Windmills, why not in a city on a hill?

[oawiefga]

What is the rationale for not allowing windmills to be built in a ctiy on a hill? I've given it a bit of throught and can't come up with a reason.

 

[Dishonor]

It seems stupid to me. But reason is obvious. It is penalization for defense bonus. They should rename building.

 

[DaveGold]

As the game designers obviously need to penalize players for building their cities in sensible places.

 

[basta]

^lol! probably true. Only other rationale that I can think of is that historically windmills were built on flatlands and floodplains to pump water and/or mill grain. So it would be like allowing a mine to be built on a marsh.

 

[elprofesor]

I guess it is also a consequence of having all city tiles having the same yield. If they didn't, then the penalty for having the defense bonus would be the tile yields of a city on a hill, and not having to forget about windmills, and production.
What kind of windmill needs so much space that it can't be built on top of a hill? It makes no sense to me either.

 

[Ahriman]

Its not realistic, but its a deliberate gameplay decision so that a city on a hill isn't strictly "better" than one on flat ground.

If you want a realistic approximation; cities on hills are more defensible, but are generally not as productive as one on flat land. Higher transport costs means slightly less efficiency.

 

[lschnarch]

Its not realistic, but its a deliberate gameplay decision so that a city on a hill isn't strictly "better" than one on flat ground.

Most probably to make up for the inability of the AI to chose proper city locations.

If you want a realistic approximation; cities on hills are more defensible, but are generally not as productive as one on flat land. Higher transport costs means slightly less efficiency.

Which would be fine, except for the fact that such a principle is explicitely not included in Shafer_5.
We don't face problems by magically transporting resources across the world. We even don't have to connect them.
But for cities there shall be some principle of efficiency magically popping up?

 

[Androrc the Orc]

John Winthrop does not like this.

 

[Dralix]

It's called a trade off, folks

 

[Ahriman]

Most probably to make up for the inability of the AI to chose proper city locations.

Why should a hill be a "proper city location"?
Most large cities aren't located on hills, precisely because though they're better defensively, they're weaker economically. Much harder to get fresh water in particular.

 

[wurstburst]

^lol! probably true. Only other rationale that I can think of is that historically windmills were built on flatlands and floodplains to pump water and/or mill grain. So it would be like allowing a mine to be built on a marsh.

You are correct - this is the reason. It's a farming supplement, and typically was placed in the lowlands, near farms to grind (or "mill") grain. Who would want to cart all their grain up a hill to get it milled? In Holland they were also used to pump water from where they didn't want it, to where they did want it.

 

[lschnarch]

Why should a hill be a "proper city location"?
Most large cities aren't located on hills, precisely because though they're better defensively, they're weaker economically. Much harder to get fresh water in particular.

Because by the very rules of the game, the hill gives you exactly as much output as city hex as the flatland does.
Yet, it receives a defensive bonus.

As far as the fresh water supply is concerned, this argument is correct for real life, but not for this game.

 

[Namaspamus]

Many windmills were built on hills, the reason being (imo) that you got a lot of wind up there.

I definitely can't say where the majority of them were built, but forbidding them on hills is very strange. Didn't they require a hill in Civ IV?

Of course I'm talking about grain mills, didn't even know some water pumps were moved by wind. Those I heard about were moved by hydraulic force, with a wheel.

 

[Ahriman]

Because by the very rules of the game, the hill gives you exactly as much output as city hex as the flatland does.
Yet, it receives a defensive bonus.

This makes no sense; you argue that the rules of the game that make hill spots weaker (no access to windmill) are unfair, because by the rules of the game, hills should be the best city spots?
Huh?

If the rules of the game are all you care about, then accept that the rules of the game say no-windmills-on-hills.

 

[DaveGold]

Why should a hill be a "proper city location"?
Most large cities aren't located on hills, precisely because though they're better defensively, they're weaker economically.

The oldest cities were built on hills for defence long before economics even existed. Unfortunately in CIV5 you make the decision about an industrial era production building at the time you found your bronze age settlement.

 

[Beamed]

The oldest cities were built on hills for defence long before economics even existed. Unfortunately in CIV5 you make the decision about an industrial era production building at the time you found your bronze age settlement.

Stupid players, always ruining immersion..

 

[jagdtigerciv]

Does anybody even build Windmills? 15% production is negligible given the cost and maintenance. It rarely pays for itself.

 

[elprofesor]

I personally agree with Ischnarch that a more reasonable way to balance the defense boost would be to change the city tile yields depending on the tile it was built on, instead of forbidding the windmill. That would also stop the nonsense of having a city in the tundra getting as much food as one on grasslands next to a river, or whatever.

 

[Teepanen]

Does anybody even build Windmills? 15% production is negligible given the cost and maintenance. It rarely pays for itself.

I build them when I go for space victory and need to squeeze every bit of production out.