Building Cities

Heh, all I see is "tons of coding/graphics for almost no benefit."  Game scope has to think about all the cool things, then whittle them down into what is actually doable (usually some cost/benefit analysis).  If something is cool, but behind a long list of much-needed work, then it's not going to happen unless it's simple enough for a dev to churn out on his coffee break.

Actually, in EWoM, your buildings get height values and goes "uphill" like what you mention when you build on hills. The problem, of course, was that the graphics often became broken (or would look messy) as a result of these varying height values (the building can't compensate for all the possibilities). That's probably why they made cities flat and deformed the land in FE.

I would just wish it would be demoted away from a hill, so the visual where the same as the rules.

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

Why have hills if you can't use them for benefit?

I'll answer my own question: It adds dimension. But most gamers understand the difference between superficial and actual game-dimension. If all hills do is 'look nice', seem impractical that they be there at all...

They stop movement...
I know you are used to using Master Scouts, but to all us others it costs 2 movement points to cross hills

But still, I still want the graphics representing what the landscape actually is and does!

I like having cities behind big forests or tons of hills, gives me tons of time to spot invaders muffling through the bushes.

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

Except that the expansion of your city re-terrains the hills flat....you lose that buffer just because your city grew? Doesn't seem quite right.

pssst, more than 1 hill, silly

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

It doesn't matter if it makes it look flat, it still counts as a hill... until you actually build something on the tile and it becomes a "city" tile. Flatten hills still have movement penalties unless you build a road on it.