Mountains=Useless?

[Ahriman]

Not entirely true. Ground sluicing and Hydraulic mining makes use of gravity by means of water to accomplish much of the extraction/unveiling.

Not exactly practiced in ancient times. And you don't need a huge mountain to do this; a short moderate slope is fine. What I was objecting to was the idea that its easier to mine in steep mountainous environments because there is somehow more potential to harness gravity.

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.

What does this achieve that isn't achieved by just unworkable mountains/workable hills, and high level techs that improve mine yields?

One aspect that techs that increase improvement yields is modeling is the fact that its opening up previously infeasible/uneconomic land.

 

[CyberChrist]

Not exactly practiced in ancient times.

Maybe if you bothered to read the entire post and check the link I supplied you would have realized that - yes, it was.

 

[CyberChrist]

What does this achieve that isn't achieved by just unworkable mountains/workable hills, and high level techs that improve mine yields?

I would have thought that was obvious. It provides a distinct difference between hills and mountains wihout unrealisticly allowing mining and passage over/through Mountain tiles too early or denying it altogether - and still allow certain tiles to be impassable through all eras.

 

[chongli]

Mountains in Civ 5 present a very powerful strategic opportunity if they are designed properly.

Mountains should be impassible by all land units and should block line-of-sight and all ranged attacks (except air attacks and long range missiles). Mountains should be generated realistically (along fault lines) and stretch along for great distances with occasional narrow passes, creating ideal places to build strongholds and defend large areas with the choke point.

What'd be even more impressive is if they did a rough simulation of wind and ocean currents. Add mountains into the equation and you get orographic precipitation on the windward side and deserts on the leeward side.

 

[timtofly]

It would be great if they could also put in plateaus with impassible "gorges" once you do get "over" the mountain.

 

[Ahriman]

I would have thought that was obvious. It provides a distinct difference between hills and mountains wihout unrealisticly allowing mining and passage over/through Mountain tiles too early or denying it altogether - and still allow certain tiles to be impassable through all eras.

Why is allowing mining in mountain tiles a necessary design goal?
Why is allowing transport through mountains a necessary design goal - how many mountain chains actually have tunnels through them? The Alps and....

Impassible mountains, unworkable mountains, workable hills does just fine, and is simpler.

Maybe if you bothered to read the entire post and check the link I supplied you would have realized that - yes, it was.

Ground sluicing does not require mountains. Any river will do just fine.
California gold rush is not exactly ancient....

 

[Zaimejs]

The Romans did it.

What about the commercial aspect? No one really seems to talk about this. The hills are alive with the sound of music... ah ah ah ah.

 

[CyberChrist]

Why is allowing mining in mountain tiles a necessary design goal?

Because it is actually possible. Whether it is economically viable is another matter entirely - one that would depend on how desperately you require what you can get from such Mountain mines I'd recon.

Why is allowing transport through mountains a necessary design goal - how many mountain chains actually have tunnels through them? The Alps and....

Again, because it is actually possible(at least in the modern world). I have to admit that I can't be bothered to look up any examples for you (considering that you don't seem to bother to follow links anyway), but rest assured there have been made many tunnels through mountains all over the world.

Impassible mountains, unworkable mountains, workable hills does just fine, and is simpler.

I actually agree with this line up - except that Impassable mountains should be named Peaks and that unworkable mountains should become workable once the right advanced technology had been discovered (Construction for Mining and SteamPower/RailRoad for tunneling?)

Ground sluicing does not require mountains. Any river will do just fine.

We are talking about artificial introduction of water into the process of mining - and that is what the Romans did in Spain and Britain (if not Ancient then at least Classical).

California gold rush is not exactly ancient....

Well no(did I say that?), but it was during the Californian gold rush that they used Hydraulic mining for the first time.

 

[Ahriman]

Because it is actually possible.

We don't put in anythnig that is actually possible. That's a terrible way to design a game that involves adding far too many features and making the game far too complex.

There are *not* tunnels through mountain chains (not the same as a small tunnel through a single mountain) all over the world.
Through the Alps? Yes, there are multiple tunnels. But there are no tunnels that go all the way through the rockies, or the himalayas, or the andes, or the Southern Alps, etc.
Instead, you have to go through choke-point mountain passes - gaps in the mountain chain where there is a hills tile instead, in game terms.

