Civ Ideas & Suggestions Not-Worth-Their-Own-Thread

Semiramis as leader of Babylon:

Queen of heaven: Each City gets +2 faith in a normal age, +2 gold in a golden age, or +2 production in a dark age. All cities with Babylon's religion spread religious pressure to nearby cities every time Babylon unlocks a Eureka. This effect will sometimes erode religious pressure, like the Proselytyzer does.

The +2 faith per city really helps you get a pantheon going, but the +2 gold in a golden age is not as useful. The +2 production in a dark age can help you turn the tide. As a religious leader, the faith is the most useful, but Golden Ages are still going to be better for Exodus.
This would probably be where you want to put this post.

 
Very few, if any of these are originally my ideas. The themes are realism and allowing options.
-deep water ports and navigable rivers are important
-create roads by paying X gold per tile to be built
-espionage starts turn 1, limited by tech and funds
-also have Spy as a unit (Civ Rev concept)
-Civ 5 diplomacy and congress, plus emergencies
-allow trading maps (Civ 2 concept)
-Civ 5 city state relationships, could add Envoys as a mechanic
-effect of appeal on housing is happiness, not # of citizens
-any two units per tile, regardless of classification
-ranged units and cities have a one-hex range
-siege can reach two
-less predictability in combat outcomes
-Great Generals and Admirals appear after surprising wins (Civ Rev concept)
-like in Civ 5, Great Artists can plant monuments
-archeologists can create... monuments? (forgot the term)
-Great Prophets are relevant all game, including holy sites
-Apostles have less functionality
-workers promote to regular Engineers (Civ 2 concept)
-game ships with excellent giant TSL world map
 
Most of these are good ideas, but again as to navigable rivers I must ask: what would they do?

When people speak of navigable rivers, they don't talk of places where sea-going warships (which is what naval units in the game are) can reasonably operate. Sea-going warships only use rivers in very rare case to transit between larger bodies of water (and even that is rare), or to visit inland cities in peacetime, and they seldom if ever engage in naval combat in them because even when rivers are wide, they tend to be shallow, mud-silted, and their navigable channels keep shifting and changing such that any ship with greater draft (which is any warship beyond the oar-powered, and even the larger oar-powered ships) is at risk of grounding if it tries to maneuver in a river rather than simply following the known channels under the command of a local pilot.

Throughout history river warfare has been largely the province of specific ships designed to operate on river : flat-bottomed shallow-draft vessels that could deal with the more treacherous lack of depth of the river, but would have very poor seakeeping once out at sea. In game, they would have to be a whole new category of unit, designed solely to operate on navigable rivers : this would be a very limited use case just for the sake of representation.

Historically, the chief impact of navigable river has been not on sea-going warships (except Viking longships), but on exploration, trade and transport vessels, which could use rivers to move people and good far inland. In game, that is far better represented by having rivers grant a movement bonus (as they used to in Civilization II), including the movement speed of exploration units, and by having them serve to extend and facilitate the movement of trade units and the construction of trade routes.

That would be far more realistic than watching most naval units in the game fighting battles on rivers.
 
Going back over a Survey of History (couple of multi-page data bases, if you must know) I found the following:

1. The only definite indication of 'sea-going' vessels going far up rivers were the Viking Longships, even the largest of them (Drakkars). Although the classical Triremes and galleys from elsewhere had similar draft and size, there is no indication that anybody sent them inland anywhere.

2. Riverine warfare (examples from Russian rivers, classical to Renaissance Era China and the US Civil War) were almost always with purpose-built riverine vessels. I say almost because some of the Chinese ships/boats may have been also suited for coastal seas, but the records are not precise enough to be sure. Several US Navy Monitors were used on the biggest rivers (Mississippi) which were classified as sea-going ships, but in fact that entire class were coastal vessels that did not do well at all on the high seas.

3. The two constants about rivers, from the very earliest cities to the present day, are that first, they were the best source of fresh water for a city - anything stagnant, like a lake or oasis, could become polluted or drained too quickly; and second, they were almost the only way (along with seaports) to bring in food to the city from far away. EVERY really large city was on a river: Rome, Babylon, Aleppo, all the Egyptian and Chinese cities and capitals, later Paris and London - or on the coast with other ports near enough to feed it - Alexandria, Athens, Constantinople, etc.

Civ VI already shows the water source effect. Check

Civ VI Trade Routes show some of the Food Supply, but nowhere near enough: if the six tiles surrounding the city initially can supply 5 - 10 Food if all worked, a single Trade Route traced along a river or coast should Normally supply at least 5, not the 1 - 2 that is normal now. Overland routes should supply 0 Food normally, because there simply wasn't any way to haul multiple tons of food over land before modern wheeled and rail vehicles. This would put the emphasis on riverine/coastal boat supply that existed IRL.

