1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Rivers

Discussion in 'Civ3 - General Discussions' started by Mercenary Gen., May 31, 2003.

?

Change the rivers?

  1. Yes! Atari should change the rivers

    22 vote(s)
    47.8%
  2. No! Keep the rivers the way that they are

    24 vote(s)
    52.2%
  1. Mercenary Gen.

    Mercenary Gen. Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 14, 2003
    Messages:
    34
    I was thinking shouldn't rivers be a bit different.
    I mean Hannibal had to really think about how he was going to get his elephants across the one river in northern Italy

    In the civil war you couldn't retreat across a river

    And Boats could actualy sail down the rivers.
    Don't you think Civ3 or 4 should have a changed river system?
     
  2. farting bob

    farting bob ThEy MaDe Me Do iT.

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    3,169
    Location:
    UK (sussex)
    i think they should be used for tradebetween 2 cities on the same river or a inland river city should be able to have a habour.
    and rivers to slow you down until conrstruction. before contruction it takes 1 turn to cross even on a road. after you discover contruction, all roads goign over a ricver have a bridge bult automatically (you cant see it), which makes this penalty obsolete.
    edit: and atari dont design civ, firaxis does. in your poll you say atari should change it.
     
  3. Frisian Warrior

    Frisian Warrior with a cannon

    Joined:
    May 30, 2003
    Messages:
    123
    Location:
    a goody hut
    I voted to keep them as they are, because I think they (at Firaxis) have done an excellent job, with the pre-engineering penalty and the extra commerce.:goodjob:
    But trade between two towns on the same stream should be possible, I agree to that. Also they should give some sort of movement bonus in the early stages, for units moving not across but in the direction of the river, especially in jungles. but I find it hard if not impossible to visualize how this could be done without unbalancing the whole system.
     
  4. farting bob

    farting bob ThEy MaDe Me Do iT.

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    3,169
    Location:
    UK (sussex)
    maybe going through a jungle or desert next to a river you get 1/2 original movement penalty. this would make rivers useful for civs that start in thick jungle, be more realistic and not unbalance the game.
     
  5. Ultraworld

    Ultraworld Emperor

    Joined:
    May 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,156
    support that too.
    They should act as a connection for the trade-network
     
  6. Naval Freak

    Naval Freak Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2002
    Messages:
    100
    Location:
    PA, USA
    the river in northern italy is the Po river.

    i think that trade down rivers is a good idea, but for ships, well, maybe only transports or triremes (galleys). an aircraft carrier will NOT fit in the Allegheny river, nor will an Ohio class sub. a destroyer will only fit if the river is flooding. so i would just scrap the idea.
     
  7. Louis XXIV

    Louis XXIV Le Roi Soleil

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    13,579
    Location:
    Norfolk, VA
    First off, Atari shouldn't change it. I hate when publishers neddle with games. If anyone would change it, it would be Firaxis

    Now, it can't act as a trade route because you couldn't block it (I like the in-between tiles, as opposed to the in-square tiles, so I wouldn't want that changed)

    The on-river movement bonus might not be as balanced in Civ3, as it was in Civ2 (if it was) I think it would influence your movement (like heading on mountains for a better view). It would be great if it was a 1/2 move, instead of 1/3

    Wheeled units shouldn't be able to cross a river without a Bridge (Engineering?). Maybe some tech could change this, not sure, but the default would force you to have a road, and the tech, in order for Chariots or Tanks to cross a river. That might be a bit radical.

    Lastly, Bridges should be graphically obvious. Roads over rivers shouldn't connect until you have the tech. When they do, little bridges should appear over them.
     
  8. warpstorm

    warpstorm Yumbo? Yumbo!

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2001
    Messages:
    7,688
    Location:
    Snack Food Capital of the World
    I agree with this.
     
  9. Jaybe

    Jaybe civus fanaticus Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2001
    Messages:
    2,561
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    The rivers in the game are MAJOR rivers. Crossing without bridges (roads) should cost an extra MP to represent fords or ferries and there should be a 50-100% (well, 50 anyway) defensive bonus. The defensive bonus you can change in the editor, but not the movement cost.

    Trade/movement along the river I am not that concerned about. River trade is already represented with the extra commerce.
     
