Rivers, a natural trade-route.

M

Murvel

Chieftain
Joined
Jan 3, 2011
Messages
5
I think it´s natural to assume that rivers functions as an effective way of transportation and communication and therefore also trading. Therefore it only makes sense if two cities within your empire are connected trough a river, also should have a trade-route established between them two. This would however give rivers a higher strategic importance which is rightfully so if you ask me.

And I'm also new to the forum:king:
 
hy! and welcome!
everything you said was completly logical...but.. what about in the other eras?
you won't be trading throught rivers in the industrial/modern heck.. even medieval..
and..how can you conect 2 cities with a river? =))
 
Rivers are used to transport goods a lot now.

And rivers were trade routes in Civ4, but no way any good thing will make it's way to Civ5. We don't ant it to became civ4.5, right? :)
 
Yeah it´s true, rivers arent used for transportation in the same way during the modern eras, but they are still to this day of importance, but not to the same extent. Connecting cities trough rivers would be easy. Just take one river, place two cities on a tile next to it, anywhere, and they would be connected.
 
I read you post "Complete overhaul of River system" and while I agree with most of changes, I'm not looking for a complete overhaul but rather small subtle changes. I definitely think that rivers should have an increased strategic importance, but only slightly increased. Give rivers a too high strategic importance and you'll end up desperately looking for a river to settle your capital, wasting time and game play.
 
PEACE! said:
hy! and welcome!
everything you said was completly logical...but.. what about in the other eras?
you won't be trading throught rivers in the industrial/modern heck.. even medieval..
and..how can you conect 2 cities with a river? =))
Click to expand...

Sorry but do you live in a desert or something? I have no clue where did you get your ideas about modern use of rivers. At least here in Brasil, where we have a lot of rivers, those who are navigable are still used for transportation with absolutely no problem.

Not all rivers are navigable by modern boats, though.
 
jacyp said:
Sorry but do you live in a desert or something? I have no clue where did you get your ideas about modern use of rivers. At least here in Brasil, where we have a lot of rivers, those who are navigable are still used for transportation with absolutely no problem.

Not all rivers are navigable by modern boats, though.
Click to expand...

duh.that's what im talking about
..and not everybody lives in brasil you know...
 
Still think that rivers are a great idea. Rivers used to be and are still trade routes that we use. Would there be a modder who can fix this? Personally I'm not sure if Fireaxis reads this forum, otherwise they already made a LOT of important changes.
 
PEACE! said:
duh.that's what im talking about
..and not everybody lives in brasil you know...
Click to expand...

Yes, most people lives in better countries, hence better navigation systems. I can only speak for my country, since it's what I have most knowledge of, but I'm pretty sure around the world there's other countries that use rivers to transportation.

And what exactly were you talking about, "duh"? Cos I still have the impression that you live on a desert.
 
jacyp said:
Yes, most people lives in better countries, hence better navigation systems. I can only speak for my country, since it's what I have most knowledge of, but I'm pretty sure around the world there's other countries that use rivers to transportation.

And what exactly were you talking about, "duh"? Cos I still have the impression that you live on a desert.
Click to expand...


dude seriosly?
..nvm then.. you're hopeless..

Moderator Action: Flaming
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
This idea is completely logical, and would simply be a return to Civ4 river trade routes. The only reason they removed them seems to be that they want people to build roads, which cost money. There is a slight drawback in that rivers would be better than roads, due to cost (although they don't allow for faster movement), which would advantage people based simply on the luck of the map.
 
Yes its true that it would bring yet another "luck-factor" into the game, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Rivers is missing the strategic importance they deserve.
 
It's not necessarily a bad thing, no, but it is if it's overpowered. If rivers offer a far superior alternative to roads as trade routes, then it's overpowered. If they just allow for trade routes and nothing else (movement, production bonuses, food bonuses, etc.), then it would probably be fine.
 
Murvel said:
Yeah it´s true, rivers arent used for transportation in the same way during the modern eras, but they are still to this day of importance, but not to the same extent.
Click to expand...

