On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Daniel Markstedt <no-reply.invalid-addr...@gna.org> wrote: > I disagree - a city that ends up on a glacier would rather quickly be > abandoned by humans. IMHO. ;)
The "terrain" of a city is a bit fuzzy; if you walked around New Orleans, would you say "swamp"? Or around Kuala Lumpur, "jungle"? Cities impose their own climate on their territory: they'd melt the glacier directly underneath. > It would make sense from a game-play POW as well: If a city cannot be built > on terrain X, it cannot exist on terrain X either. Is it desireable to give a mountain nation an incentive to nuke the world, being practically invulnerable to climate change on their high perch, able to destroy (a more potent ability than just making them shrink) cities without even going anywhere near? What if the city your leader unit sits in, dies because the terrain changed? Or if you only have one size 20 city perched on a tundra peninsula? It would be very disappointing (un-fun) to lose the game because the random number generator picked your city's tile to change. _______________________________________________ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
