Should You Be Able to Build Cities on Mountain Squares?

[RX2000]

Its always annoyed me that you cant build cities on mountains in Civ3. As far as I can remember, you could do so in Civ2. (Correct me if I'm wrong, I havent played it in a couple years.) Anyone know why not?

What do you guys think also, should you be able to? I know it wouldnt really be a good place to put a city, but I would like to be able to put a city there if I needed to. Whats you guys' thoughts?

 

[Astares]

I believe you should be able to build on mountains, the only real unbalancing factor is the defense bonus of 100% compared to 50% for hills. So if your looking to change the default rules to allow building on mountains, you should look at dropping the defense bonus to match hills.

 

[MTheil3508]

It would be more realistic, but but as you said not a very good spot. The only reason I would put a city on a mountain would be to get the defense bonus or when I am really obbsessed, to complete the grid.

The defense bonus would be the same as a metropolis. I doubt that you would be able to make a city on a mountain a metropolis since a mountain is normally surrounded by other mountains and hills. It would be great for production though.

I have thought about editing the game to allow this a few times and is a very interesting idea.

P.S. Shouldn't units get high-altitude sickness?

 

[Pembroke]

In the official version: you shouldn't. The combined defense bonus gets too high. Besides if you could build cities on mountains colonies would be utterly useless. (The colony aspect is also the reason why I have disallowed cities on tundra and desert squares in the mod I usually play.)

If you want cities in mountains then just edit the rules. You can have them with the editor, so this aspect is just as it should. Everyone can have it the way he likes it.

To make-up a "civ explanation" to the cities in the Andies and the Himalaya, you can think that the hills and forests beside the mountain squares are part of the mountain range. In a world map one tile covers thousands of square-miles so there's got to be other terrain types on a tile than just the major one shown. Also, in the real world cities weren't built on just any "random mountain tile". Usually the site had some qualities that allowed the people to live there. In civ these "perfect mountain spots" could be the occasional hill squares between mountains.

 

[Phantom Lord]

The defense bonus would be too high, as well as the temptation to build cities in a perfect grid.

I like it more the way it is.

 

[Globetrotter]

IMHO, i believe one should be able to build on a mountain.
Of course, he will benefit of the high defense bonus, but then again, if he has mountains around him, this city will just act as an outpost with limited growth.
...unless of course it's just one of those single peaks that pop up in the middle of grassland and flood plains... then, this would be unfair to build a city there...

 

[Phantom Lord]

I also imagine mountain cities with rushed barracks, rushed city walls, containing a bunch of up-to-date defensive and bombard units in enemy territory.

Let's say such a city would be built directly on the enemies iron ressource. The result is that this city has an awesome defense bonus, all defending units heal completely in one turn, and if this isn't enough it also has access to iron - probably unlike the enemy who wants to get rid of it btw.

I certainly wouldn't like to have such an almost unkillable small thing popping up in my territory and sitting on my iron. And being able to build such things would unbalace the game seriously.

 

[satchel]

If the game were to allow building cities upon mountains, the current "automatic 2 food, 1 shield for city square" would have to be changed for mountains. Otherwise, with the defense bonus, mountains become too desirable as city locations. It would be quite peculiar if you could coerce a mountain in to having the same production as (unimproved) bonus grassland!

 

[farting bob]

as satchel said, i dont think you shuld get a large bonus for city squares. you would need 2 food, or else in mountain ranges there would be no food for a city, and it would be at 0 pop. so 2 food squares and 1 production would be all. this would stop people from building cities near enemy on mountains and doingall attacks from that city. this would be a good place to hold back the enemy, if they want to attack it, but thats all.

 

[West German]

Yes, you should be able to.

 

[planetfall]

Should be able to do it, but should change city center from 2 food and 1 shield to 2 food and 0 shields. Thus to build on a mountain tile, you would have to import shields to build at first or wait until another citizen. With this build delay don't think it would unbalance the game.

== PF

 

[kring]

You can build cities on mountains, at least in PtW and the Civ 3 1.29f patch.

Under Terrain, there is an "Allow Cities" check box.

 

[satchel]

Originally posted by kring
You can build cities on mountains, at least in PtW and the Civ 3 1.29f patch.

Under Terrain, there is an "Allow Cities" check box.

Right, kring, if you use the editor you can allow city building on mountain terrain. This thread is in part discussing whether doing so makes sense and/or unbalances the game ... just because you can change something in the editor doesn't mean you should.

 

[rdomarat]

Being able to build on mountains would just increase the number of "My tank just lost to a spearman" posts.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Pembroke
To make-up a "civ explanation" to the cities in the Andies and the Himalaya, you can think that the hills and forests beside the mountain squares are part of the mountain range. In a world map one tile covers thousands of square-miles so there's got to be other terrain types on a tile than just the major one shown. Also, in the real world cities weren't built on just any "random mountain tile". Usually the site had some qualities that allowed the people to live there. In civ these "perfect mountain spots" could be the occasional hill squares between mountains.

Excellent explanation.
(Saved me a lot of typing. Whew!)