farms don't need irrigation?

[Insanity_X]

CIV just decided to replace 'irrigation' with farms, and to prevent cities from getting rediculously big early on, delayed chain irrigation till CS.

 

[Deckhand]

Irrigation is a Civ4 concept.

Irrigation is a Civ concept. It was in Civ 1 and II and III. IIRC, building a farm has always been the I key (for irrigate).

(i should skip these threads instead of posting such things in them)

me too


I do agree that we shouldn't jump to conclusions based on pre-release screen shots.

replacing sheep with elephant animations? what are they thinking?

 

[Seventh Child]

Maybe it's a Grasslands tile.

The distinction between "Plains" and "Grasslands" has been a staple of civ. But the main difference has always just been 1 food -> 1 shield.

You could assume that for a Grasslands tile to be a Grasslands tile, it receives enough rainfall (or some other source of water, underground etc) to be suitable farmland. Maybe cities provide fresh water access?

Just speculating here.

 

[Souron]

Historically, civilizations with irrigation developed earlier that civs with rain based farms. It's simply easier to irrigate a floodplain then plow a hill field.

Irrigation and hill farms are really very different, and both vital to the growth of early civilizations. Irrigation was present in the earliest civilizations, on the Tigris, Euphraties, nile, and Indus rivers. It was the easiest way to farm.

Rain based farms grew prominent later, in heavy rainfall regions such as Greece. This hilled terrain would never support irrigation in any form, because the farm would be on a slope. But it did benefit from furrow digging plows, which provide the striped look associated with farms.

To handle this in Civ requires minimally different graphics for farms on floodplains and hills. This as done to a minimal extent in Civ IV with farms on resources, but no base terrain distinction was made. Possibly building farms on hill could require research, while floodplains wouldn't. Having two separate improvements (irrigation and farmland) would allow different advantages to irrigated floodplains and farmed hills.

 

[Insanity_X]

or do it with farms on fresh water tiles at agriculture (or equivalent), farms on a hill at some other (later) tech.

 

[Souron]

No, because plains, such as the Great Plains of North America and the Eurasian Steppe were not historically irrigated, even near rivers. In fact in these regions pastoral peoples thrived, not farmers.

 

[mechaerik]

Maybe the city itself acts as an irrigator for adjacent tiles?

 

[Insanity_X]

*Slaps Souron* Irrelavent. Gameplay > realism. Also, how often do you farm plains anyway? You end up with the equivalent of a grassland forrest.

 

[Thormodr]

No, because plains, such as the Great Plains of North America and the Eurasian Steppe were not historically irrigated, even near rivers. In fact in these regions pastoral peoples thrived, not farmers.

I figure when you improve a plains it is supposed to symbolize a farm. After all, that's what the graphic becomes. Well, a barn anyway.
So there could be cattle and horses there on grazing land. Just not as good as a square with the cattle or horse resources on it of course.

The production or food you get from tiles is mostly abstracted anyway.

 

[Souron]

Civ is about recreating history. Take away realism, and you take away the entire point of the game.

Sure, some balance is needed. But how does irrigating grasslands and plains achieve that? Grasslands and plains may be farmed, but why irrigated? Civ IV was right to change the graphic to furrowed farms, but did not follow through with the idea. Heavy rain areas do not need to be near rivers to be farmed. The reason rivers had more people living near them was because of trade benefits.

As Seventh Child points out, the distinction between plains and grasslands isn't majorly reflected in the real world. It mostly serves as a way of making the dominant terrain of the earth more varied. What can be said about one can be said about the other.

 

[Souron]

I figure when you improve a plains it is supposed to symbolize a farm. After all, that's what the graphic becomes. Well, a barn anyway.
So there could be cattle and horses there on grazing land. Just not as good as a square with the cattle or horse resources on it of course.

The production or food you get from tiles is mostly abstracted anyway.

Sure, but then why would you only be able to build grazing land near rivers?

Plains are not irrigated. They are rain farmed or grazed on. You don't need rivers for that.

 

[MatrixTheKitty]

Civ is about reliving history.

No, it's about remaking history.

 

[Souron]

How's recreating history sound?

 

[nmcul]

Could be that the farms just sort of show up on the tile when it's worked by nearby cities, like that little building in Civ IV. But then the question would be, "what do irrigated tiles look like?"

 

[Thormodr]

Sure, but then why would you only be able to build grazing land near rivers?

Plains are not irrigated. They are rain farmed or grazed on. You don't need rivers for that.

I suppose they could have had a grazing land graphic instead of using the farm one.

Whatever the case, usually you have to build dugouts and places where the cattle can drink safely so you do have to do some work to ensure the cattle get enough water. If it is very muddy then the cattle could get stuck while trying to drink out of the stream or river.

Anyway, I'd support a pasture land graphic to differentiate it from grassland farms.

 

[tom2050]

Irrigation/Farms and Mining and the rest are just symbols... not to be taken literally as historic realism. Symbols of advancements in ability to support/grow larger populations, and symbol of better production techniques. Civ 3 you could irrigate a whole desert

Tom