sure what maybe some black market upgrade or something to bring in extra gold, (hard to patrol a desert and stop smuggling.)

 

[Craxymaxy]

late-middle game mountains should be able to be mined for like 3 hammers, nothing big, just a representation of the industrial capacity that comes with mountains. Hills would still be more valuable
this would circumvent the odd circumstance when you have a city by the sea with mountains on one side and coast on the other and no hammers. (i'm talking about chile0

 

[MrHan]

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.

Well said. I completely agree. Mountains and deserts are supposed to be worthless. If they weren't, they'd be no different from hills and plains. Redundancy makes for an annoying game.

 

[Zaimejs]

Storey?

 

[hclass]

Sorry... what? When has any civilization flattened mountains??

Ya. 5 turns to lower a mountain to hill and another 5 to flatten it into plain or grassland. This feature is a suggestion... I think Firaxis will accept it and you all will like it.

 

[sputnik323]

We can terraform desert? Is that why the Sahara is expanding with global warming and we're powerless to stop it?

The Sahara is actually shrinking due to expanded vegetation. More people live (more comfortably too) in deserts than rain forests - man can easily tarraform deserts (and have for thousands of years) -> canals, irrigation, wells, aqueducts, and later -> dams, and large water projects.

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.

Living in the Rocky Mountains, IRL mountains are very profitable. Most precious metals are found in mountain areas - and many other ores and gems are found and mined there in abundance (even by Native Americans hundreds and thousands of years ago). Ever hear of any gold rush to the Midwestern plains?

- And if you are trying to argue that hills represent those regions and only the highest peaks are mountains in game, then there would be hardly any (very very few) mountains on the map if trying to mimic real life.

However, I agree with you that they should be more than just boring weak hills. Gameplay > realism

 

[Ahriman]

Living in the Rocky Mountains, IRL mountains are very profitable.

Relative to coastal plains or hills? Hardly. Too inaccessible, transport costs too high. Very small populations.

Ever hear of any gold rush to the Midwestern plains?

Gold and gems can often be found in flat land. Witness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimberley,_Northern_Cape and most of the South African mining
Or in hills. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_gold_rush

Really high mountain areas are inaccessible and very hard to mine.

And if you are trying to argue that hills represent those regions and only the highest peaks are mountains in game, then there would be hardly any (very very few) mountains on the map if trying to mimic real life.

Example: Appalachians are nearly all hills in Civ terms, not mountains. Himalayas/Hindu Kush and Alps and Andes and rockies are mountains. Some of the Sierra Nevadas, but not the coastal sierras. Southern Alps in New Zealand. Some of the Carpathians. Some of the Caucausus mountains.
But nothing in Australia, little in SE Asia (maybe New Guinea highlands?), very little in Africa.

As an order of magnitude, I'd say anything under ~6000 feet doesn't count as mountains.
[And not everything above 6000 feet counts as mountains either]

 

[the343danny]

Ya. 5 turns to lower a mountain to hill and another 5 to flatten it into plain or grassland. This feature is a suggestion... I think Firaxis will accept it and you all will like it.

No, I doubt Firaxis will accept any more suggestions at this stage, and even if they would, I doubt they will accept this. And no, I will not like it. I wont like it that every single game will have the same terrain. I want terrain diversity. Not being able to change it is adds strategic depth, despite limiting choices.

The amount of desert "terraformed" IRL is minuscule compared to the amount of desert that still remains.

 

[MrHan]

As an order of magnitude, I'd say anything under ~6000 feet doesn't count as mountains.
[And not everything above 6000 feet counts as mountains either]

I semi-totally agree. eh. that's weird phrasing.
I totally agree with what you mean, and your first sentence only when considering the part in brackets, but otherwise no. What I'm trying to say is - yes, I agree with you.

anyhoo, I say anything with less than ~500 meters of prominence doesn't count as a mountain in civ terms. That way, you could have plains or hills on top of plateaus (like the Tibetan plateau) yet have the sides be mountains.

A pretty accurate model of elevation in terms of practicality, imo.

 

[Ahriman]

Yes, I take your point that prominence is a more effective measure than altitude. I was trying to stick to something that people are more familiar with (and can look up for any particular features they like).

But altitude matters too; it makes a difference not just how high things are, but how cold they are (relative to treeline, snowline, etc.) and how steep they are (and you get steeper terrain at higher altitude because it is less eroded - and less full of soil and desposits).

So its a bit of a mix of all of these - with a health splash of "you know it when you see it".

 

[sputnik323]

Relative to coastal plains or hills? Hardly. Too inaccessible, transport costs too high. Very small populations.

