Rivers - what's the point?

[Ita Bear]

Hello folks,

One of Civ V's biggest weaknesses for me is that the map is not as important in comparison to the game before and after it. Settling on a river in Civ IV gives extra commerce plus health bonuses; in Civ VI, I get extra housing and appeal. Since health doesn't exist in Civ V and I don't get any economic benefit from rivers, except much later into the game through water mills, is there any reason to settle near rivers? Seems a shame to have such an important terrain feature and vital part of human civilisation go to waste.

Kind regards,
Ita Bear

 

[Stalker0]

You get an extra gold, the water mill is a very good building, and most importantly…baths, which give a very large amount of extra culture.

VP us flattened out the imbalances between terrain but rivers still have good benefits, just not so much that would restart of your not on one

 

[pineappledan]

You do get a commerce bonus: +25% gold for land TRs to and from cities on rivers.

 

[chicorbeef]

River farms also get +1 food by default.

 

[Gidoza]

You get an extra gold, the water mill is a very good building, and most importantly…baths, which give a very large amount of extra culture.

VP us flattened out the imbalances between terrain but rivers still have good benefits, just not so much that would restart of your not on one

The only thing I have to say about this is that the Culture benefit during Golden Ages is particularly massive on a Capital. As far as I'm concerned, all Capitals should be considered to be River tiles whether or not they're on an actual River - making Baths always buildable in the Capital alongside other River tile benefits. The Capital makes enough yields to actually make the difference of River and not severely disorientating if you ask me.

 

[bonniepbilly]

I had a similar concern as the OP in my thread on the well, which is a strong advantage for non-river cities...

 

[Histomen]

I had a similar concern as the OP in my thread on the well, which is a strong advantage for non-river cities...

Only early, the comparative differences between well and watermill are noticeable and can really help early mid game unit production and wonder pushes.
Much like everything in the game, your civ choice makes this matter more or less. The commerce, defensive, cultural, and long term advantages of city placements are all something to consider when putting cities down in the ancient and early classical eras.

More wonders mod also makes rivers either a choice or not to your benefit.

 

[azum4roll]

Rivers also make great choke points against anyone not named Askia (and in some cases Pachacuti and Harald).

 

[Asterix Rage]

Hello folks,

One of Civ V's biggest weaknesses for me is that the map is not as important in comparison to the game before and after it. Settling on a river in Civ IV gives extra commerce plus health bonuses; in Civ VI, I get extra housing and appeal. Since health doesn't exist in Civ V and I don't get any economic benefit from rivers, except much later into the game through water mills, is there any reason to settle near rivers? Seems a shame to have such an important terrain feature and vital part of human civilisation go to waste.

Kind regards,
Ita Bear

Actually, it took years to VP engineers to make rivers balanced through multi aspects of the game Not anymore a basic land feature.
A positive side effect: There is room for CivMods to create many new tactical mechanics around rivers.

 

[Tekamthi]

i think rivers would be more interesting if VP dropped "ignores terrain cost" on recon, and instead added a double-moves in river tiles promo, possibly available to one of the other infantry lines as well

some of the bonuses mentioned in this thread are subtle, I wouldn't mind if bonuses were slightly enhanced in some way, as OP suggests

 

[Fluffball]

I think in city terms the fact that having or not having a river is not game deciding. i.e. you don't need to reroll a start just because you didn't get a river to settle on, shows rivers and the city mechanics around them are in a good place. I like a generally random start for my games so i have to think on my feet more rather than just picking a civ and rerolling for the perfect start and while i do like a river to settle on, not having one is not cause to reroll a start.

For me a river is probably mmore of a great bonus as a defensive structure and for the most part utilising a river well for defense can really turn the tide of a battle and create a very strong defensive position.

Regarding the suggestion to drop the "ignores terrain cost" on recon i am extremely wary of that idea as it sounds very similar to how recon work in Civ VI which i found very poorly implemented where i often found that by then end of the game i had large portions of unrevealed territory still as recon units were so slow.

