River blockade?

[stealth_nsk]

From the latest screenshots it was assumed what rivers connect cities just like roads and harbors. However, roads and sea routes could be blocked. So it look logical to assume what enemy unit stationed near the river will block it as trade route?

 

[AriochIV]

I don't see any new evidence that rivers connect trade routes. In the new jeuxactu and jeuxvideopc screenshots that I've seen, all the cities that have the Trade Route Connected icon are connected by roads. Which new screenshots do you mean?

 

[stealth_nsk]

I don't see any new evidence that rivers connect trade routes. In the new jeuxactu and jeuxvideopc screenshots that I've seen, all the cities that have the Trade Route Connected icon are connected by roads. Which new screenshots do you mean?

I was talking about them. Here:
http://www.jeuxvideopc.com/articles/2580-civilization-v/image-14642.php
The Paris looks like not connected with Lyon/Troyes (the road seen on earlier on strategic view, seems to be broken between Paris and cows).

Or I'm wrong?

 

[AriochIV]

The road goes from Lyons west through the quarry and cattle and through the two trading posts, across the river and directly into Paris.

 

[stealth_nsk]

The road goes from Lyons west through the quarry and cattle and through the two trading posts, across the river and directly into Paris.

Yes, I've seen this road on the strategic view, however I can't see the road going through trading posts. So there are 2 options:
1. Graphics badly implemented (or I'm blind) and the road is here.
2. The road was removed by redundancy after building Troyes, connected with Paris by river.

 

[AriochIV]

The road follows exactly the same path as you see in the strategic view. It's a little bit faint as it moves through the trading posts, but if you look you can see the trace of brown.

The source image is a small, poor quality JPEG of a screenshot taken from significant altitude.

 

[stealth_nsk]

The road follows exactly the same path as you see in the strategic view. It's a little bit faint as it moves through the trading posts, but if you look you can see the trace of brown.

Thanks! I'll try not to post any suggestions without information proof

 

[Sciguy001]

Wait, how do we know if a city has a trade route or not? Is there some sort of icon or something?

 

[stealth_nsk]

Wait, how do we know if a city has a trade route or not? Is there some sort of icon or something?

Right below the city name, if I'm correct.

 

[Louis XXIV]

It's a shame that rivers probably won't connect cities via trade. First thing people should mod, imo. Rivers were just too significant historically to ignore this (especially since rivers are short enough that having two cities worth building on the same river might not be that common of an occurrence). The mechanic for blockading the river should be straightforward. If an enemy unit is adjacent to the river at any point between the two cities, he cuts off trade.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Perhaps they will (just requiring a harbor)

 

[stealth_nsk]

Perhaps they will (just requiring a harbor)

Harbor could be built in coastal cities only. 2 coastal cities with harbor will be connected anyway.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Rivers were just too significant historically to ignore this (especially since rivers are short enough that having two cities worth building on the same river might not be that common of an occurrence).

Gameplay > realism. They wanted players to build and maintain trade routes, not just receive them right out of the box if you were lucky to found long river.

 

[r_rolo1]

River trade is not for free in RL. Most of the times you need to clean the river bottom to maintain it navigable and the river trade makes the construction of bridges far more problematic ( or the other way around if the bridges were there already ) ... not mentining that navigable rivers ( aka low declive sections ) have the nasty tendency to change course without warning if you don't force them to stay where you want them. If they added road maintenance they could had added river maintenance as well ...

 

[Louis XXIV]

Gameplay > realism. They wanted players to build and maintain trade routes, not just receive them right out of the box if you were lucky to found long river.

I'd argue it adds to gameplay. It encourages players to pay attention to all aspects of geography, including river placements. With the absence of health mechanic and presumably city size caps, rivers no longer have a bonus in that regard. Right now, they only have the adjacent tile bonus, but that gives no incentive to settle on rivers as opposed to one tile away. Adding to gameplay, it would also add complexity to transportation and city attacking, as rivers would impede domestic roads and give defensive bonuses in war.

Overall, I feel the best idea is one where gameplay and realism coincide. An example of this already exists with harbors. In real life, trade was mostly coastal, not through roads. The game encourages you to build coastal cities by allowing trade routes without having to build costly roads. This is both a gameplay thing (balancing slower transportation with more money) and a realism thing (coastal trade). Rivers would be exactly the same way, only for inland cities in certain situations.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Harbor could be built in coastal cities only. 2 coastal cities with harbor will be connected anyway.

Why not have a harbor buildable in a city bordering a river, making that city able to connect to other harbor cities on the river. (no river-road connections but river-city ones)

The maintenance would then be the maintenance cost of the Harbor... and all civs should start near Rivers or the coast.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Right now, they only have the adjacent tile bonus, but that gives no incentive to settle on rivers as opposed to one tile away.

Settling on rivers allows some buildings.

 

[Louis XXIV]

That's true, but is it significant enough? I just feel that, since we're mirroring trade routes, it's silly to still have river trade routes represented by gold on adjacent tiles when they can actually be represented by trade routes.

 

[Sciguy001]

Right below the city name, if I'm correct.

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

 

[stealth_nsk]

That's true, but is it significant enough? I just feel that, since we're mirroring trade routes, it's silly to still have river trade routes represented by gold on adjacent tiles when they can actually be represented by trade routes.

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.