Canoes

[Swiss Bezerker]

Do u think that their should be canoes in civ 4?I like the Idea:You could go down rivers faster and it would be realistic.

 

[searcheagle]

In order to get canoes to go down rivers would require a concept change from Civ 3. I support the change being made for bigger reasons- if we allowed trade (which your question doesn't mention but would be considered inherently) to operate in rivers, then we should also allow some ships to operate in Major Rivers. I think if we did that, we could open up some interesting developments of civ.

One big problem I see is this: Where would we get the canoes?
I played one senerio where the cities built them. However, there they were slow, expensive and hard to use. Also, they would not be where you wanted them.

In Civ 2, units that traveled with a river, either with it or against it, got the benefits of roads. While this may have been a bit strong, it was very useful.

 

[mastertyguy]

you mean a river mov bonus, lik in civ2? I agree, in civ3, river give a road mov penalty only! Makes no sense. The penalty is OK, but there should be bonus also

 

[CoolioVonHoolio]

what i do think is that rivers should be able to be traveled down by boats. that'd be pretty cool.

 

[sepamu92]

Well I've never played CIVII, but I think they should have as follows:
Two river sizes. "Stream" (small) and "river" (big). They should both be rivers, as in you can irrigate from them and buildings that require rivers (hydroplants and such) should function with either. But the difference is, with "rivers" ( and if you have the tech fishing) all movement ALONGSIDE the river is like a road. "Rivers" should also be a road for trade routes (also needs fishing).

 

[Left]

^ Thats was CIV II was like, rivers were like moving down a road, but there was only one size.

I am in favor of river baots, but not every ship should be able to travel on rivers, you know, have specific riverboats like a canoe or river gunboat or somesuch, but not frigates or anything that big.

 

[Nebatym]

I agree. You should be able to have small vessels like gunboats on your river, maybe to control the sovereignity over your territory, in the form of zone of control around the vessel. Also escort or sink any transport ships going on the river.

 

[Che Guava]

I'm not such a big fan of riverboats, especially something as small as canoes. I think certain units (lets say explorers, 'voyageurs', etc), but not all units, get movement bonuses by moving down rivers.

 

[mastertyguy]

Try to put a tank in a canoe!!!!!

 

[Kosez]

Try to put a tank in a canoe!!!!!

Major rivers around the world are big enough to transport the whole US army on them. They are certainly big enough for destroyers, battleships, transport ships, etc... It's just the question what to do with them on the river.
But I agree, rivers could be used to transport units in pre-railroad era, and for trade routes. If rivers will be animated, so we'll be able to see in which direction they flow, then I see no problem in arranging river transports so they will move downstream faster than upstream.

 

[Slax]

Historically, rivers were very significant to exploration, and I would love to see this represented, but, they are now between tiles, and thus, like an earlier writer said, it would require a concept change to allow units to move on them.

Rivers should benefit exploration some how. If the concept of getting "LOST" were added to the game (ie no movement if lost in jungle, desert or forest, according to some random number) then rivers could make it impossible to get "lost". I stole this idea from the "Source of the Nile" boardgame. Scouts and Explorers would not get "lost" as easily as regular units.

 

[Swiss Bezerker]

I was thinking of actually building canoes and letting them travel through rivers,not giving a speed bonu to going paralel to the river.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I'd probably stick with certain units getting a bonus for movement down a river (explorers, any Viking UU, perhaps as one of the 'special abilities' available to some units)... gunboats would be interesting, but the problem is that units occupy squares, and I can't think of how a gunboatr unit that was 'between squares' would be modeled well

 

[Commander Bello]

I guess, rivers have been relocated from within tiles to between tiles for the sake of acting as barriers. Think of the defensive bonus and the end of the movement in early game.
Therefore - under the assumption that they will stay between the tiles - I don't see either boats / ships nor any acceleration from travelling in parallel.

I would, however, like it very much, if rivers (which are the equivalent of streams like the Nile, the Amazonas or the Yang-Tse in real life) would even be more like barriers.
Before bridges are built, units should be unable to cross rivers, but there could be a fort from time to time. This would make them strategically important to a degree, we almost cannot imagine currently.

 

[Corvex]

I like the idea of being able to travel down rivers because it seems that that could make both trade and war a bit more interesting. However, if it's badly implemented (i.e; aircraft carriers sailing up rivers), it would be better not to implement at all.

 

[mastertyguy]

Major rivers around the world are big enough to transport the whole US army on them. They are certainly big enough for destroyers, battleships, transport ships, etc... It's just the question what to do with them on the river.

Do you know how big is a canoe? You can have the whole US army in a BOAT, but not a tank on a canoe!
Moderator Action: Language - warned.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Ivan the Kulak]

I think we can all agree that having a unit-sized icon travelling down a civ sized river is going to look a bit funny. How about a guy in a coonskin cap and leather suit, who runs along the river with his canoe over his shoulder doing an eternal portage? He could gain movement bonus on the river tiles, 4 moves down and two going up. He could trade furs between towns, and sell tobacco and rifles to the barbarians up the river, making your barbarian uprisings more exciting. We could make him sing the Daniel Boone theme song, and fall off of waterfalls occasionally for laughs.

 

[GenMarshall]

I feel that canoes are not nessicary in Civ4.

 

[Kosez]

Do you know how big is a canoe? You can have the whole US army in a BOAT, but not a tank on a canoe!
Moderator Action: Language - warned.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

I don't know how it is where you live, but we have moved on to amphibian stuff, not just tanks.

 

[.Shane.]

Canoes would be a cool unique unit. They'd act like a water-based scout. Something 0.0.2(0). They could go on tiles abutting rivers or on coastal waters.