Mountains=Useless?

[Schuesseled]

Does this talk about gravity and other nonsense really matter!

What you've got to ask yourself is to you want these randomly placed useless streches of tiles left in the game.

Mountains, Desert and Ice all suck beyond belief, and yet they have thier place they do exist and so there in the game as terrain, but they shouldnt be completely useless as from a gaming point of view its just silly.

 

[Schuesseled]

make them useful, mountains actually being used as chokepoints would be nice instead of just thrown in randomly, deserts having some sort of purpose, and ice well that depends on whether the world is being made round in this game, if it is we won't need a border of ice at the top and bottom to disguise it from being the edge of the world as it is. So it can finally have some purpose as well

 

[chongli]

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.

I'd hardly call it a history simulator. If it were, it'd be a movie or a book, not an interactive game.

 

[CyberChrist]

I'd hardly call it a history simulator. If it were, it'd be a movie or a book, not an interactive game.

Huh?! Interaction is an indispensable part of a simulator, without interaction it is just a scripted story told by the author(s).

 

[Chalks]

An alternative history simulator perhaps. It doesn't exactly simulate real history - but something similar if different decisions were made.

 

[Xoatl_169]

Thanks cyberchrist, I hate typing out explanations, you did it for me.

@chalks: Thats what i meant by history simulator, it simulates history to the best of the games ability, but also allows the player to deviate from it if they choose, but its still confined by the limits a history simulator would have (linear tech progression, same civs, same leaders, same terrain), unless of course you mod it with something completely different like Planetfall (a different linear tech progression, different civs, different leaders, different terrain) then it would be an alternate history simulator because its not confined by the rules and content designed to mimic real world history but its then confined by something mimicing a different chain of events, ie alternate history.

 

[hclass]

An alternative history simulator perhaps. It doesn't exactly simulate real history - but something similar if different decisions were made.

wa haha!
So in history, the Indian did something then stop wait for the Chinese to take their turn and when Chinese stop the Babylon's turn is up... remember, every civ take turns in history.

and the most interesting part is Civ5 predict year 2050 will be the end of all civ. See, history predict its own end.

history simulator

 

[plasmacannon]

I mentioned this in another thread, but, it would seem to apply here aswell.

I live in Florida, USA.
The highest point in my state is 353 ft above sea level.
In Civ terms my state is basically made up of grasslands, plains, swamps (which could be jungle), and perhaps flood plains.

So, how high does the land have to be to beciome a hill?
Normally, the land would have to be high enough to be of strategic value for someone to "take the high ground" as has done in many battles.
Maybe, start at 1000 feet?
But, then go up to where?
Much of the Appalachian mountains would qualify for this. They average around 3000 ft, with a max of 6684 ft. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_Mountains
So, it should be a mix of hills and a higher terrain.

The rocky mountains mostly start at this higher terrain and go even higher to full Civ mountain status.
So, my point is Civ needs to add this middle terrain, that is higher than the lowly hills, but lower that the highest impassable peaks.
IMO, Denver, CO isn't a hill, nor a Everest type peak. It is some thing inbetween.
A Civ terrain could include:

Hills: 1000 ft - 2999 ft (mine able, and passable) +25% Terrain defense
Mountains: 3000 ft - 7999 ft (mine able and passable with roads technology) +50% Terrain defense, unless the terrain below is hills, the just 25% more.
Peaks: 8000+ ft (not mine able or passable)

The defense matters from where the attacker is attacking from. The more level the ground, the less tactical the advantage is. Air units would ignore ground defense.

Anyway, you get the idea about different types of terrains.
Hills, Mountains, and Peaks.

Oh, and I looked up Machu Picchu (Quechua: Machu Picchu) – "Old Mountain", pronounced [ˈmɑ.t͡ʃu ˈpix.t͡ʃu]) is a pre-Columbian Inca site located 2,430 metres (7,970 ft) above sea level.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machu_Picchu
It would fit my example of a Mountain terrain.

