We ARE going to have mountain cities, aren't we?

[egaonogenki]

We couldn't on Civ IV.

However, I would hope the devs have heard of Machu Picchu by now.



Also, how about those Anasazi cliff dwellings?



I suppose to make things a little fairer, to settle a mountain city ought to have an extra 250 gold surcharge. If that's the case, I will eat the surcharge!

A mountain city would have a tremendous strategic advantage - for an enemy to conquer it would require a Herculean effort.

 

[KIEJ.MANIK]

I think we should have mountain cities, the incans did, there can be cities, towns, roads and farms oin the mountains but it'll be harder to build, I guess we could have different types of mountains with different resources

 

[Naokaukodem]

Making mountains impassable had a gameplay purpose: to propose more geopolitics.

But it failed, as mountains were too rare. (I remember in Civ3 to have had a game with a whole range of mountains south my civ, if that would have happen in Civ4 that would have been interesting)

Maybe the developers were too shy in order to implement such a contraignant feature (impassble moutains) with the Civ3 dimension.

A good solution would be to generate mountain chains, but that those can be worked, and only passable by civil units.

 

[Ahriman]

Human's have hardly ever built major settlements in mountainous terrains.

Those Incan cities are famous precisely because they're an exception.

The Ansazi dwellings are built into a cliff, but aren't in mountainous areas. And again, not that big.

It looks from the screenshots like we'll be getting more chain-like mountains rather than standalone peaks. My guess is that mountains will be impassible and non-workable. Which is as it should be. Mountains should be effective geographic barriers.
Impassibility will also make a big difference with 1upt, as it provides congestion effect.

It would be ridiculous to have a major modern city built on a mountain tile.

 

[RobSoyka]

Human's have hardly ever built major settlements in mountainous terrains.

Yes, you are entirely right. Just those pesky Inka. And the equadorian, norwegian, austrian, swiss, chinese, georgian, algerian, guatemalan and columbian deviators.

http://blogs.sundaymercury.net/bev-bevan/QUITO.jpg

http://www.bergentown.com/wp-content/themes/prosumer/images/bergen-norway.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Trondheim,_Norway_panorama.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ma_insbruck4.jpg/900px-Panorama_insbruck4.jpg

http://trendsetter-graz.fgm.at/pics/stadtbild_graz.jpg

http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/01/23/ef/bf/looking-over-tbilisi.jpg

http://www.old-picture.com/europe/pictures/Constantine-General.jpg

http://www.photoglobe.info/bl_guatemala/imgs/bl_guatemala_2144.jpg

http://www.anotherworlduk.com/destinations/Panoramic - Bogota.jpg

By the way: While in the temperate climate zone mountains are less dense populated then plain areas, it is the opposite in the tropical climate zone. Especially in latin america.

http://www.catsg.org/cheetah/07_map...e/thematic-maps/global_population_density.jpg

 

[Naokaukodem]

By the way: While in the temperate climate zone mountains are less dense populated then plain areas, it is the opposite in the tropical climate zone. Especially in latin america.

It would be cool to see population growth influenced by the climate. Because with actual Civ system, if the land around the mountain is fertile, there would be no difference between tropical or temperate zones.

 

[Ahriman]

Quito: on flat land surrounded by hills, not in mountains.
Bergen: on a lake surrounded by hills, not mountains.
Trondheim; built on flat/rollnig land, not steep mountains.
http://trendsetter-graz.fgm.at/pics/stadtbild_graz.jpg : built on flat land by a river, not mountains.
Tblisi built on flat land by a river, surrounded by hills, not mountains.
http://www.old-picture.com/europe/pictures/Constantine-General.jpg Hills, not mountains.
http://www.photoglobe.info/bl_guatem...emala_2144.jpg Built on flat/rolling land.
Bogota: built on flat land surrounded by hills.

You can already build cities on Hill tiles in Civ - and this gives a large natural defensive bonus.

Hills are not mountains. Civ mountains are like alps and himalayas; very steep, mostly above the tree line, snow-capped, impassible.

You do not see any cities high up in the alps, or himalayas, or Rockies. Incas are pretty much it for building a few sizeable cities on incredibly steep terrain. There are some people living in very steep terrain in places like Nepal and Bhutan and Afghanistan, but not cities.

 

[dionysos2048]

I think there should just be at the very least 3 different types of mountains in Civ. 2000, 3000 or even 4000 (that's almost where Bolivia's biggest city lays) meters in the tropics isn't quite the same as in Europe or in higher latitudes. Anyone who's visited the Andes (I toured them for a year) would agree mountains should be settable, let alone passable. In fact jungle is a much harder place to settle or to pass through (ask the conquistadores who looked for El Dorado!).

Machu Pichu , on the side note is hardly the best example though, as it never was more than a provincial small town before it eventually was forgotten. But Cuzco lays around 3000m and is home to the greatest civilization South America knew before the European invasion.

Now what we also need to take into account is: what is a mountain in civ supposed to represent, a peak or high altitude terrain. If it is the former, then indeed there are little examples of significant cities ever built on it. But I tend to think it should represent the latter and in this case, Quito, Bogota, Cuzco, La Paz and El Alto all lay well above 2000m and are some of the largest cities in their countries. What terrain is that? A 3000m hill?!!

 

[Maniacal]

@Ahriman: Switzerland is all up in the mountains, Andorra, etc. They might not build the cities ON a mountain but they are build in the valleys between them inside the mountain range. Also, in BC we have Whistler which is a city up in the mountains. Okay so it is a resort town but still.

 

[LDiCesare]

There are no mountains in Civ IV, there are peaks and hills. Hills count as mountains as far as I'm concerned so we already have mountain cities, just no peak cities. Impassable peaks are good and should be kept.

 

[dominatr]

think of it this way: if civ5 includes a good editor, then you can make mountains settleable (is that a word?) whether or not the dev team does

 

[Ahriman]

You can, but it will look terrible with the city art.

 

[epicivfreak]

I think that's ultimately why civ4 didn't have mountain cities, it was just too difficult to make the artwork look good on the mountains. You'd have to build up along the outside of the tile rather than at it's center, like all other cities.

 

[egaonogenki]

So how are we on having mountain cities now?

 

[johny smith]

I am certainly interested in modding them in. I am not playing the game just for graphics. There obviously would need to be technology that is unique to some groups to live effectively in mountains.

 

[Jarlaxe Baenre]

So how are we on having mountain cities now?

Have you read anything about them?

 

[egaonogenki]

Have you read anything about them?

No, link please?

(And you think this thread's a necro? I just raised one from 2007.)

 

[Geek113377]

since ranged units are now included, i want to use world builder to put seige units on mountains, then ranged bombard the #^%$ out of enemies. since it's on a mountain (impassable), it can't be attacked by melee units, only ranged. it could destroy the ranged attackers before they got to it. if being on a hill increases range (which it does), then being on a mountain should increase the range even more.

 

[Lancor]

Making mountains passable in realistic ways is one thing... (one could think of giving the unit attrition damage without certain techs... think of Hannibal's march over the Alps. They could even be workable, like in some mods)

buuut

making the Ai understand it, without dumbing the whole thing down, is another question.

because they are really good for bringing in more tactic as natural barriers.

 

[DrDiscord]

The devs have heard of Machu Picchu, it is a wonder in the game.

Machu Picchu
Tech Requirement: Currency
Cost: 550
Cultural Output: 1
Great People Points: 1 Merchant Point
Effects: +20% more Gold from all Trade Routes. Must be built in a City within
two tiles of a Mountain.