Navigable rivers

[Isca Dumnoniorum]

I didn't want to hijack @Siptah's post about our favourite three things about the game but I read with interest as navigable rivers came up quite a lot there. While I like the concept and their introduction, I've not found navigable rivers to be common enough to structure my strategy around, even with Civs that have bonuses associated with them. This must not be the case for others given their high placings in the top threes and I'm keen to hear your thoughts.

Not to be greedy but I'd actually like them to introduce major navigable rivers (i.e. what we have now) and minor navigable rivers that e.g. civilian and military units can sail up and down but which are too small for naval units such battleships and aircraft carriers. What we have now feels very all or nothing and the minor rivers somehow feel like a bigger obstacle for my land units than major ones.

Last thought, I'm not a fan of the way the navigable rivers currently look - it's a bit as if they're canals that were scooped out of the landscape with a spoon rather than something that's naturally formed. The biomes are otherwise nicely animated so the rivers seem more unpolished than they might if everything was a bit rougher.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I often could found 2-3 settlements along navigable river, creating cities which are deep into land, while also connected to the sea and enjoying all the cool marine buildings.

The value of navigable rivers depends on the map, though. I play on continents+. If you use something like archipelago or fractal, navigable rivers should be much less interesting. I also imagine when larger maps sizes will be released, navigable rivers will become even better.

 

[evonannoredars]

I've found rivers really strategically useful for combat and defense. Units having to embark to cross a river makes them really vulnerable to archers and incredibly vulnerable to naval units, which is great for stopping enemy reinforcements being sent to your battle or improving how defensible a city is. They're also really handy for generating treasure fleets from resources that are very inland.

My no. 1 desired change for navigable rivers, other than improving the fractal map to have more rivers (and inland cliffs), would be allowing them to fork - or even better, also form deltas. It'd make them much more visually interesting imo, as they are a bit uninteresting otherwise. It'd be neat to see cataracts added too.

 

[Zaarin]

I've found Navigable Rivers to sometimes be really cool and sometimes just too rare to be interesting. Also Tecumseh should have a Navigable River bias.

 

[Isca Dumnoniorum]

I've found Navigable Rivers to sometimes be really cool and sometimes just too rare to be interesting. Also Tecumseh should have a Navigable River bias.

Yes I was very disappointed on my Tecumseh playthrough for my starting location to be nowhere near a navigable river.

 

[Wabnosa]

Mississippi should have nav river bias. Michisipi literally mean, great river.

 

[Leucarum]

Hmm... I see quite a lot of them, but I tend to prefer the archipelago map script - I think it creates more interesting terrain - and I don't tend to see as much river-less terrain there.

Agreed Tecumseh needs navigable river bias, I want to pair him with Shawnee as easily as possible!

 

[Zaarin]

I've been playing on Continents+, and I tend to see one or two per continent, and often one of them is two or three tiles long. (In my current Carthage > Spain game, I do actually have a navigable river in my capital leading to a lake, on whose shores is my next greatest city. I do feel cheated, though, because I'm playing as Isabella and haven't so much as glimpsed a natural wonder yet. On top of that, Egypt is blocking my access to distant land and hates me.)

 

[Krikkit1]

Hmm... I see quite a lot of them, but I tend to prefer the archipelago map script - I think it creates more interesting terrain - and I don't tend to see as much river-less terrain there.

Agreed Tecumseh needs navigable river bias, I want to pair him with Shawnee as easily as possible!

It might make more sense for Mississippi, since they have an associated River adjacent Wonder, and Tecumseh really is just CS focus

 

[Zaarin]

Tecumseh really is just CS focus

Shawnee have a malus to cities not on Navigable Rivers. If you want to play Shawnee as Tecumseh, he needs a Navigable River bias.

 

[Leucarum]

It might make more sense for Mississippi, since they have an associated River adjacent Wonder, and Tecumseh really is just CS focus

Or give it to both TBH.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Shawnee have a malus to cities not on Navigable Rivers. If you want to play Shawnee as Tecumseh, he needs a Navigable River bias.

I'm not sure leaders need to be nudged into playing specific civ, even if it's their natural pairing. I see Shawnee more like civ you choose if you have enough navigable rivers, not as one connected to specific leader.

 

[Zaarin]

I'm not sure leaders need to be nudged into playing specific civ, even if it's their natural pairing. I see Shawnee more like civ you choose if you have enough navigable rivers, not as one connected to specific leader.

I think leaders should synergize with their suggested civ. And Tecumseh otherwise does, but if you don't start as Egypt you're doomed to a hobbled Shawnee run. Which feels very counterintuitive. (And leaders don't have to be the best choice for their recommended civ or synergize exclusively with their recommended civ. E.g., Himiko Queen of Wa is insane with Maya, and I bet Ben Franklin is too. Pachacuti is going to love Nepal. But I do think it's a problem that Shawnee is a bad pick for Tecumseh because of his lack of river bias.)

