15-05-2003 20:32									#1
	We should have terrain-related cultural borders Got spare money?

Here's something for XP or Civ4. I've always wondered how the cultural borders expand in the same manner over vast, imprenetable-looking jungles as they do over rolling plains. There should be a change to this. Basically, make the cultural border expansion terrain-related - the cultural borders expand easily in the grasslands, flood plains and the regular plains, not as easily over hills and forests, and certainly not as easily over jungles, deserts, mountains and tundra. Basically, a just-built city without any culture shouldn't have any of those hard-to-penetrate terrains (jungles&such) in it's border area. This has several benefits:

1. Creates more 'natural' borders between civilizations (mountain ranges, deserts and such, also rivers if the cultural expansion over a river is made harder)

2. Stops AI from building those cities all over the jungles and tundras, which looks damn silly - city in the middle of a jungle won't offer much value when it only controls the square it is in

3. Gives some use to the colonies (many good resources are in jungles and such, and colonies will be the best way to get them out of there)

4. Barbarians keep on trucking longer, in the uncivilizeable wilderness

5. Generally makes the game more realistic - or that's how I feel, at least

In fact, I'd like jungles, deserts, tundras and mountains to be harder to cross in other ways, too, at least in the beginning. Maybe make them like oceans for galleys - units trying to cross them have a chance of dying. There could be wonders and tech advances which make it safer to travel in these squares.

	15-05-2003 20:53									#2
	Re: We should have terrain-related cultural borders Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

This is an interesting idea.

1) What happens to the border that gets stopped by mountains (for example) when you build a city on the other side? Does that lessen the effect of the mountains?

2) Makes sense. Makes me wonder why borders aren't more effected by population. In the game as is, a size 6 city can have a larger territory (borders) than a size 20 city all based on cultural city improvements. In real life, influence over territory seems to be more related to population than culture......
"I have a library in my town, so this land is mine"
"So, I have 40,000 people with guns. Now get off my land."

3) I like the idea of it adding value to colonies since I think the only time I have ever used them was in the first game I played. To me it seems better to just build a city and get the benefits that goes with it.

6) Boy, wouldn't that change the way a game unfolds. "I really want to settle that delta plain, but do I risk my settlers crossing the jungle to get there?"

	15-05-2003 20:55									#3
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: 1) What happens to the border that gets stopped by mountains (for example) when you build a city on the other side? Does that lessen the effect of the mountains?

Probably yes, in the same way squares that aren't part of any particular city's cultural area but are inside your empire are part of your empire.

	15-05-2003 22:43									#4
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

i suggested this already in my Civ4 Suggestions thread

	15-05-2003 23:44									#5
	Re: We should have terrain-related cultural borders Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Stefu In fact, I'd like jungles, deserts, tundras and mountains to be harder to cross in other ways, too, at least in the beginning.

You can do that now if you wanted to. Just have two types of Settlers, one wheeled the other not. I've made mine wheeled until Magnetism then a non-wheeled "Pioneer" appears.

	16-05-2003 13:37									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Jungles are already considered 'hostile terrain' but I hardly ever notice the effect. I loose units to disease in about 1 in 4 of my games wich is so rare that i don't even think about the risk when I move my units around.

What if any unit ending its turn in hostile terrain(including deserts and tundras) had 30-50% change of loosing a HP? That would stop people from chopping down the jungles

	16-05-2003 13:38									#7
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by bongo Jungles are already considered 'hostile terrain' but I hardly ever notice the effect. I loose units to disease in about 1 in 4 of my games wich is so rare that i don't even think about the risk when I move my units around. What if any unit ending its turn in hostile terrain(including deserts and tundras) had 30-50% change of loosing a HP? That would stop people from chopping down the jungles

yup... workers dying from disease IS the way to go...

something to do with the slaves... hehehehe

cheers