River movement

[Wimsey]

As I mentioned in the first post, I consider all of the rivers in Civ to be major rivers - the minor ones don't show up on the map. Remember that rivers give trade connection, so it is rather obviously implied that you can sail on them. To me, the definition of a Civ river is a waterway that is big enough both to be traversable, but also impossible to ford without boats. That's why I want rivers to preferably both have the ability to hinder or enhance movement, depending on the direction, and also be more useful as defencive lines.

Perhaps it would better to forget the whole splitting the tile thing, and simply make it that when a unit moves onto a river tile from a non-river tile, it's turn ends (railroads and roads permitting- which is another factor to be considered). This would have the same effect, representing the build raft thing.

Certainly a step in the right direction, but as the vast majority of stacks contains units with move 1, would only hinder some units. (That's a general terrain problem IMO - movement is unaffected, yet forests give obscene defencive bonuses. And the units that are affected nagatively by terrain are the ones that don't receive defencive bonuses anyway!)
Your right about not needing to split tiles , my idea could work with river placement currently as it is. I would prefer rivers on tiles though, mostly because it fits so nicely with my economy model that's somewhere around here.

As to dams, cool. I'm all for them if we find a good way to handle the power they're producing. But they don't seriously affect the flow of a river, only temporarily delay it as nao.. nau.. someone said. And you have to irrigate a lot to severely affect a major river (the smaller ones are another matter, but they're not in the game anyway). And then we have salination and erosion and all those other funny effects from messing with nature... but this is Civ - not Simfarm. I'm happy to leave irrigation as it is, although if elevation was added we could at least limit irrigation to tiles dowriver from the river.

Pollution by river could maybe be a little cool. Rivers bring lots of filth with it, and it needn't be too difficult. Maybe take some from the cities upriver and give them to cities further down. I can see that increasing tensions between nations. A more elaborate pollution system could probably expand further on it, but in that case it needs to be a part of a bigger picture.

 

[V. Soma]

As for rivers: how about REAL bridges built on tile to help movement?
Bridges could lead to interesting war-tactic... could be destroyable, etc.

If not crossing by bridge, units should STOP at river in the turn they move, crossing next turn,
unless they have promotion to enable them crossing in the same turn (say, with 2 MP left for it)...

 

[Trias]

[...]
Certainly a step in the right direction, but as the vast majority of stacks contains units with move 1, would only hinder some units. (That's a general terrain problem IMO - movement is unaffected, yet forests give obscene defensive bonuses. And the units that are affected negatively by terrain are the ones that don't receive defensive bonuses anyway!)

One way to fix that would be to make the base move of foot units 2.This would also open up the possibility if introducing units that are slower than normal units. Early siege weapons could fall in that category.

Obviously, such a change would require some scaling in other areas of the game to balance out the timings.

 

[Hail]

One way to fix that would be to make the base move of foot units 2.This would also open up the possibility if introducing units that are slower than normal units. Early siege weapons could fall in that category.

Obviously, such a change would require some scaling in other areas of the game to balance out the timings.

i object on the ground, that your proposition would tilt civ even more toward warfare.
making warfare faster means that you get more for less since cities are rarely build more than 3 tiles apart.

 

[Tholish]

The current rivers represent major rivers. Navigability could be added as a feature sort of like flood plain that allows the travel of water units into any land tiles that are both adjacent to a river and adjacent to a coast. This could be modded. Minor rivers can be ignored, considered part of the forests they water and the hills that water them. Building a road represents contructing infrastructure for quick movement. Though the graphics show a road, along a river this infrastructure may take the form of ferries or barges. In fact the graphics depict this, mainly in regard to trade. This is merely a matter of perceptionl

If there were battle screens for grand tactical resolution of stack fights, the rivers could be placed there with both sides negotiable and the defender better positioned to use it. As the current system attempts to make the strategic map double as a tactical map, having rivers provide a defensive bonus is just fine.

 

[Naokaukodem]

But why? That which they are really important for; trade and irrigation, are perfectly well represented in the game.

Because of this:

In antic era, Sumeria, the first civilization, had to unify all sumerian in order to work decently the lands around the Tigre and the Euphrate.

 

[Camikaze]

And the working of these lands is represented through irrigation.

 

[Naokaukodem]

And the working of these lands is represented through irrigation.

To UNIFY. Never in Civ you had to conquer others because of rivers...

 

[Camikaze]

True, I guess. But then again, it is represented in civ to a degree. If you want your farms to be irrigated, then you have to attack your neighbour who has access to them. Part of the limited scale of early game conquest for rivers comes from the fact that you don't usually go to war until a few thousand years into the game, but that's a different issue. The rivers themselves are currently suitable to facilitate that possibility.

 

[Naokaukodem]

You have never to go to war for a tile that your possess already. With sized rivers, upstream and downstream, it may become necessary in some cases.