  10. Ultraworld

    Ultraworld Emperor

    Joined:
    May 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,156
    Of course you can. Just put two units on the adjanct tiles

    I like them both. If I would be the designer than I think I couldn't made a decission.




    Sounds good

    Why not????????????/

    That is fake commerce. Real trade is when you go to another civ (also at the river) and exchange goods.

    Have also a look at my sign!!
     
  11. Greadius

    Greadius :yeah:

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2001
    Messages:
    5,721
    Location:
    Tallahassee, Florida, U.S.A.
    I think the map would have to be too detailed to pull that off... they'd need entire squares representing rivers, across which you can never build a bridge.

    Too much effort for to minor an issue.
     
  12. The Last Conformist

    The Last Conformist Irresistibly Attractive

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    27,779
    Location:
    Not on your side
    I think rivers are basically good as they are, altho' it should be graphically obvious whether there's a bridge or not.

    Rivers that are navigable by ships of any size for any notable length are extremely rare, and only able to bridge with modern tech - certainly not at the technological level suggested by the Engineering tech.

    Slightly OT; It'd be cool in an African scenario of the Congo was represented by a long narrow lake instead of a river, so you could have a fleet operating on it. The last, cataracted bit would be a short river between the 'lake' and the Atlantic, stopping sea-going vessels from entering the basin.

    (Edit: spelling)
     
  13. John-LP

    John-LP Libertarian

    Joined:
    May 29, 2003
    Messages:
    413
    Location:
    DIVIDED STATES OF AMERICA
    Something could be done, but nothing so drastic that it pisses me off. (LOL)
     
  14. TrailblazingScot

    TrailblazingScot I was kittenOFchaos

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2001
    Messages:
    6,866
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Brighouse, England
    I can think of a number of instances in the US Civil War that the Conferderates had to retreat over rivers with a Union army in pursuit.

    In terms of Civ3 however, it would be a good feature as regarding retreating. The boat idea is rubbish :p


    I would like to see canals being introduced however and I'd love to be able to have the equivalent of the Suez and Panama Canal that could be built -or via a wonder.

    Indeed I think I will make a real effort to see if that would be at all possible ;)
     
  15. JJP

    JJP Great Player

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Messages:
    627
    Location:
    Helsinki, Finland
    I think rivers should stay the way they are now.
     
  16. Louis XXIV

    Louis XXIV Le Roi Soleil

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    13,579
    Location:
    Norfolk, VA
    Good, because that's really all I agree with anyway :D
     
  17. RegentMan

    RegentMan Deity

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    6,951
    Location:
    Washington State
    Actually, the tech is Engineering.
     
  18. John-LP

    John-LP Libertarian

    Joined:
    May 29, 2003
    Messages:
    413
    Location:
    DIVIDED STATES OF AMERICA
    It`s not that critical of a game concept. It could use change and improvement, but it won`t destroy the game fun to leave it the way it is. I`m just afraid that the new concept will suck.

    ~~~ MY 30th POST! ~~~
     
  19. Sumorex

    Sumorex Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2003
    Messages:
    130
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Richardson, TX
    Overall I prefer the Civ3 rivers vs Civ2 rivers... I miss the speedy travel, but I like how the rivers interact with adjacent squares.

    I don't really like the river trade idea simply because its rare for a river to span two civilizations.

    The movement restrictions seem adequate, though it is a slight pain seeing them graphically sometimes.

    Anything short of a major overhaul of the engine would make river fleets infeasible. They'd have to return to the in square rivers at the least to do this, and if you're pushign for realism, you have to introduce the fall line to limit navigation.

    I guess most of the complaints raised I dismiss because I see the Civ 3 geography as a general overlay of how things are. The 'fake' commerce can be thought of as a representation of trade up and down river. The slight movement restrictions can take into account barges, ferries, fords, river boats.

    If they were going to turn their attention to something, I'd prefer new oceanic concepts like ships exerting large zones of control, merchant fleets laying down trade routes like workers laying down roads, oceanic railroads thru some sort of civ advance.
     
  20. Ultraworld

    Ultraworld Emperor

    Joined:
    May 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,156
    What about the donau.

    You should ask yourself:
    Is it realistic: YES
    Is it good for gameplay: YES
    Conclusions: Want to see it in Civ4
     

Share This Page