I don't like the Civ 5 rivers ... the Civ 4 rivers flowed

[Ahriman]

If you can get through the mountain range with a 2 mile tunnel, then its more accurate to just have a hill tile there than a mountain tile.

We go through the gaps and low points and accessible points of a mountain range, we don't just build a tunnel through.

 

[kozzer]

If you can get through the mountain range with a 2 mile tunnel, then its more accurate to just have a hill tile there than a mountain tile.

We go through the gaps and low points and accessible points of a mountain range, we don't just build a tunnel through.

I see what you're saying, but it's certainly not a "hill". The highway is over 11,000 elevation at the point of the tunnel, and when you're up there, you're up there. If that location isn't rendered as a mountain in CiV, then there are only very few places in the world that would be - Himalayas, Andes, a few peaks in the Alps, and maybe some stuff in Alaska. That'd be about it.

 

[dulsin]

There are few ranges that are completely impassable to a man on horse back.

The trick to tunneling is not to drill throught the largest mountain in a range. You find the passes that already exist and look for the short distance tunnels that cut miles off zig zagging and climbing out of the trip. There are are four rail lines that go directly through the rocky mountians and two that scirt around the south end of them.

All of those routes were built with nothing but dynamite and hand tools.

Spoiler :

 

[kozzer]

There are few ranges that are completely impassable to a man on horse back.

The trick to tunneling is not to drill throught the largest mountain in a range. You find the passes that already exist and look for the short distance tunnels that cut miles off zig zagging and climbing out of the trip.

Exactly - you find the path of least resistance, and then tunnel through the parts that remain impassible. But in Civ, the area west of Denver would certainly be rendered as peak tiles.

 

[12agnar0k]

why the hell are you people discussing tunneling strategies, spam much?

Stay on topic ^>^.

 

[Semmel]

why the hell are you people discussing tunneling strategies, spam much?

Stay on topic ^>^.

because some of us find it unrealistic to build a tunnel under the sea or through a mountain range.

are there tunnels through the Himalayas? The Rockies? The Pyrennes? the Andes?

Well, you dont build a tunnel where no one wants to go. But that doesnt change the fact that you CAN build a tunnel if you want to and if you want to spend the money for it. North norway contains hundrets of tunnels. none of which goes on sealevel through all tunnels of course, but they make it possible to drive up to the very north without using the high passes. And as someone else already mentioned.. you dont need to build a tunnel through the entire mountain range.

No, in terms of Civ, its the industrial era. There is a vast difference between mid 19th century (riflemen, cavalry) and end of the 20th century (stealth bombers). Remember that the game slows down, so that turns start being 1 year instead of 2 years or 4 or 50.

Yeah, sorry about that.. I was just a bit wrong with my terminology there.. but I didnt really object your point in the timing scale. So .. Canals can be build sooner than large tunnels.. I guess we can agree on that.

 

[dulsin]

The chunnel was mentioned after the idea of navagatable rivers and how if you had rivers that large you would need a way to very build large bridges.

A good example is the Golden gate bridge. That gap allows ocean going vessals into the bay but you can drive across it at 60 miles an hour.

There are several large rives used for ocean vessals; Rhine, Missippi, Thames, St lawrence rivers. All of which have had bridges for over a hundred years.

 

[Ahriman]

because some of us find it unrealistic to build a tunnel under the sea or through a mountain range.

And, far more importantly, that these would be bad for gameplay.

I think its ridiculous to add features for which there is no gameplay need based solely on some kind of "realism" argument when the realism argument isn't even true.

Finally, add all the practicality issues.
How does the worker move into a mountain or ocean tile to build the improvement?
What happens if the improvement is pillaged with a unit still on them?
What happens with 1upt when a ship hits a land unit in a tunnel; they coexist, units get blocked, they violate the domain rules, what?
How is the engine going to handle tunnel or bridge that is effectively able to be both a land tile and a naval tile at the same time? How will the AI handle dual domains?

Its just not worth the headache. I wish people wouldn't propose feature additions "just because". Feature creep is the quickest way to kill any game design.

A good example is the Golden gate bridge. That gap allows ocean going vessals into the bay but you can drive across it at 60 miles an hour.

There are several large rives used for ocean vessals; Rhine, Missippi, Thames, St lawrence rivers. All of which have had bridges for over a hundred years.

The proposal was for tunnels/bridges linking continents and islands, not crossing rivers. Rivers run between tiles in Civ these days, and bridges over rivers are too small to be worth modeling as tile improvements; they happen automatically with appropriate engineering tech.

 

[Semmel]

And, far more importantly, that these would be bad for gameplay.

As every aspect of the game, it has to be carefully balanced.

I think its ridiculous to add features for which there is no gameplay need based solely on some kind of "realism" argument when the realism argument isn't even true.

Finally, add all the practicality issues.

How does the worker move into a mountain or ocean tile to build the improvement?

Make a unit that can move on a mountain and build the tunnel as soon as it does.