 

[Camikaze]

I was talking about when there is a river that could be used for irrigation, but is in another civ's borders. I would be happy enough with an upstream/downstream thing, and two sorts of rivers (large and small), but I don't really think that it is all that necessary or warranted to make it all that much more of an important aspect of the game.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I was talking about when there is a river that could be used for irrigation, but is in another civ's borders.

It much more looks like grabbing additionnal territory (irrigated or not) than simply improving the one you already possess.

If you do not intend to conquer but want to profit from you land quite decently, you may have to plane a conquest anyway. It forces players to go after necessity like it is in reality.

 

[CivMyWay]

Edit: Deleted. I'm altering my suggestion; bbs.

 

[rysmiel]

To UNIFY. Never in Civ you had to conquer others because of rivers...

This is not true; in Civ 3, if you have no fresh water handy, you can easily end up needing to invade someone to get access to a river so you can begin irrigating - happened me in the game before the one I'm currently playing, fwiw.

 

[CivMyWay]

Ok I think I have worked out a workable model (though maybe no better than what we have currently?)

Note that rivers would normally terminate/start with either in ocean or lakes, not shown here (but these would be in the centre of the tile). Rivers are all main rivers, and are between the grid.

As shown on diagram1 the following tiles have a NATURAL FEATURE of a river:
(a) and (b) on NW and N edges
(f) and (e) on SE and S edges
(d) S edge

Both tiles are said to have the river within their tile.

The tiles gain all the benefits associated with a river. Because of the river, both land units and appropriate water units can enter those tiles.

Combat: Ok, so for the example lets say unit1 and Unit2, both from opposing civs. Unit1 is a land unit at (a) and a unit2 is a water unit which enters (a):

• If unit1 has the modifier of SHORT_RANGE_ATTACK (e.g. bows), they can attack, inflicting (some) damage on unit2. (I'm assuming that the river is big enough that a land based enemy cannot do more than take potshots at them).
• Unit2 must decide if they engage the enemy or not (similar to an ambush situation), via an action icon. (They will also suffer a -25% defence penalty)

Two opposing enemies cannot both have land units or water units on the same tile; normal battle occurs.

Now, movement:
Without the technology of boating and having built a raft the unit at (a) cannot move to (f) or (e).
For appropriate units (i.e. not seige weapons) and with the technology, when on a tile with a river the unit has a "build raft" action. This will cost 1 movement points (although there will be a higher penalty for a larger stack), and an amount of wood. The unit can then move from (a) to f, e, b or g at a movement cost of 0.5. (I'm not heaps happy with this, because it means that effectively a river is only costing 0.5 movement penalty, which negates quickly if you actually travel down the river).

If there was an enemy at (f), (e) or (b) then unit attacking from (a) will suffer a defensive penalty of -25% and the defending enemy also gets first strike. (If the defender is in an ambush condition, then they do not receive the -25% defensive penalty).

A tile improvement can be built which makes a ferry a permanent fixture, removing the initial movement cost.

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

Movement along rivers could be done with Civ4 rivers handle. Just make the square near rivers act like roads.

For Civ 5

Just make the river on the square. River ought to be treated as a unique terrain for unique actions by any units that is either on the river square or adjacent from the river square.

 

[Trias]

Ok I think I have worked out a workable model (though maybe no better than what we have currently?)

Note that rivers would normally terminate/start with either in ocean or lakes, not shown here (but these would be in the centre of the tile). Rivers are all main rivers, and are between the grid.

As shown on diagram1 the following tiles have a NATURAL FEATURE of a river:
(a) and (b) on NW and N edges
(f) and (e) on SE and S edges
(d) S edge

Both tiles are said to have the river within their tile.

The tiles gain all the benefits associated with a river. Because of the river, both land units and appropriate water units can enter those tiles.

A potential problem here is tiles that border on two different rivers. Boats navigating one river would be able to magically jump to the other river without any movement penalty.

An alternative would be to treat naval units fundamentally different from land units by letting naval units always move along the edges and vertices of the grid. This would make it clear which river a boat is navigating. It also further differentiates between land and naval units.

 

[CivMyWay]

A potential problem here is tiles that border on two different rivers. Boats navigating one river would be able to magically jump to the other river without any movement penalty.

For this reason it would be impossible to have more than one river per tile (e.g. not connected two each other via the hex sides e.g. North border and South border). A N and NE border would be OK.. because the unit can be considered to be anywhere on the rivers within the tile...just as a land unit is considered to be anywhere within a tile, and so can engage enemies moving in from all sides.

 

[CivMyWay]

Just make the river on the square. River ought to be treated as a unique terrain for unique actions by any units that is either on the river square or adjacent from the river square.

One problem with river on tile is how to draw terrain improvements over the top of it... especially if you start adding in a whole range more of terrain improvements.