Firstly, Myrlyn, put up or shut up. I'll bet half of the 50,000 plus mountain SETTLEMENTS are in China or South Asia. 50,000 is but a village in China - do your own research on that!

Wes, don't follow the herd

Khanman, thank you you touched on one of my core arguments, namely, the cities in civ represent mega cities. They are VAST. For example, you couldn't fit more than one or two cities in an area the size of France. They really represent whole regions rather than cities, narrowly defined. And yet we have people mentioning Machu Pichu!!! A fort/citadel built on a mountain spur!!! I've seen photos of it, have you?

Well, what do you say to that!

------------------
Founder of the People's Republic of Topics (PROT)

You can insult Americans and me all you want.
It doesnt change the facts.

I remember another infamous person with the initials AH. He also whined and threw tantrums when he didnt get his way.

I am shutting up now. I know when im dealing
with a unbalanced personality. Bye........

Jerusalem's defense consisted of a wall around the city on three sides, enclosing the built-up high ground parts of the city, and enclosing the most important water source, which was on relatively low ground.

People surely did not live in the mountain's valley, because the simple sewer system consisted of letting refuse run down, on open conduits, into the valley.

- toby

quote: Originally posted by War4ever on 03-09-2000 04:07 PM Although mountains are almost impossible to siege early in the game...... a nuke will work just fine. Mountains are just a part of the game go around if you dont' want to war

Believe me....he knows what he's talking about....Damn Quinsay...

Myrlyn, play the man and not the ball. Does a settlement of 50,000 constitute a major city today? Gee, let's see, I think not. I'll bet Tokyo isn't in your list

Tobyr, Jerusalem is built on terrain which in civ would be no more than a hill. Megiddo was a fortress. As I said, I have no problem with building forts on mountains. Perfectly acceptable.

Emporer 10, but look what the huns did to the Romans

granite00, don't you like debate? This has generated more heat than a lot of threads for a loooong time

Klesh, I feel for you man

------------------
Founder of the People's Republic of Topics (PROT)

I think its ok to build on mountains. I mean in ancient times that was one of their major defenses. Not so much in modern times, but its already been pointed out that by that stage of the game we have more powerful weapons to make up for it.

------------------
Founder of the People's Republic of Topics (PROT)

As for cities built on a mountain, what about Quito, Ecuador? Or the entire series of Third Mesa Pueblos...ever tried to scale a sheer cliff-face? Those people do it daily.

You still haven't published your requirements for "city" and "mountain". Until you do, you will continue to look like an idiot for all this whiying.

------------------
finbar
Mono Rules!
#33984591

1.Cities are built on mountains.

2.Even if they weren`t, it can be done on Civ2.

3.Civ2 isn`t real.

4.Shut up, AH.

Also, I think you'll find I have defined city and mountain in this thread. Don't avoid the issue. And again all you can come up with are piss poor examples to support your flimsy arguments. "Third Mesa Pueblo" if you please!!! Gee Khanman, that's clinched it!!

Finbar, you think so?

Paul, you sound more like Pauline Hanson everday. "Shut up" is not an argument.

------------------
Founder of the People's Republic of Topics (PROT)

Typically Civ2 mountain cities won't grow very large due to lack of food on half or more of the city squares (If you play on a realistic map, mountains are in large chains so at least one side of the city will produce no food). That's the same price a real city would pay for gaining that defensive advantage. Typically a mountain city in Civ II rarely grown to more than size 6 or 7 whereas a "Megacity" grows to size 20-30.

If you look at your past threads, that's the one thing you haven't defined. Give me the numbers, and we settle this once and for all.

------------------
Founder of the People's Republic of Topics (PROT)

That's what spies are for...planting nuclear devices in all their SDI-Defense cities...

AH-My string is longer than your string!
:P

That said, you're still avoiding the questions: Tell us exactly how large (population) and how high (elevation) a city needs to be to satisfy YOUR definitions.

------------------
Founder of the People's Republic of Topics (PROT)

However, although I grant that an invading army won't build a city-that they'd rather build a fort-there are many cases of natives building cities in high places, so as to watch over and even rule large surrounding areas.

A perfect example of this are castle-cities: the army might set up the castle, but, as the English were careful to do in the conquest of Wales, it's equally important to set up a symbiotic city, so you convert the populous to the defense of your castle. Also, you gain a population of people to support your castle's defense. Shoemakers, blacksmiths, stone masons, all of these are necessary if you want a long term hold on a piece of land.

quote: Originally posted by KhanMan on 03-19-2000 09:22 PM A perfect example of this are castle-cities: the army might set up the castle, but, as the English were careful to do in the conquest of Wales, it's equally important to set up a symbiotic city, so you convert the populous to the defense of your castle. Also, you gain a population of people to support your castle's defense. Shoemakers, blacksmiths, stone masons, all of these are necessary if you want a long term hold on a piece of land.

THAT'S A FORT YOU MORON!!!!!

------------------
Founder of the People's Republic of Topics (PROT)

I was merely pointing out that, when armies planned to stay permanently (such as the case I mentioned) they do, if fact, end up building an infostructure to support themselves.

I don't want to get into another "what is a city/piece of string" argument with you.

quote: Originally posted by KhanMan on 03-20-2000 02:57 AM I was merely pointing out that, when armies planned to stay permanently (such as the case I mentioned) they do, if fact, end up building an infostructure to support themselves.

Yes Khanman, IT'S CALLED A FORT.

You wanna dig an even bigger hole for yourself? Here, have a shovel

------------------
Founder of the People's Republic of Topics (PROT)

Besides, as has been noted earlier, a mountain square in Civ2 doesn't represent 100% moutain peaks - it's a mountainous area which includes peaks. With this in mind, Kabul, Mexico City, Machu Pichu and others noted earlier fit the description perfectly.

They all started out the fashion I set out, yet how can you call such big cities "forts"?

------------------
Founder of the People's Republic of Topics (PROT)

------------------
Founder of the People's Republic of Topics (PROT)

This is the ultimate justice in a Horsey thread: they always ended up dead or hijacked!

Gilligan's Island, eh? I was thinking something more like "Return to the Blue Lagoon: The Wonder Years".

It would be a mod-pack built around two horny european teenagers, growing up on a deserted island...

*wink, wink*

------------------
Founder of the People's Republic of Topics (PROT)

Who else? Ah, the inspirational Wrong Way (I've forgotten his surname), played by Hans Conreid, who kept crashlanding on the island. Only he would be allowed to survive till 1 AD.

------------------
Founder of the People's Republic of Topics (PROT)

------------------
Founder of the People's Republic of Topics (PROT)

:P

------------------
____________
Scouse Git[1]

------------------
Founder of the People's Republic of Topics (PROT)

Second, the game allows you to do it. Now, some would argue that the game lets you do a lot that is considered cheating, but I still have seen no evidence here that it should be considered cheating. You get defensive advantages for building on rivers, in forests, on hills... what's the difference.
It seems like it has only become an issue because somebody tried to an attack a city, and lost

And again, I don't even want to hear the "realism" line. Whether there are real cities built on mountains in real life doesn't really matter. There are tons of things that aren't realistic in civ. How about the unlimited movement on railroads... now that's realistic. I haven't heard people say that using railroads is cheating or shouldn't be allowed.