We are talking about artificial introduction of water into the process of mining

No. We're talking about whether mining is somehow inherently easier in mountains because of "gravity".

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.

What I was objecting to was the idea that its easier to mine in steep mountainous environments because there is somehow more potential to harness gravity.

 

[sputnik323]

No. We're talking about whether mining is somehow inherently easier in mountains because of "gravity".

Here is a simple test. Go outside and dig a large hole. Then go to a hillside and push dirt down a hill (making a hole). See which one you think is easier to move the same amount of dirt? Gravity allows easier excavation because it is less labor intensive to move rubble. Gold veins are generally not very deep. Ones that I have been in (above the tree line too) go back about 100 yards. Tunnels in hillsides, cliffs, and mountains follow gold veins instead of trying to move tons and tons worthless rocks like a pit. Tunnels are not a modern invention, there are many ancient tunnels.

 

[Chalks]

Here is a simple test. Go outside and dig a large hole. Then go to a hillside and push dirt down a hill (making a hole). See which one you think is easier to move the same amount of dirt? Gravity allows easier excavation because it is less labor intensive to move rubble. Gold veins are generally not very deep. Ones that I have been in (above the tree line too) go back about 100 yards. Tunnels in hillsides, cliffs, and mountains follow gold veins instead of trying to move tons and tons worthless rocks like a pit. Tunnels are not a modern invention, there are many ancient tunnels.

I think there is a distinction between "You can dig easier because you're on a mountain" and "You're going to find more stuff because you're on a mountain".

True, some times, resources will be pushed to the surface and will be easier to access on a mountain, but that doesn't mean that mountain = good for mining. Gravity really isn't the reason you'd choose to make a mine somewhere.

 

[Ahriman]

Here is a simple test. Go outside and dig a large hole. Then go to a hillside and push dirt down a hill (making a hole). See which one you think is easier to move the same amount of dirt? Gravity allows easier excavation because it is less labor intensive to move rubble. Gold veins are generally not very deep. Ones that I have been in (above the tree line too) go back about 100 yards. Tunnels in hillsides, cliffs, and mountains follow gold veins instead of trying to move tons and tons worthless rocks like a pit. Tunnels are not a modern invention, there are many ancient tunnels.

I would find it much easier to dig up some dirt in my back yard, where I could easily get food supplies, labor, and access to markets to sell my stuff, than I would were I to march off 100 miles into the mountains, climb up a steep mountain above the treeline, and start trying to dig into the side of the mountain.
The costs of getting everything I need to a mountain, and then getting what I mine away from the mountain are FAR more than any gains from being able to utilize gravity up in mountains.

Besides which, even grassland and plains tiles aren't 100% flat; they still have small valleys and depressions due to water erosion. I can dig into the side of a slope without having to go to steep mountains away from any infrastructure to do so.

How much of a drop do you think I need in order to move rubble out of the mouth of a shaft??

 

[CyberChrist]

We don't put in anythnig that is actually possible. That's a terrible way to design a game that involves adding far too many features and making the game far too complex.

What a riduclous claim. Yes, "we" most certainly do - even though you are right that "we" don't necessarily put things in a game just because they are possible.

It is a common misconception that simple is somehow the ultimate goal and receipe for a fun game, since simple more often than not becomes boring way too fast and it is only complexity that brings true longlasting appeal. Of course, add too much complextiy and the game risk becomming overly complex which is normally unfun for anyone but the most obsessive compulsive gamer.

So while allowing for a further distinctions between Mountains and Peaks with different options for each would no doubt move the game slightly away from simple - it certainly wouldn't move it anywhere close to the overly complex category.

There are *not* tunnels through mountain chains (not the same as a small tunnel through a single mountain) all over the world.
Through the Alps? Yes, there are multiple tunnels. But there are no tunnels that go all the way through the rockies, or the himalayas, or the andes, or the Southern Alps, etc.
Instead, you have to go through choke-point mountain passes - gaps in the mountain chain where there is a hills tile instead, in game terms.

I am not sure where the 'chains' part entered the equation, but 'chains' would consist of Peaks (the Impassable element in my suggested setup) effectively making the 'chains' Impassable in their entirety. Neverthless, there are plenty of tunnels the world over going through Mountains - regardless of whether you adamantly continues to deny and twist the facts of the matter.

