World age question

Wouldn't an older world provide more hills and mountains as it would give them more time to get formed?

Look at an old continent like Australia, and the massive, massive hills we have here. Yes, hills, there are no mountians in Australia, because its old. Less geologically active, more erosion. etcetera
 
So this list of mountains in Austrailia would be....mass delusion?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mountains_in_Australia

Definitions of "mountain" include:[2]

Height over base of at least 2,500 m (8,202 ft).
Height over base of 1,500 m (4,921 ft).–2,500 m (8,202 ft). with a slope greater than 2 degrees
Height over base of 1,000 m (3,281 ft).–1,500 m (4,921 ft). with a slope greater than 5 degrees
Local (radius 7,000 m (22,966 ft). elevation greater than 300 m (984 ft)., or 300 m (984 ft)–1,000 m (3,281 ft). if local (radius 7,000 m (22,966 ft). elevation is greater than 300 m (984 ft).

By this definition,[which?] mountains cover 64% of Asia, 25% of Europe, 22% of South America, 17% of Australia, and 3% of Africa. As a whole, 24% of the Earth's land mass is mountainous and 10% of people live in mountainous regions.[3] Most of the world's rivers are fed from mountain sources, and more than half of humanity depends on mountains for water.[4][5]

I'd say the world was still rather mountainous.

The point remains that the game doesn't supply a tooltip for "worldbuilding" options where to be honest, it wouldn't exactly kill them to state simply what the effects of older/younger worlds, lower/higher sea levels etc.
 
Top Bottom