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

[civ_king]

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.

Firaxis made the coding engine so it would be legal for them to release the whole game engine

 

[Schuesseled]

I don't think we're gonna be seeing tile sized rives in any civ game, the maps would have to be a lot bigger, for a river to seem like a river and not a norrow bendy ocean.

 

[kiwitt]

I don't think we're gonna be seeing tile sized rives in any civ game, the maps would have to be a lot bigger, for a river to seem like a river and not a norrow bendy ocean.

The rivers do not need to be tile sized. Rivers could be placed on a tile (like roads) as opposed to between a tile and this could make rivers navigatible. I have played boardgames where this have been done.

 

[The_J]

You haven't played Civ2, have you ?

 

[kiwitt]

Was that in Civ II, it's being so long since I played it ... I couldn't remember.

 

[The_J]

Not navigable for ships, but the rivers have been on tiles (and gave a movement bonus), so yes.

But i don't think navigable rivers are needed at all, this can be representet by other things.

 

[kiwitt]

I remember now.

I agree with you about navigable rivers. It would look odd having a "Battleship" cruise up the river.

 

[Souron]

Yes, but a viking raider, coming down the Volga is not so strange. Rivers did make it easier for troops to move.

 

[johny smith]

Or a steamboat down the Mississippi. There are boats designed for shallow waters versus large ocean going vessels. The gallery for example I could see going on rivers.

 

[CommanderZ]

Firaxis made the coding engine so it would be legal for them to release the whole game engine

They won't release the graphics engine source code - it has significant commercial value. Unlike the gameplay related source code, which has no value without the graphics and several other core parts, so it can be released as the SDK.

 

[civ_king]

Why wouldn't they let us make units and stuff?

 

[Ahriman]

A boat on a river isn't strange. But a naval fleet on a river interacting with a land army just gets bizarre. How could a fleet of galleys or age of sail ships possibly kill a land unit? The land unit could just walk away from the river.

Plus, it requires that rivers be there own tiles, which interacts very badly with the terrain design. Its much simpler for rivers to go between tiles, which pretty much immediately rules out naval fleets going up rivers.

It would also be truly bizarre if you could sail a fleet of battleships and cruisers up the Mississippi to shell Chicago.

 

[johny smith]

A boat on a river isn't strange. But a naval fleet on a river interacting with a land army just gets bizarre. How could a fleet of galleys or age of sail ships possibly kill a land unit? The land unit could just walk away from the river.

Plus, it requires that rivers be there own tiles, which interacts very badly with the terrain design. Its much simpler for rivers to go between tiles, which pretty much immediately rules out naval fleets going up rivers.

It would also be truly bizarre if you could sail a fleet of battleships and cruisers up the Mississippi to shell Chicago.

Again it was not well planned. It could of been done differently. How does it work for naval units bombing from the coast? The land units could just walk away from the coast. I mean how awkward is archery bombardment now? Could it be worse?

River boats can bombard cities. Not Battleships. Not Frigates. I think there is some misconception about boats here. There were plenty used in the American Civil War if you need to find a reference.

Rivers could of be placed on a tile like in Civ2. And that tile could of simply be used by river boats as well. If you wanted more complicated you could use different sizes of rivers which would be neat but is pointless to debate at this point.

 

[Ahriman]

Significant coastal bombardment is also needed, but it has the excuse of having a reasonable gameplay design need; there is a need to make naval units more valuable and to interact better with land units, so bombardment is a good way to do this.
There is no gameplay need to allow ships to penetrate inland going up cities. If you want to invade away from the coast, use an army.

Yes, river gunboats bombarded cities historically in a few cases (though it was hardly commonplace). So what? They are shallow draught vessels designed specifically for rivers. [And they didn't bomb field armies.]
You can get those to places where an ocean-going naval vessel could never get to.
But it would be ridiculous to have a separate "river-boat"

Rivers could of be placed on a tile like in Civ2

But why? Its so much neater to have them run between tiles. You don't, for example, need separate grassland-river, plains-river, desert-river, marsh-river etc. tile types.
Its clear when you're attacking across them.
They can run between hill tiles rather than having to be flatland.
They can run through forested areas.

So many reasons to keep rivers running between tiles, so few reasons to go back to the old system.
And we already know, we're not going back to the old system. So the whole point is moot.

 

[johny smith]

There is no gameplay need to allow ships to penetrate inland going up cities. If you want to invade away from the coast, use an army.

Why not?

Yes, river gunboats bombarded cities historically in a few cases (though it was hardly commonplace).

