River movement

[Wimsey]

In Civ 2 rivers were on tiles and facilitated movement, in Civ3 and 4 they were between tiles and hindered movement (though too such a small extent they might as well had left it out) and added defence (also a rather useless effect as they're too easy to avoid). Both these approaches reflects qualities of rivers, but why not try let rivers both act as a liability or a blessing depending on which way you travel? I'll give it a go.

Just keep in mind here that I'm thinking about big navigable rivers here, of the kind where you can sail a decent-sized boat, but where you also need a vessel of some kind to cross. I'm using a hex grid for my illustrations because I'm a hex-fanatic and happen to think they would work best for this purpose, bt with a little imagination I think that this idea would work with squares too.

Here's the idea: Rivers are on tiles rather than between them. When a unit moves onto a river tile it cannot cross it that turn with any remaining move points. In order to cross, it must stand still on the river tile for one turn (building rafts or something similar) After this turn, it can move freely across the river, but it will also have extra movement along the river (as the unit now travels on rafts or boats).

In effect, the river tile is split into 2, and the unit stands on one of the banks. It does however occupy the whole tile against enemies. This must be represented by some clear but simple graphics, as must wether a unit is rafted or not. A unit standing on a river tile will get defence bonus against all enemies coming from the other side of the river. Rafted enemies are considered to occupy both banks, so you will not get a defence bonus against them (imagine they can disembark on the right side, and then approach the enemy).

Bridges will now be built on tiles, and should be an exensive improvement that preferably requires some kind of upkeep (so they wont be built anywhere). This should make bridges important tactical features in combat. To make them even more so we could (just brainstorming):
- Let rafts take even longer to build (2 or 3 turns?)
- Let units have a negative defence modifier while they're building rafts (they are out in the open and busy)

Perhaps we might finally see some important bridge-busting paratroopers?

There is one problem I immideately see with this idea, and that is when a non-rafted unit is on a bridge tile and walks along the river, the player must have a way of deciding which bank the unit will walk on. With go to command it isn't a problem, just shift the target arrow enough to one side so it is clear which bank it is on. With numpad however, it becomes a bit more difficult to give the order... (But I guess we all use laptops now anyway?)

To illustrate:
In fig1 (turn 1) a move 2 unit wishes to cross the river. The light green area is the unit's possible moves. It cannot cross this turn, but chooses to walk up to the river.

Fig2 (turn 2) The unit still cannot cross the river, but chooses to use this turn standing still and building rafts.

Fig3 (turn 3) The unit is now rafted, and can move freely. In addition, it has extra movement along the river, which lasts until it chooses to leave the river.

 

[Camikaze]

Sounds interesting, but complicated. It may be hard for the average player to grasp and use effectively. I mean, having different moving conditions dependant on direction would require a fair amount of attention on movement that could probably be spent on other micro-like things. But I like the general thought of the idea.

And splitting a river tile in two is really just making it two tiles and putting a river between them, which is what you wanted to avoid. If you count the river which you move along as a tile, then you essentially have three tiles per tile, as such.

 

[Wimsey]

Woud it really seem so complicated? A unit walks up to a river, then presses a "build raft" button in the command panel (skip turn or fortify wold also do it), and can then cross. I can hardly see a new player giving up Civ because that part was too complex. Giving additional movement in the lengthwise direction of the river is no less intuitive than giving extra movement in the lengthwise direction of a road. Both only give bonuses whn staying on the terrain feature, and make immideate sense.

The "splitting" og the tile is somewhat more complicated, and I don't really like it myself. But keep in mind that for the purposes of production and holding it against an enemy it is just one tile, it is ony movement that clutters up things a little. A player usually knows which side he is coming from and hich side he is going to, and the computer will keep track on which bank you're on. Even when moving from a bridge tile you will more often than not give a waypoint to a tile not on the river, in which case the choice of which riverbank to move onto is both obvious and automatic. On the whole, I don't think the idea is to complicated. I'm more worried if this idea makes rivers important enough, or if players can still largely ignore them. If so, there's no going to bother implementing them.

By the way, it could actually work with rivers betwen tiles too, in which case you would get additional movement along tiles on both sides after your unit is rafted. Might even be more intuitive?

 

[Naokaukodem]

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

 

[Colonel]

I had a really extensive idea in a thread awhile back. Basically rivers enhabit the tile like in Civ2 but they vary in sizes. I think I said 5 different sizes, the largest of which could have a full on modern battleship traverse it, but the smallest could only fit a work boat. Second part was to have rivers randomly change in size the further along they go. So eventually that huge river could just end in single water tile after getting progressively smaller.

 

[Camikaze]

Woud it really seem so complicated? A unit walks up to a river, then presses a "build raft" button in the command panel (skip turn or fortify wold also do it), and can then cross. I can hardly see a new player giving up Civ because that part was too complex. Giving additional movement in the lengthwise direction of the river is no less intuitive than giving extra movement in the lengthwise direction of a road. Both only give bonuses whn staying on the terrain feature, and make immideate sense.