 

[Krikkit1]

Shawnee have a malus to cities not on Navigable Rivers. If you want to play Shawnee as Tecumseh, he needs a Navigable River bias

Better solution to that might be allowing any settlement to be chosen as the new Capital.... because unless you chose the Economic Golden Age, all the other cities you have are in locations chosen by you in that age

.I think leaders should synergize with their suggested civ. And Tecumseh otherwise does, but if you don't start as Egypt you're doomed to a hobbled Shawnee run. Which feels very counterintuitive. (And leaders don't have to be the best choice for their recommended civ or synergize exclusively with their recommended civ. E.g., Himiko Queen of Wa is insane with Maya, and I bet Ben Franklin is too. Pachacuti is going to love Nepal. But I do think it's a problem that Shawnee is a bad pick for Tecumseh because of his lack of river bias.)

Which is why I think a Navigable River bonus for Mississippi make sense.
If you want to play thematically (Tecumseh + Shawnee and you want to start in Antiquity, you go Tecumseh+Mississippi->Shawnee... If you want to go Tecumseh-Greece you are focusing on CS rather than Rivers so you will need to choose an Exploration civ that fits the Terrain you are able to find)

 

[Leucarum]

Honestly, I kind of like the idea of letting players choose their start biases. Have some reccomended options as presets based on leader/antiquity civ, but let the player pick some geographical features which make sense for the run they want. I find I don't get to play civs in later eras with terrain dependency - like Inca, Shawnee, Russia or Songhai - as often as I would like...

 

[Krikkit1]

Honestly, I kind of like the idea of letting players choose their start biases. Have some reccomended options as presets based on leader/antiquity civ, but let the player pick some geographical features which make sense for the run they want. I find I don't get to play civs in later eras with terrain dependency - like Inca, Shawnee, Russia or Songhai - as often as I would like...

Perhaps let players add 1 "Terrain" (rather than Resource/Natural Wonder) start bias (when Mutually exclusive ie Tundra and Tropical, the Players chosen one will have a greater weight)

 

[Zaarin]

Better solution to that might be allowing any settlement to be chosen as the new Capital.... because unless you chose the Economic Golden Age, all the other cities you have are in locations chosen by you in that age

It wouldn't have helped me in my Tecumseh game; there were no Navigable Rivers in my territory, not sure I even knew where there was one on my continent. At any rate, if a leader unlocks a civ, I think they should always be able to play that civ optimally, regardless of what civ they start as.

 

[Krikkit1]

It wouldn't have helped me in my Tecumseh game; there were no Navigable Rivers in my territory, not sure I even knew where there was one on my continent. At any rate, if a leader unlocks a civ, I think they should always be able to play that civ optimally, regardless of what civ they start as.

I can see that for the unlocking... its just most others else who unlocks a terrain boosted civ and have a bias for it also boosts that terrain themselves, Pacha:Inca, Catherine:Russia Amina:Songhai

Maybe not Amina:Buganda

looking more there is Rizal and Hawaii...Rizal has bonus no Tropical, but he does have a bias for it.

I guess could see giving Tecumseh a Nav. River Bias

 

[Mudkip1001]

Not to be greedy but I'd actually like them to introduce major navigable rivers (i.e. what we have now) and minor navigable rivers that e.g. civilian and military units can sail up and down but which are too small for naval units such battleships and aircraft carriers. What we have now feels very all or nothing and the minor rivers somehow feel like a bigger obstacle for my land units than major ones.

Last thought, I'm not a fan of the way the navigable rivers currently look - it's a bit as if they're canals that were scooped out of the landscape with a spoon rather than something that's naturally formed. The biomes are otherwise nicely animated so the rivers seem more unpolished than they might if everything was a bit rougher.

I like this idea although I wonder if it would effect the AI's ability to path correctly... this would reflect reality a little better given rivers like the James in Virginia where you could sail up to Richmond no problem, but you hit falls but above that you can tranverse quite effectively but still posses a challenge to cross (makes me really wish canal locks were added as a possible thing although Ik people are whinging about the "sim city" element, and the probably wont serve a real tangible effect after setting up... but I want them anyways ).

Idk if you can do anything about the way they look give how buildings / misc city buildings interact with them... but from my highly limited knowledge, the two types of rivers share the same spline

(pictured river spines, pic by Desucrate from the Modding Discord)
I personally wish that we can get more inlets with a different texture/look, (and prevent the one tile minor rivers that arent navigable forming like shown in the image above).

 

[aelf]

Strange. I see quite a few of them every game such that I always end up using them to store up Treasure Fleets. And it's not like I've only been choosing leaders or civs with a bias towards them. Could it be because I've been playing on Terra Incognita maps?

One thing I find annoying about them is they tend to lead to the creation of water trade routes, which right now means I often lose road connections between cities at the start of Modern Age (but not Exploration Age). And railroads wouldn't form between them either. I need to build ports too to connect them by rail.