Um the war for the Mississippi river was only a small case? There has always been battles for control of rivers. If you need more examples how about control of the Nile. Besides the ability to siege a city the most important reason was for supplying units in war and general trade purposes is always important.

But why? Its so much neater to have them run between tiles. You don't, for example, need separate grassland-river, plains-river, desert-river, marsh-river etc. tile types.
Its clear when you're attacking across them.
They can run between hill tiles rather than having to be flatland.
They can run through forested areas.

So many reasons to keep rivers running between tiles, so few reasons to go back to the old system.
And we already know, we're not going back to the old system. So the whole point is moot.

You just stated basically ever I think needs corrected. Is there one typical marsh, grassland, plain, or desert in real world? What is savannah? Is it desert? Is it a plain? Like I said Civ never improved on this. Which I think should of been improved by now.

 

[Ahriman]

Why not?

Because being a naval power should not allow you to have massive ranged firepower all over the map. That would make navies too powerful.
Normally, navies tried to stay away from coasts, because dollar for dollar shore batteries are so much more powerful. Its much cheaper and more effective to build a land-fort with a few cannon than a warship.

Um the war for the Mississippi river was only a small case?

As far as the history of warfare goes? Absolutely.
In what proportion of wars have naval vessels in river been important?

If you need more examples how about control of the Nile.

Yes, how about it?
In possibly the most important river in history, warships on the Nile have never played an important role - partly because you couldn't get an ocean-going vessel up through the shallow delta. There were never gunboats sailing up the river to shell Cairo. It was a huge highway for trade, but all of the rivercraft were small, and were not ocean-going vessels. Ocean-going vessels docked at Alexandria, they didn't go up the river.

You just stated basically ever I think needs corrected. Is there one typical marsh, grassland, plain, or desert in real world? What is savannah? Is it desert? Is it a plain? Like I said Civ never improved on this. Which I think should of been improved by now.

I have no idea what you're saying here.
But there is no reason to go into a detailed set of biomes for terrain, because there is so little ability to differentiate them.
Grassland is 2 food, plains is 1f1h, marsh is probably 1 food, as is tundra. There's just not that much scope to differentiate further here; the discreteness of tile yields mean there aren't really many options.

 

[johny smith]

Because being a naval power should not allow you to have massive ranged firepower all over the map..

Navies should be more important. Yes this important. They always been this important.

Ocean-going vessels docked at Alexandria, they didn't go up the river.

Again your stating ocean going. There were boats for shallow water. Did they have gunpowder at the time of the Greek invasion? No.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Delta

I have no idea what you're saying here.
But there is no reason to go into a detailed set of biomes for terrain, because there is so little ability to differentiate them.
Grassland is 2 food, plains is 1f1h, marsh is probably 1 food, as is tundra. There's just not that much scope to differentiate further here; the discreteness of tile yields mean there aren't really many options.

Terrain could have benefits from the amount of water available. Basically getter higher yields if right amount of water is present. Too little or too much you get lower yields on food. You could add new terrains based on this. The yields could easily be adapted to match more types of terrain. It just illogical how it is to me. It is like distinguishing that all types of weapons in the world are rock, scissors, and paper. Anyway this drifts out of just the rivers.

I see no point to really go on with the debate. I am convinced that majority players care less about the rivers. I do care. So I am not too excited of the lack of new features to Civ 5 in this area. The game is more of fad then a real game anymore to me. If it can modified I am still interested then I can possibly make what is more logical.

 

[Souron]

They won't release the graphics engine source code - it has significant commercial value. Unlike the gameplay related source code, which has no value without the graphics and several other core parts, so it can be released as the SDK.

They could still release it on a freeware only license, disallowing any part to be redistributed for profit. That way, they are training future developers in the power of their engine, and how to use it.

 

[Zhahz]

I'll wait to see the final game in person before judging the rivers, as trivial as they may be (seriously - what rivers look like impacts quality of gameplay?!). I also tend to find static screenshots to be a poor way to judge moving parts like animation.

 

[brianshapiro]

I see no point to really go on with the debate. I am convinced that majority players care less about the rivers. I do care. So I am not too excited of the lack of new features to Civ 5 in this area. The game is more of fad then a real game anymore to me. If it can modified I am still interested then I can possibly make what is more logical.

I don't know about you, but Civilization is starting to become really boring and predictable to me. Its the reason I'm not that excited about all of the new changes in Civ 5, I don't think they'll change the dynamic that much. There are many ways I think the game could be more interesting .. adding more variety to the game would be one of them-- and navigable rivers would add more variety