 

[Shurdus]

I mentioned this in another thread, but, it would seem to apply here aswell.

I live in Florida, USA.
The highest point in my state is 353 ft above sea level.
In Civ terms my state is basically made up of grasslands, plains, swamps (which could be jungle), and perhaps flood plains.

So, how high does the land have to be to beciome a hill?
Normally, the land would have to be high enough to be of strategic value for someone to "take the high ground" as has done in many battles.
Maybe, start at 1000 feet?
But, then go up to where?
Much of the Appalachian mountains would qualify for this. They average around 3000 ft, with a max of 6684 ft. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_Mountains
So, it should be a mix of hills and a higher terrain.

The rocky mountains mostly start at this higher terrain and go even higher to full Civ mountain status.
So, my point is Civ needs to add this middle terrain, that is higher than the lowly hills, but lower that the highest impassable peaks.
IMO, Denver, CO isn't a hill, nor a Everest type peak. It is some thing inbetween.
A Civ terrain could include:

Hills: 1000 ft - 2999 ft (mine able, and passable) +25% Terrain defense
Mountains: 3000 ft - 7999 ft (mine able and passable with roads technology) +50% Terrain defense, unless the terrain below is hills, the just 25% more.
Peaks: 8000+ ft (not mine able or passable)

The defense matters from where the attacker is attacking from. The more level the ground, the less tactical the advantage is. Air units would ignore ground defense.

Anyway, you get the idea about different types of terrains.
Hills, Mountains, and Peaks.

Oh, and I looked up Machu Picchu (Quechua: Machu Picchu) – "Old Mountain", pronounced [ˈmɑ.t͡ʃu ˈpix.t͡ʃu]) is a pre-Columbian Inca site located 2,430 metres (7,970 ft) above sea level.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machu_Picchu
It would fit my example of a Mountain terrain.

That is so overcomplicating things that it is not even funny any more.

Land can gently slop up, right? So while land can be so many feet above sea level, it can still be considered flatlands for all intents and purposes, right? If the terrain is 'hilly' in the sense that moving through it requires a lot of effort, it can be a hill. You canalso define this in terms of differences in heights in a small area.

If crossing the terrain requires about the effort of crossing flatlands, it is flatland. Again, if there is little difference in height in a small area, it can be a flatland.

For these purposes it is completely irrelevant how high the land lies above sealevel. Civ represents the world as flatland with hills and a peak here and there, which works for gaming purposes. Your ethod complicates things for no real reason, that is I feel it adds very little.

 

[Malchar]

Spies should be able to have secret bases in mountains like James Bond villains.

 

[Thyrwyn]

but no one would be able to see them....

 

[Disgustipated]

That is so overcomplicating things that it is not even funny any more.

Land can gently slop up, right? So while land can be so many feet above sea level, it can still be considered flatlands for all intents and purposes, right? If the terrain is 'hilly' in the sense that moving through it requires a lot of effort, it can be a hill. You canalso define this in terms of differences in heights in a small area.

If crossing the terrain requires about the effort of crossing flatlands, it is flatland. Again, if there is little difference in height in a small area, it can be a flatland.

For these purposes it is completely irrelevant how high the land lies above sealevel. Civ represents the world as flatland with hills and a peak here and there, which works for gaming purposes. Your ethod complicates things for no real reason, that is I feel it adds very little.

good points here, flatland is flatland. Unless they are going to bring back elevation from SMAC (doubtful), there is no need to make any distinction. No need to distinguish elevation, as there is no gameplay mechanic that takes this into account (as in SMAC)

In civ terms (to make things easy). Anything over 1000 feet (from the surrounding flatland) is a hill. Anything over 10000 feet (over the surrounding flatland) is a mountain. Appalachians are hills, rockies are mountains. I think Civ4 represented this well enough.