I 'spose. When I first read it, it seemed a lot more complicated than it does now.

The "splitting" og the tile is somewhat more complicated, and I don't really like it myself. But keep in mind that for the purposes of production and holding it against an enemy it is just one tile, it is ony movement that clutters up things a little. A player usually knows which side he is coming from and hich side he is going to, and the computer will keep track on which bank you're on. Even when moving from a bridge tile you will more often than not give a waypoint to a tile not on the river, in which case the choice of which riverbank to move onto is both obvious and automatic. On the whole, I don't think the idea is to complicated. I'm more worried if this idea makes rivers important enough, or if players can still largely ignore them. If so, there's no going to bother implementing them.

By the way, it could actually work with rivers betwen tiles too, in which case you would get additional movement along tiles on both sides after your unit is rafted. Might even be more intuitive?

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.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I had a really extensive idea in a thread awhile back. Basically rivers enhabit the tile like in Civ2 but they vary in sizes. I think I said 5 different sizes, the largest of which could have a full on modern battleship traverse it, but the smallest could only fit a work boat. Second part was to have rivers randomly change in size the further along they go. So eventually that huge river could just end in single water tile after getting progressively smaller.

It would be cool that rivers could be controlled upstream.

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. In Civ, that would be interesting to control the upstream of a river, when another civilization has the downstream. It could be an interesting topic of early war.

Also, it could be cool to see the importance of the rivers increasing, even if it is a bit unrealisitc. I mean, in world map, rivers are not supposed to be that long. But they indeed should cross whole continents in order to them to be a key feature.

So yes, it would be cool to simulate the size of the rivers, changing with what we do to them upstream, like irrigation in early times, and dams in later ages.

 

[CivMyWay]

And if the river was controllable (editable upstream), it would allow me to cut it off (dam it up) or even poison it, to effect a city down below.

 

[Gamemaster77]

Poisoning a river would be cool.

 

[Naokaukodem]

And if the river was controllable (editable upstream), it would allow me to cut it off (dam it up) or even poison it, to effect a city down below.

Dams should not provide the ability to cut off a river, because they have a limited capacity, not to mention during the time of a turn. They only should provide a production bonus to the controlling civ.

 

[Gangor]

I suggest 3 river types.

1) Minor rivers
Only stops movement along roads (pre construction), as in previous Civs. No combat bonuses because the river is too small to affect soldiers.

2) Major rivers
These tiles are divided into three - two banks and the river itself. When a unit approaches a river, it is on the near bank. To cross, it must spend (a) turn(s) building rafts/pontoon bridges as suggested previously. An enemy unit can occupy the far bank, as it is effectively a seperate tile.

3) Navigatable rivers
These would occupy a whole tile, and could only be crossed with a ship. The difference with sea tiles would be that a worker could enter the tile to build a bridge (with the appropriate tech), and like all rivers it would provide fresh water.

 

[CivMyWay]

Dams should not provide the ability to cut off a river, because they have a limited capacity, not to mention during the time of a turn. They only should provide a production bonus to the controlling civ.

Not a dam in terms of a big hole, but a dam in terms of "I am diverting the water" so you end up with a flood plain/swamp/similar. Actually, flood plain would make it interesting because then civ A has something to gain (bonus production), in addition to just hurting Civ B. (Large scale river re-direction was done in Egypt to build large structures (I believe).

 

[Camikaze]

@Gangor- too complicated, IMO. Rivers are not meant to be a central feature of civ, and although it is always nice to improve terrain, what you suggest probably goes too far.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Not a dam in terms of a big hole, but a dam in terms of "I am diverting the water" so you end up with a flood plain/swamp/similar. Actually, flood plain would make it interesting because then civ A has something to gain (bonus production), in addition to just hurting Civ B. (Large scale river re-direction was done in Egypt to build large structures (I believe).

Dams do not divert the water. They are just retaining it for a certain time for the good of the downstream (in case of natural raw caused by seasons or rain), and produce electricity.

However, irrigation divert the water.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Rivers are not meant to be a central feature of civ

Well, I think it should become one. I would not separate arbitrarilly the size of the rivers, just give them a number of size.

 

[Camikaze]

Well, I think it should become one.

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

 

[Tee Kay]

You're forgetting troop movements. Rivers like the Yangtze were major highways for soldiers moving across a vast country like China. On their conquests the Mongols spent six years trying to secure a town on the banks of the Han River so that they can reach the heartland of Song China by river.

Obviously not all rivers are navigable like the Yangtze, which is why the distinction is needed.

 

[Camikaze]

Well, yeah, that's why I'm supporting this idea too (kinda). But I don't really see how different river sizes would help, particularly more so that what Wimsey proposed.

 

[Tee Kay]

I still feel there should be a distinction between minor and major rivers (say, the Yarra and the lower Yangtze). I would suggest having only two (rather than three) types of rivers - minor and major, with only the second type being navigable by troops on rafts and ships, but both providing fresh water.

 

[Camikaze]

That would make sense, I guess. I 'spose I'm only worried about there being a whole myriad of river types, which would just be confusing.