Transport costs all depends on location. Wealth production depends on quantity and accessibility (mountains were accessible to Ancient peoples) - and for population - we are talking about working mountains, not establishing cities on top of them. -Which that has been done by ancient peoples as well; Machu Picchu was build 8000 feet above sea level which qualifies by your standards.

I dont understand why people think ancient peoples were not capable of so many things. There are engineering feats we cannot recreate that many ancient cultures were able to accomplish.

Gold and gems can often be found in flat land.
Really high mountain areas are inaccessible and very hard to mine.

I would not dispute that they can be found, however, it is much harder to look for minerals without geologic features to find them. Ancient times people would have to stumble upon sites. This would be much more difficult to do on flat land. The ore can be more difficult to obtain on flat land as well because people have to remove more rock and dirt to get to the ore. Mountains have gravity do much of the work to remove the left over rock and dirt. Tunnels are much easier to make than large open pits.

 

[kurtkage]

Considering that chokepoints are constantly mentioned in reference to ciV 1upt combat it seems integral to gameplay. I see everyones point on having tiles that cannot be worked but for me it is a sacrifice that I am more than willing to make in order to have interesting combat chokepoints and natural barriers to play with.

I could see a compromise with a comeback of alpine troops from umm civ2 was it?, that you could have able to traverse mountains, but again you then are changing the rules of your front lines and compromising chokepoints in the late game if you do that.

 

[hclass]

No, I doubt Firaxis will accept any more suggestions at this stage, and even if they would, I doubt they will accept this. And no, I will not like it.

How are you so sure?

I wont like it that every single game will have the same terrain. I want terrain diversity.

Easy terraforming does not discard terrain diversity. In fact it intensifies it. If you like, you can always make it equal no. of every terrain type around your city, what you need is an easy and quick terraforming.

Not being able to change it is adds strategic depth, despite limiting choices.

Illogical.
Whatever you can find in rigid terrain system is also found in a flexible terrain system as I have suggested. Mountain is still mountain, plain is still plain. Whatever you can and you can't remain the same. A flexible terrain system just add the possibility for your opponent to change the advantage you gain by certain formation of terrain type at certain spot and you can choose to stop them, that all adds strategy.
Just name me one strategy I won't have if it is a flexible terrain system... I doubt you can... hehehe

 

[Ahriman]

Which that has been done by ancient peoples as well; Machu Picchu was build 8000 feet above sea level which qualifies by your standards.

Incas are literally the *only* example of this. And their cities weren't that big. Also see this thread. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=361831

There are engineering feats we cannot recreate that many ancient cultures were able to accomplish.

Myth. There are engineering feats that are not cost-effective for us to bother trying to accomplish. But there aren't engineering feats that we couldn't achieve today if we wanted to.

however, it is much harder to look for minerals without geologic features to find them

Umm... what? You're saying that people can't find resources without landmarks?

Ancient times people would have to stumble upon sites. This would be much more difficult to do on flat land.

How so?
Also: please demonstrate any cases of ancient people building shaft mines above the treeline/snowline. Heck, even today that's basically unheard of.

Mountains have gravity do much of the work to remove the left over rock and dirt. Tunnels are much easier to make than large open pits.

Open-faced mines/pits are much easier to dig than tunnels. Shafts face constant risk of cavein, gas deposits and engineering knowledge to build support for.
Ancient peoples very often used basically open-facing mines and quarries. This was standard.

Mines do not use "gravity" to get rid of waste material. Thats a bizarre claim. In fact, just the opposite, mines have to drag all the stuff they work uphill to get to the mine entrance to get it out.

Guys, learn to ignore hclass, better for your sanity.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=360149

 

[Chalks]

I stick by my original question of "when has any civilization ever flattened a mountain?" in an attempt to get an answer that makes sense.

 

[CyberChrist]

Mines do not use "gravity" to get rid of waste material. Thats a bizarre claim. In fact, just the opposite, mines have to drag all the stuff they work uphill to get to the mine entrance to get it out.

Not entirely true. Ground sluicing and Hydraulic mining makes use of gravity by means of water to accomplish much of the extraction/unveiling. Where Ground sluicing was the method used by the Romans in both Spain and Britain while Hydraulic mining was first used during the Californian gold rush.

Both mining and tunneling of Mountains is indeed possible, but I would agree that the ability to both mine and tunnel Mountains should come with much later techs than those allowing for normal mines and roadbuilding.

However, before making use of this approach then it would probably be a good idea to make a further seperation of the Mountains/Peaks terrain into two seperate terrain/feature types where only Peaks would be fully impassable and unimproveable - leaving Mountains to be improveable with the appropriate more advanced techs.