One thing I was never a big fan of in Civ was specialists. Many people liked that micromanagement aspect of civ. But to me, it feels more natural working the land. So I do want many tiles to be workable, even if they only offer minimal benefit. But that would be useless if they did keep specialists as they are in civ4.

 

[plasmacannon]

In Civ V, all units start at a movement rate of 2.
One could reduce this movement rate to 1, in the Mountains I mentioned above.
This would be another difference between Hills, and Mountains.
Mountains should also have a higher % chance to find more valuable resourses, such as Gold.

Peaks should be useless, and provide a terrain obstacle.
Mountains should be habitable, I have relatives out in Utah, US.
They have copper mines there.
And as others have stated, the Rockies are mountains, not hills.

Where would the Swiss live?
I think most would agree, that Switzerland is a country in the mountains, with a few peaks mixed in there. The same for Nepal.
In the wikipedia, it states, Nepal contains over 240 peaks more than 20,000 ft (6,096 m) above sea level. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepal
Perhaps, my upper limit of a mountain should be raised.
They define hills too:
The Hill Region (Pahad) abuts the mountains and varies from 800 to 4,000 metres (2,625 to 13,123 ft) in altitude.

So, Hills are 800 to 4,000 meters (2,625 to 13,123 ft) in altitude.
Mountains are > 4000 meters up to 6,096 meters (13,123 - 20,000 ft).
Peaks are more than 6,096 m (20,000 ft) above sea level.

There are 3 terrain types for these higher terrans. Civ IV just chooses to leave one out.

The cost of building a road or RR through the mountains should be higher.
Still impossible for peaks.
Get the difference?

 

[Ahriman]

Mountains should also have a higher % chance to find more valuable resourses, such as Gold.

This is illogical.

Get the difference?

No. Your "mountains" are hills with slightly higher movement cost and build times. Big deal. They're weak hills.

[Also, I'd be amazed if hills didn't have movement cost 2, like in every civ up to now.]

The vast majority of people in Switzerland or Nepal don't live on the mountains, they live on the flatland areas in the valleys.
And the populated areas of Switzerland are all north of the alps.

I agree with Shurdus and Disgustipated here.
There's just no design need to have 3 kinds of mountain hill terrain; we have impassible mountains designed to act as barriers, and workable hills.

 

[Shurdus]

Get the difference?

Not really. I do not see why hills cannot represent both hilly terrains and mountains-that-do-not-qualify-as-peaks kind of terrain. I do not see why the civ terrain should make everything explicit, do we really need to see that the land over here is more elevated than the land over there? Can we not use our imigination for this?

Your solution is more realistic no doubt, but what real improvement would it bring to the game?

 

[plasmacannon]

Actually, there would be in game differences.

Hills - have another terrain over it, plains, grasslands, desert or tundra (these could be your different types of plateaus). Can also contain Forest, Jungle.
Offer a 25% Def bonus.
Could contain most Food Resourses available, varies based on the terrain over it.
Could contain most Strategic Resourses available.
Can build roads or RR at +25% more cost, than plains.
Terrain movement cost is 1 slower than plains.

Mountains - have tundra over it.
Offer a 50% Def bonus. (I'll leave out the complicated part I mentioned earlier to simplify this)
Could contain a Food Resourse such as Deer, Mountain Rams, or Llamas.
Could contain Gold, Copper, Iron, Aluminum, Uranium.
Can build roads or RR at +50% more cost, than plains.
Terrain movement cost is 1 slower than Hills with a road.

Peaks - No terrain over it.
No Def bonus, can not move onto this tile.
Contains No Resourses.
No roads or RR can be built on it.

If you require more variance than that, the game could make a specific resourse Only available in Mountains, and leave the rest available to Hills.
ie. most activity would still be around hills, but, if you have a mountain in your city area, it isn't completely useless. You can build a RR through it, you could find a rare resourse there. It might take you longer to harness it, but, you could still get to it.