What happens if the improvement is pillaged with a unit still on them?
What happens with 1upt when a ship hits a land unit in a tunnel; they coexist, units get blocked, they violate the domain rules, what?
How is the engine going to handle tunnel or bridge that is effectively able to be both a land tile and a naval tile at the same time? How will the AI handle dual domains?

Make a tunnel "unstoppable". Which means: you can pass through, but you can't sit in it at the end of a turn. A tunnel can not be pillaged like a normal tile improvement, what benefit would that give anyway? But you can destroy it with siege weapons.

Its just not worth the headache. I wish people wouldn't propose feature additions "just because". Feature creep is the quickest way to kill any game design.

What headache? I find it a little amusing however, how feature additions would make people think it breaks the game, no matter what.

And I want to emphasise, that I dont "need" a tunnel concept in the game. I say: it doesnt hurt to have it. It is even nice because it means that you can overcome natural barriers with technology. Wouldnt that be fun to play?

 

[Ahriman]

I find it a little amusing however, how feature additions would make people think it breaks the game

Its not an issue of "would it break the game?" or "would it be balanced?"

Its an issue of "is it worth the extra complexity?" and "Is this feature needed, does it add to the overall experience?"

A new unit that moves into impassible terrain and exists only to build tunnels?
A tile that you can move through but not stop on?

Why mess with core mechanics and make extraneous units for such small design purpose?

I dont "need" a tunnel concept in the game. I say: it doesnt hurt to have it

And this is my problem; thats a terrible design philosophy. "Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing to add, but when there is nothing to take away."

t is even nice because it means that you can overcome natural barriers with technology. Wouldnt that be fun to play?

No. Its not fun, because it reduces the importance of natural barriers, because it makes exceptions to core game mechanics, and because it creates unnecessary "clutter" (a unit specifically designed to build tunnels would be like the Civ3 techs that didn't do anything).

 

[Semmel]

Personally? It would improve my game experience because it gives you an other chance to make a decision. As Sid Meiers pointed out in one of his talkes is Civ all about making decisions.

And the extra complexity is there. I admid to have an extra unit is maybe a little too much. But maybe allowing workers with some technology to enter mountain ranges much like work boats are allowed to enter deap water with optics I beleave. A tunnel would then be a special road that allowes tile movement for all land units on mountain ranges and applies a trade rout connection.
As for tunnels between land masses, this could be done by work boats.

To balance it, it should apply a massive amount of maintanance so you really think if you want to do that. Maybe as expencive as 10 normal road tiles.

 

[dulsin]

The proposal was for tunnels/bridges linking continents and islands, not crossing rivers. Rivers run between tiles in Civ these days, and bridges over rivers are too small to be worth modeling as tile improvements; they happen automatically with appropriate engineering tech.

The original post was about rivers and I would like to see navagatable rivers. Since a navagatable river would have to be one hex wide and therfor an obsticle the desire to have a way to bridge/tunnel through narrow obsticles is what we are looking for.

I would love to see cannals, long bridges, and tunnels added to the game.

It is possible to make an improvement immune to pilfering. What would be tough is the idea of a land unit on a bridge over a water hex. You would want to make any unit sitting on such a tile to have a very big defence penalty so that any naval unit could sweep a bridge. A naval unit can block bridge but a land unit on a bridge can not block a naval unit.

 

[Rusty Edge]

I take responsibillity for getting the thread off track, but I thought that it was basically a dead topic as the original pictures were described as "pre-alpha" graphics, and the ones from E3 as not final.

Yes, I had things like the tunnels in CO, Donner Pass in the Sierras and the Cascade railway tunnel in mind when I responded. It's true that the first American transcontinental railroad was completed in 1869, but grades and snow above 10,000 ft. were still a problem in the winter.

Electricity made ventilating long tunnels practical. Winter maintenance and lost traffic is considerably less with long tunnels than snow sheds, deep cuts and steep grades so they are more profitable. Because of the electricity aspect I agree with Ahriman about such engineering feats being mostly modern. The Panama canal depends on electricity, too.

As for gameplay, I'm looking for new things to do in the late game. When I play Ciiv, the world is my canvas. I think things like the Panama canal and the Chunnel are as worthy of inclussion in the game as a skyscraper. [End Hijack ]


As for navigable rivers, I've also often wished for them. I envision them as rivers drawn through the middle of tiles, and unnavigable ones as we know them now, between tiles. Bridging rivers would work as we now know it, changing with I-forget-which tech, although it might be interesting to have a second tech and a suspension bridge graphic for navigable rivers.

 

[dulsin]

I have wanted to make a new Earth map with Large rivers.

One place I know quite well is the Mississippi. I would make that 1 hex wide up to St Louis and the Ohio all the way to Cincinnati. This would make both rivers major obstacles. The first bridge across the Mississippi was built in 1855 in Minniapolis. The St Louis bridge was not built until 1874.

