More rivers

[Naokaukodem]

That may sound stupid but I would desire more rivers in the randoms maps.

After all, in a whole continent, rivers are numerous, very, very numerous. We are very far from the count in Civ4 map generator. Some times a continent or big island does even have a single river. Most of continents have only two (standrad size). I would see more of them, or longer of them, with lakes and all.

The best would be a map generator that take in count the level in order to really simulate the rivers and the lakes, so they would be more realistic. This would be amazing.

I would love such a realistic map/map generator. It would add some credit to the game IMO. Not only for rivers, but for a certain number of things.

As to rivers, it would be cool that regardless of the terrain surrounding them, a unit could use it as a road as long as it moves along it.

This ways, rivers would be more usefull for tactics, as long as they are more numerous.

Not to mention the effects on the culture influence it would have in some culture models around there, but that's a personnal note.

 

[StarWorms]

The maps on civ are much smaller than earth so things have to be compromised. Take the 24/18 civ map for example. Paris takes up the whole of France, same for Madrid. If it were earth sized they'd have to build other cities. As the size is compromised, everything else has to be as well which often means fewer rivers.

 

[Naokaukodem]

So rivers should be representative and be represented in networks just as roads.

This supposes a very greater number of them. In fact, they could not be avoided. They would still give commerce bonuses, but depending on they number in one single square, say 1 commerce bonus per river. Some squares would not have any river, some would have up to 3 of them. They could not be used until the second water related tech. (i don't remember its exact name)

 

[Brave Sir Robin]

That may sound stupid but I would desire more rivers in the randoms maps.

After all, in a whole continent, rivers are numerous, very, very numerous. We are very far from the count in Civ4 map generator. Some times a continent or big island does even have a single river. Most of continents have only two (standrad size). I would see more of them, or longer of them, with lakes and all.

The best would be a map generator that take in count the level in order to really simulate the rivers and the lakes, so they would be more realistic. This would be amazing.

I would love such a realistic map/map generator. It would add some credit to the game IMO. Not only for rivers, but for a certain number of things.

As to rivers, it would be cool that regardless of the terrain surrounding them, a unit could use it as a road as long as it moves along it.

This ways, rivers would be more usefull for tactics, as long as they are more numerous.

Not to mention the effects on the culture influence it would have in some culture models around there, but that's a personnal note.

try this thread it allows your to customize your map in MANY ways
including # of rivers
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=154989

 

[Thor's Hammer]

I think more rivers would add to the game scenery, and they could have some more cool bonuses, such as the aforementioned movement one. However, I also see the need to have less rivers, because the maps are many, many times smaller than Earth and therefore would have less rivers.

So, I see merit in both of the arguments brought up here. I am slightly more inclined to the "more rivers" side of things, though, on account of the fact that it would be neat and that the games does need at least a few more, but not too much as to drown the map.

So, I have to go with Naokaukodem on this.

 

[FuRRie]

I sometimes think there are too many rivers (floodplains aren't always good ).
I like the amount of rivers just the way they are .

 

[Truronian]

Given that nearly all settlements are built on a river of some description I've always found it odd that Civ4 had so few. A problem with scale evidently.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I don't think it is a problem with scale. One could put several rivers on one square... The only scale thing is not the shape of the land, but the number of cities... In a country like France there are thousands and thousands cities, a number there will never be in the biggest Civ entire map of course. So cities are more "main cities" than "actual cities", a representation, and Civ4 represents that perfectly with the cottages that turn into towns.

In the same way one could represent several size and shape of forest into one single square. There could be the full square, providing a lot of hammers. There could be the scattered forest, providing a comfortable amount of hammers and food, and the thickets, proving a low amount of shield and a high amount of food if on a grassland.

Plus, the scale above would permit very different squares and combinations and requiere a high adaptability from the player.

 

[Colonel Kraken]

I like more rivers. Rivers are cool.

 

[Naokaukodem]

LOL. Reminds me a topic about giant robots or something...

 

[Kid Socrates]

Problem with more rivers: Exaggerating for effect here, yes, but would you want 50% of your battles to have the amphibious penalty?

 

[Darwin420]

I haven't noticed any problems with rivers in my games... Sometimes I get a LOT of rivers, other times there will only be a couple mid-size rivers, and maybe one big river. It changes from map to map, but never seemed out of place. It seems ever more fair with the Fractal map script.

Just roll with the punches, I say.

Although I do wish terrain would be taken more into account like it was in SMAC.

 

[Naokaukodem]

One could remove simply remove the amphibious penalty from rivers.

Or it could enhance the tactic and make the amphibious upgrade more valuable... thinking about that, it would be cool to be able to create canals in order to profit from river defense bonus... I.E around a city.

 

[Darwin420]

Canals... that feature has been dreamed about for so long. I hope they add it to the game one day.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I haven't noticed any problems with rivers in my games... Sometimes I get a LOT of rivers, other times there will only be a couple mid-size rivers, and maybe one big river. It changes from map to map, but never seemed out of place. It seems ever more fair with the Fractal map script.

Just roll with the punches, I say.

Although I do wish terrain would be taken more into account like it was in SMAC.

Not that it is really a problem, but it could be cool to have more rivers. For now rivers tactically speaking are a no brainer: you simply move your units in the right square and here you go. With more rivers, skirmishes would become more of a puzzle. Also, placing cities regardful of rivers does not happen very often. The benefits from rivers are too low IMO. I would like to be able to play more with them, in combats as well as in city placement.

As to terrain, yes it would be cool also rivers to obey to it. Would be more realistic and appreciable. Would be simply nice to contemplate such a shaping of the world.

But as said above, it would bring more flexibility and gameplay to apply this to every type of tile: not only rivers could be several in a single square, but forests and terrain type also. A tile would not be anymore "full forest" or "full grassland", "full hills" and so on, it would be a combination of them all, varying greatly the number of different tiles. In fact there could be nearly an infinite type of tiles, that we could work infinitely differently, i.e. remove all the forest or only a part of it.

 

[TomOC]

I think the amount of rivers in the game is just fine. Although there are many rivers in the world, only major rivers are actually useful with regard to trade and movement. I would however like to be able to sale ships (depending on size) up river for troop movement.

 

[Naokaukodem]

That's because you don't know how cool more rivers could be. Read a little the above.

As to sale ships up river, no need of ships, just make each side of the river like a road and that's it.

 

[Older than Dirt]

Yes, More Rivers! Less Mountains and Deserts, please. These latter two are just plain ugly unless they have fallout on them.

 

[wiser3]

My current warlords map has to many rivers (It's a continents map). I've grown to 10 cites and at least 95% of my land is flood plains with the rest being hills or tundra. I don't have copper, horses, gems, silver, iron, stone, or marble. I got tons of wheat, corn, rice, cows, spice, ivory and gold. It's making for an interesting challenge. I couldn't put any decent war effort together until i made friends with Salidan, from another continent, and was able to trade for what i needed.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Hey, flood plains are cool. But if you have too many of them this must be that you have TOO MANY DESERTS. Don't throw the fault on Mighty Rivers please!!! As said above, rivers are cool.

I hate deserts, because they are not everywhere so they disadvantage the player when he is surrounded by them... and it happens to me ... too much.