From this, I suggest that the major changes RE rivers for Civ VII should be:

1. Trade Routes traced entirely along navigable rivers or any combination of rivers, lakes, and coast (i.e., All Water) from the earliest boats in the game can transport Food and Production (big timbers, raw materials in quantity) BUT not any route traced overland - those could only transport a little Production and all the early Luxury/Strategic goods, of which even a ton or two is enough to be Important until the Industrial Era when required quantities go up exponentially.

2. Military and Civilian units should get extra movement along navigable rivers, representing the extra speed possible using boats or even rafts as opposed to humping along trails on land. IF there were 'supply line' rules in the game, supply lines along rivers could be traced much further and provide faster replenishment of units far from home, compared to overland supplies and reinforcements.
(NOTE: There is already a Civ VI Mod that does the extra movement. Check.)

3. Three groups historically made the most use of rivers:
* Vikings. Especially for raiding up navigable rivers to trhe head of navigation or first fortifications, as at Paris and Cologne and in really long-distance riverine trade clear across European Russia from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea or Caspian.
* Russian Cossacks. The initial Russian expansion into Siberia was along the great central Asian/north Asian rivers, and it was done largely by hired Cossack groups. This would definitely be a 'counter-intuitive' Unique for Cossacks, but it's worth considering just for the freshness of it.
* Chinese Dynasties. The great rivers of China (Hwang-Ho, Yellow River and their tributaries) were routes for invasion and prime locations for defensive works, and the forces on both sides frequently included sizeable fleets of armed boats. China also went further earlier than almost anyone in canalizing and 'taming' the rivers for navigation with the Grand Canal system (1600 km long!) which largely served to extend riverine trade routes far beyond what they could initially reach.

Just suggestions, but I think something along these lines is the way to go to Rationalize the benefits of rivers in Civ VII.
 
Appreciate the replies! Learned something. The idea of navigable rivers is meant to relate to trade, and maybe city placement (the furthest upstream before rapids), not warfare or even unit movement.

Natural harbors are much more important. They are the basis for many, if not nearly all of the world's largest metro areas and not a consideration in Civ.
 
Natural harbors are much more important. They are the basis for many, if not nearly all of the world's largest metro areas and not a consideration in Civ.

According to Wikipedia: "In contrast, a natural harbor is surrounded on several sides by land."

In civilization III, we have a victory called 20k, which requires 20,000 culture points for a victory in a single city. Over the years for the Hall of Fame many of the entries submitted it seems got played used a civilization who has the Seafaring trait. The 20k city has some coast tiles, but a good selection of land tiles also. And they become the largest metro areas also. So, I'm guessing you were not aware of this? Or do I misunderstand what a natural harbor is?

Alright, such cities happen sparingly sometimes. Except, also in civ III, the seafaring trait gives bonus commerce to any civ who places a city on a coast. Early on, that makes Seafaring civs the fastest potential researches. They also have a capital location for The Colossus, which can provide commerce for science.
 
1. Trade Routes traced entirely along navigable rivers or any combination of rivers, lakes, and coast (i.e., All Water) from the earliest boats in the game can transport Food and Production (big timbers, raw materials in quantity) BUT not any route traced overland - those could only transport a little Production and all the early Luxury/Strategic goods, of which even a ton or two is enough to be Important until the Industrial Era when required quantities go up exponentially.

2. Military and Civilian units should get extra movement along navigable rivers, representing the extra speed possible using boats or even rafts as opposed to humping along trails on land. IF there were 'supply line' rules in the game, supply lines along rivers could be traced much further and provide faster replenishment of units far from home, compared to overland supplies and reinforcements.
(NOTE: There is already a Civ VI Mod that does the extra movement. Check.)
Trade routes getting, extra range along rivers? Or... hmmm, like I agree in principle, I'm just not sure exactly what the practice would look like.

But the extra movement for units just seems obvious, going from river to river tile (assuming they're the same river) could be as fast a flat plains or even a road.
 
I'm guessing you were not aware of this? Or do I misunderstand what a natural harbor is?

Alright, such cities happen sparingly sometimes.
Indeed, I'm unaware of Civ III; it was such a disappointment after II that I stopped playing (and also skipped IV).

New York City, Rio de Janeiro, Sydney, and other cities like them may be sparing in number but not consequence.
 
Top Bottom