 

[Snipergw]

I for one would be happy to see rivers create city connections for cities, like in Civ4. Not a huge deal, but makes expanding along a river slightly more beneficial early on. Whoward has a pick'n'mix with the functionality.

 

[Hinin]

I for one would be happy to see rivers create city connections for cities, like in Civ4. Not a huge deal, but makes expanding along a river slightly more beneficial early on. Whoward has a pick'n'mix with the functionality.

That already what Songhai's UA does.

 

[Tekamthi]

That already what Songhai's UA does.

the city connection via river is such a staple of civ franchise... i'd go with another UA and restore this ability to all, if it were up to me... maybe songhai cities on river get ++trade route range and yields, to keep some thematic relevance

 

[BiteInTheMark]

The little bonus of one gold for cities on rivers or the later available baths are not really a balance problem in my eyes.

But I see a huge disadvantage for non-river starts cause of much less efficiant farms. There is a huge difference, if you are able to earn +2 food after paying the food for the citizen for grassland river tiles over only +1 for a grassland tile without a river. That's a 100% increase.
In my opinion, a farm should give always +2 food, independently of a river tile or not.

 

[azum4roll]

The little bonus of one gold for cities on rivers or the later available baths are not really a balance problem in my eyes.

But I see a huge disadvantage for non-river starts cause of much less efficiant farms. There is a huge difference, if you are able to earn +2 food after paying the food for the citizen for grassland river tiles over only +1 for a grassland tile without a river. That's a 100% increase.
In my opinion, a farm should give always +2 food, independently of a river tile or not.

Do you really get a start without any fresh water nearby? I'd like a screenshot of that.

 

[Fluffball]

But I see a huge disadvantage for non-river starts cause of much less efficiant farms. There is a huge difference, if you are able to earn +2 food after paying the food for the citizen for grassland river tiles over only +1 for a grassland tile without a river. That's a 100% increase.

I think we should distinguish between settling on a river and having river tiles within the cities workable radius.

In regards to your starting city in particular where you get what your given for the most part, i rarely find myself where there isn't at least some workable river tiles within the workable radius even if they may not be worked until i expand to them with the city borders or via planting another city and this is usually fine as for the situations where i do have immediate availability of river tiles and a worker to turn them into farms i for the most part don't end up working those tiles in the very early game, either because production/gold/faith is more important for my immediate needs or there are much better tiles that can be improved and worked such as luxury tiles which give plenty of food and other resources.

I will generally only start working farm tiles if either there are no better tiles or i am past the initial starting stage and now settled with enough military, workers, basic infrastructure and now focusing more on growing my cities and if i was in the situation of only having river tiles in the outer ring i would have been able to gain access to them either by expanding borders or settling another city to claim them and transfer them to the needed city.

In the longer game i often find i have a huge amount of unworked farm tiles either because i am going wide and thus limiting city sizes to prevent unhappiness or if i am going tall most of my population are specialists and again other tiles are generally much more productive than farms such as great person tiles, luxuries and strategics so in the longer term so one or two river farm tiles in the cities workable area tends to be more than enough for the majority of my cities.

The only time i find food to be a limiting factor is where there is a large number of 1 food tiles i have to work and if i have to found a city in that situation. e.g. to get a monopoly, strategic resource or a strategic position then i will probably end up focusing on farm tiles but even if that isn't possible i will just send a food trade route.

Therefore i find lack of fresh water may not be ideal in some cercumstances but it certainly isn't game ending or game deciding and i have had plenty of successful games with a shortage of river tiles.

 

[stii]

Yeah I think I'd rather not have any fresh water so I can build a well most of the time. Unless food is super tight farms just aren't very good.

 

[Bromar1]

I always disable the river requirement for Baths. For GA oriented civs, not having access to that extra culture is a huge detriment

 

[Gizmoman]

I always disable the river requirement for Baths. For GA oriented civs, not having access to that extra culture is a huge detriment

Well, in that case then maybe rivers are underwhelming....