Mountains

[scooter]

I wouldn't mind if they made it so Peaks were passable by Explorer units (only), so you can use their strategic value, but still make it so there's never combat on peaks. Other than that I'd leave it as is.

 

[Thedrin]

Mjs0:
I have a mountain that cuts off a one tile peninsula and I build a city next to it such that the tile of the peninsula will be in my fat cross.

That complaint would exist without mountains - specifically, a city whose fat cross extend to another island. The land on the island can be worked by the city even though the civ might not have fishing.

 

[mjs0]

That complaint would exist without mountains - specifically, a city whose fat cross extend to another island. The land on the island can be worked by the city even though the civ might not have fishing.

Yup...I should have been more explicit in my wording, but it was a little off topic for the thread, ah well...to be more accurate:
I would actually like to see any natural barrier being an impediment to culture spread, including (but not limited to) impassable mountains, deserts, straits (before sailing) and jungles, as well as to a lesser extent hills and forests.
Conversely I would like to see culture spread more rapidly along communication routes such as roads, railroads, rivers and coasts (after sailing), as well as to a lesser extent open land such as grassland and plains.
I believe this would lead to much more natural borders between countries

 

[uat2d]

Peaks can be terrible: we can fly, but we can't traverse a mountain... even if it takes various turns, and your units lose HP, it think they should be passable!
They also are terrible in a city radius, even if it were only 1 shield productive like ice/hill or desert/hill, they should be passable!!

 

[winddbourne]

I like peaks in the early game, but later I'd like SOME units to be able to move over them. Specifically I'd like WORKERS to be able to do so in the late game, and to blast roads through for my other units to cross.

I understand not letting a tank through, or a primitive worker with a hoe and shovel, but guys with dynamite and bulldozers should be able to make a path, and/or improve the terrain with mines.

Not to mention I'd like Alpine Troops brought back late game. Though perhaps they should be the special unit of Tibet when it gets added in. lol

 

[Frimlin]

I vote for no further changes to BtS, so it can be released on schedule.

 

[uat2d]

I vote for no further changes to BtS, so it can be released on schedule.

it's a small change, the release date won't get delayed

 

[diablodelmar]

I think there should be alpine troops which can move on mountains.

 

[Onagan]

I love the way they can block invaders off.

 

[Psyringe]

Gah, I got confused by the different wording of the poll and the OP. One of the "No" votes is meant to be a "yes".

I like the impassable mountains, because they add atrategic choke points and sometimes natural borders.

 

[witten]

Since impassable and yielding nothing, peak tiles are useless unless they act as natural barriers. They are hardly barriers for now. One of the reasons is because land units are allowed to cross diagonal mountains(even without movement penalty). Naval units, on the other hand, cannot cross over land tiles touching the corners as if there were canals.

See these screenshots.. Actually the graphics itself shows that mountains are smoothly connected even through the midpoint, i.e. not having deep valley allowing easy travel-through. Similary, the land pathway with coasts on both sides are visually 'connected'. Then why this inconsistency?

For now, to make them real natural barriers, you need to concatenate peaks in a right angled chain which not only looks artificial but eats up and renders useless too many tiles.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

My main complaint with impassable mountains is this...

I have a mountain that cuts off a one tile peninsula and I build a city next to it such that the tile of the peninsula will be in my fat cross.

Why is it that I can work that tile as soon as my borders pop, clearly shipping food and hammers past the mountain to the city?

Perhaps your people use canoes?

 

[Optimizer]

The problem w/ that Optimizer is that a more advanced civ could have t5here units in peaks and they wouldn't be able to be attacked.

I don't see the problem. Say that the Alpine Troops can enter Peaks. The Germans have them, while the Romans don't. A few German alpine troops in the peaks would be a nuisance for the Romans, but it wouldn't prevent them from capturing all German cities.

 

[GoodGame]

I like peaks, but I second the idea that somehow some civ's should be able to utilize mountains, like Inca/Machu Picchu.

Also note that BTS will likely utilize some of the improved map scripts from civfanatics, like the Tectonics, which improve mountain ranges. Civ4 should have Himalayan and Swiss Alp style ranges as well as simple peaks.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I think mountains should usually be impassible, but with the right technologies be passable to certain units.

I would also like the ability to build terraces (with the proper techs) to make them more productive, like build by the Incas or in modern Japan.

 

[Thedrin]

GoodGame:
Also note that BTS will likely utilize some of the improved map scripts from civfanatics, like the Tectonics, which improve mountain ranges.

I believe it's been stated that the new map scripts that will be included in BtS have been designed by Sirian (or was it Sullla?).

 

[DevilRat]

Impassable peaks were my biggest complaint about Civ4, but I got used to them and actually do like (as others have said) how they create choke points and such.

But I think what I really would prefer is to have it where foot units could still cross them. Maybe even make it so they take a small amount of damage from "rough conditions" of crossing.

Either way, however, I think it'll never happen because the way everything is set up now, it would look kind of weird to have a unit standing atop a peak.

 

[Mirc]

Impassable mountains are one of my biggest complaints about Civ4.

 

[eric_]

Here's an idea:

In Italy there is something called via ferrata (iron way) that mountaineer troops would build in order to enable infantry to cross the Alps. Basically, it is just iron rungs drilled in to the side of a rock face, forming a "ladder" (going horizontal, diagonal, vertical, whatever it takes to get over the mountain) that the infantry can use. I've been on such a route in West Virginia.

So, maybe with the discovery of iron and maybe machinery, workers can build passages through mountains, but maybe they take, say, 10+ turns and there must be, say, 3 peak tiles between such passages?

I dunno. It's something I've thought about, but not something that bothers me much. I definitely enjoy the strategic value of mountain ranges more than I'm bothered by the inability to overcome their impassibility.

 

[Mirc]

Here's an idea:

In Italy there is something called via ferrata (iron way) that mountaineer troops would build in order to enable infantry to cross the Alps. Basically, it is just iron rungs drilled in to the side of a rock face, forming a "ladder" (going horizontal, diagonal, vertical, whatever it takes to get over the mountain) that the infantry can use. I've been on such a route in West Virginia.

So, maybe with the discovery of iron and maybe machinery, workers can build passages through mountains, but maybe they take, say, 10+ turns and there must be, say, 3 peak tiles between such passages?

I dunno. It's something I've thought about, but not something that bothers me much. I definitely enjoy the strategic value of mountain ranges more than I'm bothered by the inability to overcome their impassibility.

In some Civ3 mods, some terrain was impassable but workers could pass it. After building a road on it (which takes considerably longer than on a normal tile, usually 3 turns on grassland as opposed to 18 on mountains), the terrain is passable, like any normal terrain. I guess I'd be fine with that.

BTW, here "cale ferata" (from Latin "callis ferratus" - "iron way") means just railway. I'm surprised it means something different in Italian.