True, in some areas it's not as important as it used to be (think China and the decline of the Grand Canal) but river transport is still very much relevant. 795 million tons of goods (Xinhua) are still transported on the Yangtze each year (for comparison, the Panama Canal sees around 300 million tons annually). Things like timber are often far easier transported by rivers than by trucks or trains.

Even in Western countries with high-tech infrastructure riverrine transport remained important. The Danube carries about 100 million tons of goods a year; the Rhine, 300 million tons.

So yes, connecting cities by rivers make perfect sense, even in our oh-so-high-tech era of jet planes and high speed rail.

Camikaze said:
The only reason they removed them seems to be that they want people to build roads, which cost money.
Click to expand...

Remove maintainance cost for roads.

which would advantage people based simply on the luck of the map.
Click to expand...

Isn't that how it is anyway? ;)

Camikaze said:
It's not necessarily a bad thing, no, but it is if it's overpowered. If rivers offer a far superior alternative to roads as trade routes, then it's overpowered. If they just allow for trade routes and nothing else (movement, production bonuses, food bonuses, etc.), then it would probably be fine.
Click to expand...

IMO, it just makes smart city placement a lot more important, which I think is good. And, after all, almost all of our large or important cities are on or near rivers; the way it's been ever since we invented cities.
 
taillesskangaru said:
Remove maintainance cost for roads.
Click to expand...

It's a pretty big design feature. Not something they're likely to remove.

All for the very good reason of getting rid of 'ugly road spam' apparently.

Isn't that how it is anyway? ;)
Click to expand...

A fair bit, but that doesn't really excuse making it even more reliant on luck. The level it's at is acceptable and necessary.

IMO, it just makes smart city placement a lot more important, which I think is good. And, after all, almost all of our large or important cities are on or near rivers; the way it's been ever since we invented cities.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there is that. But gameplay is more important that realism, and the point is that this would catch people out how don't have rivers near them. Good city placement isn't a factor if there aren't any rivers around to settle on.
 
Camikaze said:
It's a pretty big design feature. Not something they're likely to remove.
Click to expand...

So were religion, corruption, espionage, caravans, stacks and a myriad of other big features.

You could also say maintainance-free roads is a big design feature that was removed for Civ5.

All for the very good reason of getting rid of 'ugly road spam' apparently.
Click to expand...

Come on...

Yeah, there is that. But gameplay is more important that realism, and the point is that this would catch people out how don't have rivers near them. Good city placement isn't a factor if there aren't any rivers around to settle on.
Click to expand...

Would it really hurt gameplay though? I don't think it did in Civ4, at least.
 
taillesskangaru said:
So were religion, corruption, espionage, caravans, stacks and a myriad of other big features.

You could also say maintainance-free roads is a big design feature that was removed for Civ5.
Click to expand...

True. I just don't really see it as likely to be removed. Railroads more so than roads, I guess, because cities connected via railroad to the capital get a +50% production bonus, but they cost twice as much.

Come on...
Click to expand...

It certainly doesn't inspire much confidence. :sad:

Would it really hurt gameplay though? I don't think it did in Civ4, at least.
Click to expand...

But then in Civ4 roads didn't cost maintenance. Roads and trade routes are relatively a much bigger thing in Civ5. It takes a while to establish a trade route, so if you have one automatically virtue of a river, that may provide quite an unbalancing bonus early in the game.

But overall, I don't really think it would be that unbalancing (roads and railroads still would have definite advantages over rivers in terms of movement and the aforementioned production bonus). I'm just saying that it's a possibility that must be considered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

sTAPler27
How To Implement Access to Tiles Within the 4th and 5th Ring
Replies
0
Views
421
sTAPler27
sTAPler27
T
How City Connections Ought To Work
2 3
Replies
41
Views
2K
MutilationWave
MutilationWave
S
Use The Trade Tab as a Guide to Military Alliances
Replies
3
Views
1K
Spoonwood
S
Eddie Verdde
A new concept: totems – choose your favourites.
Replies
3
Views
238
GeneralZift
GeneralZift
T
Better City-Town Ecosystem Mod Proposal
Replies
2
Views
615
tman2000
T
Back
Top Bottom