1. You aren't right. In an MP Game, there could be some players who are able to build cities on mountains because they have got mountain terain inside of their countries. But there could also be players who are not able to build cities on mountains or even hills because their whole mepire is situated in flat land (theoretically).

2. So we can say that also this point is not answered with your arguments. If there's really a player who has mountain terrain and can build cities on it, then he has an advantage over a player who isn't able to do it. Also I never claimed that building cities on mountains should be considered cheating.

However, it IS a difference, whether the defense bonus is 50% (river/ forest) or 200%(mountain).

3. I don't understand why not talking about realism in computer games, but I think you#ve heard enough about it and when that's your opinion, so let's stop discussing about realism for this time...

To whom it concerns:

I tip my hat to AH for being able to stimulate discussion on threads serious and not, by using cleverness and hyperbole. I am a big fan.

Sincerely,

And especially when AH brings his particular brand of humor... How can one not offer up an opinion on this topic. And it is entertaining too.

May we have more of these kind of game related threads

quote: 1. You aren't right. In an MP Game, there could be some players who are able to build cities on mountains because they have got mountain terain inside of their countries. But there could also be players who are not able to build cities on mountains or even hills because their whole empire is situated in flat land (theoretically). 2. So we can say that also this point is not answered with your arguments. If there's really a player who has mountain terrain and can build cities on it, then he has an advantage over a player who isn't able to do it.

Andz83, I don't agree with your logic. Some players may have relatively few rivers in their area, or maybe they start out on a small island (please don't anyone mention Gilligan ). Would you then argue that no one should be allowed to build cities on rivers since some players may not have the same opportunity? Luck is an important part of the game, just like in Real Life(tm).

Ming's point about realism stands. The game is an abstraction of reality. As such, some of it accurately reflects reality, other parts do not. Where the line is drawn determines a good game. By and large, with Civ2, the line is about were it should be (unless someone wants to complain about games not really lasting thousands of years as they should.

- mindseye
PS: is there any way to restrict rail movement?

1. Surely, if any player is disadvantaged in a game in any way, all participants of the game might consider limitations. But I think, as you say, that it would go to far in connection with rivers and hills. Surely, if one player gots bad luck, he has to make the best of it

2. Uh oh, I think we should stop this discussion about realism. But the fact that Civ2 isn't very realistic, should be a reason for a discussion about limitations like this. But obviously we'll never agree in this point

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

quote: Originally posted by Wezil on 03-25-2000 10:40 AM I have problems with mountain cities in 'no bribe' games. Pretty dubious tactic in that case.

EXACTLY, Its so unsporting.

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

Also, as for cities not being built on mountains, the big island of Hawaii (if I remember correctly) is the tallest mountain on Earth - from base to top. I do believe there is at least one city on that island.

Khanman:
You can claim your piece of string is longer than AH's, but the horse certainly has a longer...

thread!

AH: I just looked back at the "Holocaust Never Happened" thread, and a greater percentage of posts supported that idea than support your whinnying here.

Yes, a tile represents roughly 200 miles each way, presuming that the ice caps are left off. AH: how many mountains have an area of 40,000 square miles? As has repeatedly been stated, the mountain terrain symbol is not exclusively a mountain. IT IS A REGION OF MOUNTAINOUS TERRAIN. Some areas are kinda tough to conquer. As already suggested, see Switzerland. Whole country could be best modelled as a single Civ city, uh, built IN A REGION OF MOUNTAINOUS TERRAIN.

And nice to see a few Settlers showing up. We'll give your views the appropriate weight

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

As for your mountain question...mountains, at this scale, would include passes, valleys, moraines, alpine meadows, etc. In short, plenty of spots to found a city. The mountain squares are not impassable; if they are supposed to have nothing but jagged peaks and sheer cliffs, they would be.

hehe, one more post

Andz83, Gilligans Island is an Anglo thing - you wouldn't understand. Its part of reason we anglos don't go around murdering our neighbours every generation or so - unlike some

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

quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse on 03-30-2000 06:23 PM Take Switzerland, which Monk mentioned. All of the major Swiss cities are on the flat, why should you get a mountain defensive advantage for any of them? Contrary to Swiss mythmaking, the Germans calculated they could have taken all of the major cities in about two days. Geneva in about two hours.

Can you say "partisans"? Switzerland is perfect terrain for guerrilla warfare.

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

quote: Originally posted by The Mad Monk on 03-31-2000 11:45 AM Avalanches. Guys up top can start 'em, guys below can't stop 'em.

Getting desperate are we?

Anyway, the discussion seems to be becoming SPAM for itself. The thread started with the question about city-construction and now deals with guys who try to defend their position with silly arguments (Avalanches? I think somebody here was getting high just before posting ).
Can't you guys realize that there's no way to convince the opponents in this discussion? There are some who think that it should be allowed and some who don't. So, if you only want to spam around, you should in fact move it to OT. There's enough space for Threadjacking, Spamming, and all the things that make OTF real fun, don't you think?

------------------
"No life 'til leather, we gonna kick some ass tonight"

-"Hit The Lights" by Metallica, 1983

1. I don't want the thread closed, I was just wondering why it's still active.

2. I don't think that I lost an argument, I don't even think that I'm against you. I for myself am not sure whether it should be allowed or not (city on mountain).
So I don't have to admit defeat, b/c that defeat would be the defeat for both sides.

So it's basically pointless to talk to him, since he always evades the issue. Rest confident, however, that over 90% of the mp community doesn't agree with his anti-mountains stance.

quote: Originally posted by Sten Sture on 04-03-2000 12:25 PM Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

Are you Americans really that stupid? As I thought, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor... Don't you really know this???

So, here's the final question. 1,000,000$ for the first to answer it:

Should players be allowed to build cities on Mountain hexes?

I think the answer to this question is not a general one. Everybody has to know it for himself (whether to do it nor not), and if anyone other does that: there were mentioned many possibilities to come along with it. Shall I count them again?

1. emm
1. well

Reference: http://us.imdb.com/Quotes?0077975

------------
A vote "yes" for Mountains is a vote for peace and humanity.