Think of it like, Oil drilling (a recient topic in the news).
You can find it on land, off the coast, and a mile deep in the ocean.
Some locations are easier to get to, and less costly to obtain the resourse, but, if you really need it badly enough, you might choose to go after all you can find.
If the above % costs are too low, they could be increased too, since this is all conjecture.

The story of the Spanish Conquistador sending some of his men to a volcano to gather sulfur, so, the troops could have enough gunpowder to continue conquering the New World, comes to mind.
Rare resourse, hard to get.

 

[Ahriman]

Hills - have another terrain over it, plains, grasslands, desert or tundra (these could be your different types of plateaus

Plateaus are *flat*. They're not hilly.
Hills represent terrain of uneven elevation, not of high elevation.

Plateaus are represented by.... plains, grassland, desert or tundra.

Rare resourse, hard to get.

Gunpowder really isn't that hard to make, and doesn't require rare strategic resources. You can even make gunpowder without sulphur.
Saltpeter you can get from urine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder

I don't understand why you think hills and mountains have different resources in them. That makes no logical sense. Hills are just heavily eroded mountains.
Its not like there are resources in mountains that disappear when they get more eroded.

But you're still missing the point; trying to think of extra variation you could tack on doesn't address the key question of "what is the design goal here".
"Having more terrain types" isn't really a design goal.
Deserts/tundras/ice are interestingly different from grassland plains; they're inferior terrain, located either nearish to the equator or the poles, respectively.
Jungle is interestingly different; its bad terrain until you have sufficient tech and worker time, then is good terrain.
Mountain peaks are interestingly different; you can't work them, but they're impassible.
Hills are different, because they allow different improvement types; you can mind them, and get hammers. And hammers are hard to come by on flatland.

This is all very academic though, because as far as we can see from screenshots, this decision has been made.
You're very welcome to mod in two types of mountains on your own, however.

 

[Dunkah]

In history there have been units that have been able to operate in the mountains. Certain units should be able to move through certain impassible features. Or perhaps making this ability an upgrade so you could train your troops for this purpose.

 

[plasmacannon]

It seem like you are looking at it from a simple game mechanics viewpoint.
I was trying to add more realism and new challanges to the already improving game.
As Dunkah added, one could invision certain types of units that could traverse terrain of one type, but not another.
I believe this was done back in Civ3 (Cannons not in mountains, until roads).

Spain used llamas to haul ore out of the mountains, not some lowly hill. So, resourse gathering was slower to get to the city 7000 feet below. Distance does have a factor.
Mountains are in general, for many empires, not as desireable, not as hospitable, as hills, yet still have resourses that people will goto great lengths, and build small cities just have what is there.
What it brings is richness to the game.
I think of Starcraft over Warcraft 2, when, they added ramps for terrain elevation.
They sold alot of copies of Starcraft too.
Not just because of this, I realize, but, richness does help games.

Now, I'm tired of this.
If you can't see the difference between a hill used in a battle because of its strategic value, where armies use it to gain an advantage on the battle field, perhaps for a sniping position, or to conceal their catapults in the woods before an attack,
and the Andes Mountains far above the earth, away from much of the larger cities, and advanced civilizations, then, you are lost.

I think of the observatories built on the Volcano in Hawaii, or in Chile in the Andes Mountains. They built them there because of their elevation, little city light, or atmosphere to interfere with them. They didn't build them on some small hill around 1500 ft above sea level.

and Ahriman, the reason mountains would have a higher % is just due to mass.
There is more dirt, stone, and logically minerals, to mine in a mountain, than, a hill 1/4 -1/10th its size.

 

[KMRblue1027]

Four elevation types would make much more logical scene.
Flatland > Hills > Mountains > Peaks
Currently you go from this little dinky hill that looks like it's no more then 2,000 feet up to Mount Everest, WTH is with that? it wouldn't even add that much more complexity. 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.