River blockade?

[stealth_nsk]

Oh, I see it now, for some reason i thought that was the range bombardement button.

It's not shown on capital

 

[caglejsc]

I've read somewhere that 2 harbors connect coastal cities without the need for roads. I'm 99% sure. IIRC it was said by 2kGreg.

 

[Louis XXIV]

In fact that will just limit the choices. If you can build your cities on river, you should. Even more than in Civ 4. Current system gives much more clever choice.

Not necessarily. It's like arguing that, if you can build on the coast, you should. There are plenty of other factors (namely nearby resources) that clearly have priority.

 

[Sciguy001]

It's not shown on capital

And the ranged bombardement button is more like a target-thing. But at first glance they do look kind of similar.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Not necessarily. It's like arguing that, if you can build on the coast, you should. There are plenty of other factors (namely nearby resources) that clearly have priority.

Land should be very special to not build city on coast/river if you could.

 

[r_rolo1]

Not necessarily. One of the drawbacks of building a city in a river is that you are wasting a perfectly good riverside tile with a city And, unless sea tiles are in average as good the land ones, you actually need reasons to build on the coast

 

[stealth_nsk]

Not necessarily. One of the drawbacks of building a city in a river is that you are wasting a perfectly good riverside tile with a city And, unless sea tiles are in average as good the land ones, you actually need reasons to build on the coast

Hmm.. That's quite different approach. Don't think it's very popular.
Anyway, using rivers as trade routes will provide much more bigger bonus (about +6 gold per connected city per turn, indestructible and don't need to be built), so any choices will be removed.

 

[Sciguy001]

What about the watermill thing that you can only build next to a river? That seemed like a pretty impressive bonus (+2 food prod and gold)

 

[Polobo]

Hmm.. That's quite different approach. Don't think it's very popular.
Anyway, using rivers as trade routes will provide much more bigger bonus (about +6 gold per connected city per turn, indestructible and don't need to be built), so any choices will be removed.

Unless you need lots of cities producing ships a coastal city without resources is absolutely terrible. You first HAVE to build a lighthouse in order to get any kind of growth and before you can do that you need some way to get hammers. It is harder to defend due to the need for boats. And there are no non-resource improvements.

Now, in 5 it will be less disadvantgeous to build on the coast since you can focus you expansion onto the third ring of land tiles instead and still have a well-sized city without ever working non-resource water tiles.

River cities; due to the added health benefit, were good in cIV but that benefit is gone in 5. Personally I think rivers should be more important in civ than they are or have been. In 5 I think being able to move on a river like it is a road; with maybe an extra turn required to embark and dis-embark, would be great. I wish they would make an actual tile for the river instead of just placing it on a boundary. I guess it would have to overlay the normal tiles but still cost a full movement point to enter and leave it - one negated by a bridge; and you wouldn't have to associate the bridge with a road either.