Spoiler :

I think long bridges should be possible with the discovery of Steel.

Long Tunnels with Electricity

Cannals with Steam Power.

Before 1850 this was the highway system for North America.

Spoiler :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_River

 

[Souron]

Rivers, particularly wide rivers, have always been a problematic feature in civ. In civ 1 and 2, rivers gave a movement bonus, so units could move up and down rivers quickly in riverboats. This is very realistic for ancient, and middle age units, but not so realistic for industrial and modern units. So in civ 3 and 4, this effect was removed, and a new defensive bonus to rivers was added. But many historic events were made possible by the mobility rivers afforded. The only way to reproduce these effects in later civ was to make significant rivers into ocean tiles. But this has many problems, most notably of bridges.

Perhaps a solution is to give most units the special ability to travel to another tile along the same river. Maybe ad a restriction on passing by enemies, or when enemies hold both banks. The modern unit problem can be solved b not allowing most modern units to have this ability. Units such as Catapults would not use it either.

 

[Calouste]

Rivers, particularly wide rivers, have always been a problematic feature in civ. In civ 1 and 2, rivers gave a movement bonus, so units could move up and down rivers quickly in riverboats. This is very realistic for ancient, and middle age units, but not so realistic for industrial and modern units. So in civ 3 and 4, this effect was removed, and a new defensive bonus to rivers was added. But many historic events were made possible by the mobility rivers afforded. The only way to reproduce these effects in later civ was to make significant rivers into ocean tiles. But this has many problems, most notably of bridges.

Perhaps a solution is to give most units the special ability to travel to another tile along the same river. Maybe ad a restriction on passing by enemies, or when enemies hold both banks. The modern unit problem can be solved b not allowing most modern units to have this ability. Units such as Catapults would not use it either.

IIRC, in Civ 1 and 2 rivers were tiles, where from Civ 3 onwards rivers have been the borders between tiles. I don't think the movement bonus was that problematic for the industrial era onwards, because by that time you have railroads which provide an even bigger movement bonus.

 

[timtofly]

IIRC, in Civ 1 and 2 rivers were tiles, where from Civ 3 onwards rivers have been the borders between tiles. I don't think the movement bonus was that problematic for the industrial era onwards, because by that time you have railroads which provide an even bigger movement bonus.

In I and II rivers were not tiles. They were hard-encoded roads that were texterized as rivers. They only gave a movement benefit if you traveled up and down them. After bridge building, you could build roads that would "navigate" them and the land next to them without loosing a movement point.

 

[kiwitt]

I certainly hope that these a pre-alpha screenshots. Otherwise it would be a backward step.

 

[12agnar0k]

because some of us find it unrealistic to build a tunnel under the sea or through a mountain range.

Well to continue the spam, anyone sharing this view is an idiot, ofcourse we can build tunnels through mountains or under sea's, we have done so, "English to France, Channel Tunnel", I can't be bothered to find an example of a mountain tunnel but they exist.

I mean can a tunnel be built from the USA to the UK? yes, it is by an engineering stand point "feasible" but I doubt it would be a cost effective to build it when methods of transversing great distances by air already exist. Tunnels and Bridges are built when the demand to do so is there and their isn't a more efficient alternative.

...

As far as the "topic" discussion, although tbh we aren't discussing the ascetics of rivers anymore, more river involvement could be possible, but tbh we would need to play on a larger scale, if a river was a large obstacle on the map that is. Instead of it being basically insignificant and running in between hexes with a much more zoomed in approach it could be several hexes wide, and we could play and build civilisations on a much grander scale. Perhaps this is something to consider for civ6, to continue the "bring something new" theme, we can zoom in a lot. This brings forth many possibilities I can see in my head of what the game could be like, i.e a city would not be one hex anymore, it would start off as one hex but grow over time. With one unit per hex attacking a mature city could be a thing of wonder, your armies approaching a giant citadle and attacking it. As well as many more new possibilities without the tradition civ "zoomed out" and unrealistic approach.

Moderator Action: Don't flame other members. Express your opinion with arguments, not with insults.

 

[johny smith]

My opinion for rivers, canals, and tunnels missing is... flat out lack of interest to expand the boundaries of the game. Everyone can say balance. It is balance as long as we need to play the same simply civilization game.

This is one of the biggest reasons I am shying away from buying Civ5. I feel like I am getting a jazzier version of the same game. The challenge would be to balance these new features into the game.

I am probably one of only a few here, but I don't see the big upgrade to the game. I mean adding a hex grid I feel is more of something very basic. But again one man's wonder is another man's doll house.

Edit: What I would like to see would be the ability to mod the rivers so I can have them act as roads at the least. As in actually transporting units on them. I mean the majority of beginning civilizations were founded along rivers because of the ease of transportation, drinking water, sewage, and etc.

If that was possible then I would jump to the game. I have my doubts that will happen though. It is more about not limiting the possibilities of altering the map to me.