No. We're talking about whether mining is somehow inherently easier in mountains because of "gravity".

In case you weren't aware then water do flow downward because of gravity - and that is the force that the Romans was making a most effective use of in their before mentioned mining operations.

 

[CyberChrist]

Gravity really isn't the reason you'd choose to make a mine somewhere.

Heh, of course not. Getting to the minerals hidden beneath the earth is the reason anyone ever chose to mine ... anywhere.

 

[Craxymaxy]

I think his point is that it should be an option albeit and incredibly expensive option, like building a fort in a desert

 

[Ahriman]

What a riduclous claim. Yes, "we" most certainly do - even though you are right that "we" don't necessarily put things in a game just because they are possible.

Its ridiculous to claim that we don't want to model every single mechanic that has ever been part of history? Uhhh, no sorry.

You will feature-creep this game to death if you keep adding in every feature just because "its possible IRL".

It is a common misconception that simple is somehow the ultimate goal and receipe for a fun game, since simple more often than not becomes boring way too fast and it is only complexity that brings true longlasting appeal. Of course, add too much complextiy and the game risk becomming overly complex which is normally unfun for anyone but the most obsessive compulsive gamer.

Guess what... you can't work or pass through peaks in Civ4. Does that make the game too simple? No.

And yes, simplicity is a great goal. By making every feature as simple as you can, it means you can add more/different/interesting features without making the game cluttered.

So while allowing for a further distinctions between Mountains and Peaks with different options for each would no doubt move the game slightly away from simple - it certainly wouldn't move it anywhere close to the overly complex category.

But it also woudlnt' add anything to actual gameplay.

If we have peaks that are unworkable/impassible, and hills that are workable/passible, then making a mountain that is just a weak hill adds nothing to the game.

I am not sure where the 'chains' part entered the equation, but 'chains' would consist of Peaks (the Impassable element in my suggested setup) effectively making the 'chains' Impassable in their entirety. Neverthless, there are plenty of tunnels the world over going through Mountains - regardless of whether you adamantly continues to deny and twist the facts of the matter.

Please provide examples.

In case you weren't aware then water do flow downward because of gravity

Yes, water flows downhill because of gravity... but in case you weren't aware, it does this even outside of mountains. Mountains aren't the only places in the world that aren't completely level.

 

[sputnik323]

I would find it much easier to dig up some dirt in my back yard, where I could easily get food supplies, labor, and access to markets to sell my stuff, than I would were I to march off 100 miles into the mountains, climb up a steep mountain above the treeline, and start trying to dig into the side of the mountain.
The costs of getting everything I need to a mountain, and then getting what I mine away from the mountain are FAR more than any gains from being able to utilize gravity up in mountains.

And the whole point is... If there is gold in your back yard... yes you would be right. However, if there was no gold in people's back yard, and their livelihood was based or increased because of gold mining. They would travel up at great heights to get it... How do I know this? because it has already been done, there are old gold mines up in the mountains HIGH in the Rockies. If there is a demand great enough... like for gold, people will go to very great lengths to get it, even high up in the mountains.

 

[chongli]

You will feature-creep this game to death if you keep adding in every feature just because "its possible IRL".

Agreed. Civ is a strategy game series, not a life simulator. Some people just don't seem to get this.

 

[Xoatl_169]

Agreed. Civ is a strategy game series, not a life simulator. Some people just don't seem to get this.

Well thats not right, its a history simulator, not sure if you'd consider it a life simulator, but the fact the tech progresses how the tech in the real world progressed and the civs are actual civs that existed with actual leaders. But, I agree that they shouldn't add features in that would make the game worse. But there are very little features that would do that if it came from IRL, having the ability to mine/tunnel on mountain plots in late game seems like a good idea, perhaps make the mainetance cost of tunnels higher then that of roads to discourage the player of building interconnecting tunnels on every tile. Any more detail place into mountains would most likely be a pain to manage. So i guess it depends on how real the features have to be before it starts being boring.

 

[CyberChrist]

@Ahriman:
I don't really like repeating myself so it would seem pointless to continue this 'debate' with you, as you seem to be either unwilling or unable to understand half of what other people write(including documented facts of history) - if it in the slightest part goes against your perception of the world as it is and should be.

I suggest we just agree to disagree and leave it at that.