Ships in the rivers?

[wisewood]

Shouldn't we have ships in the rivers...like you can take a galley and go down the river..and settle somewhere else...This is needed definately...this would add a lot of realism to the game...What do you think?

 

[Pathetic Leader]

yes and no. I see where you are coing from, but for C3 they changed it so that rivers were on the borders of tiles and not tiles in there own rights.

There are good points and bad for both. example having river tiles meant extra trade in c2 where as having rivers as borders gives defnders an advantage.

 

[Bibor]

maybe both? river and wide river?

One being on edge of tiles (civ3), other being a tile type (civ2)?

kirby

 

[Pathetic Leader]

now that works

 

[DJ Bonebraker]

maybe both? river and wide river?

One being on edge of tiles (civ3), other being a tile type (civ2)?

kirby

I second this motion. That way we could have navicable bodies of fresh water, like the Amazon, Nile and Mississippi rivers, as well as smaller, impassible creeks and streams.

Also too add to this, maybe also make it possible for cities beside freshwater lakes (especially larger ones) to build harbors and such to increase productivity from lakes and build naval units on lakes, but that might be a bit far fetchsed (especially for 1-tile lakes).

On another, more closely related note, I'd also like to add the suggestion for a "canal" terrain improvement that, would allow ships to travel accross land squares, but make it really hard to build, so that you'd naturally build them in as narrow strips of land as possible (think Suez and Panama).

 

[Pathetic Leader]

I like the idea of canals, and river tiles.

My only fear is that if we build these improvements for ships, how do we get roads etc across

 

[Jawn Henry]

Same as a river: you need a bridge (and thus some sort of Bridge Building tech).

JH

 

[E-Raser]

All possible I guess. But imagine Longboats squeezed with bloodthursty Viking Berserks sailing up the river Seine, "Hello Paris, here we go..."
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEES!!! I'd love it.

 

[DJ Bonebraker]

Same as a river: you need a bridge (and thus some sort of Bridge Building tech).

JH

Heck yeah, I can't believe I thought of that one myself!

Another alternative would be for underwater tunnels, but requiring a late industrial or modern age tech, and again taking a long time to build (I.e. the Chunnel, the Baltimore Bay Tunnel or that huge tunnel between Hokkaido and Honshu in Japan). I'd love to see any of these features (especially the longboats full of Vikings heading up river for some French booty ).

 

[wisewood]

It would be nice to have few larger rivers in the game...that you can navigate...like amazon, nile, etc. and the rest should be smaller...Canals are just too much....When you irrigate..you practically make canals...how else would you irrigate...We need to keep the game playable and interesting, and not have too many details to worry about..

About the rivers..
If you want to navigate the rivers with the ships , rivers would have to be a separate square...which would create some problems in the game making...

 

[E-Raser]

I don't agree. I guess it could be coded that ships are able to get up river squares.

 

[Mewtarthio]

Canals are just too much....When you irrigate..you practically make canals...how else would you irrigate...We need to keep the game playable and interesting, and not have too many details to worry about..

Irrigation is little more than building ditches to allow water to flow through the land. Canals are artifical rivers. I hardly see the similarity. As for "too many details," canals would be as simple as adding a new worker action. The ability to build Airfields hasn't exactly complicated the game.

About the rivers..
If you want to navigate the rivers with the ships , rivers would have to be a separate square...which would create some problems in the game making...

What? I have no idea what you just said.

 

[Bibor]

Now why would adding a new tile type be so difficult? hm...

 

[masterofdragons]

Well, putting a city on an ismuth does create a canal effect. As far as navigable(?) rivers, I like the idea, but how do we do that without making them unique tiles and utterly deforming the look of the maps? I would like to bring back the trading aspect of rivers too. After all, until the 19th century nations depended mostly on rivers and oceans for their trade routes.

 

[Colonel]

how about make it look like a navagateable river but with concrete on the side-A Canal
basically it would be a river like that but land units could cross it tooo

 

[sir_schwick]

Here is more on implementation then discussion.

On Canals:
Over time canals could go farther and farther inland. At first a canal could only extend 1 square from the start of the canal. This would allow you to connect oceans seperated by two tiles(or one large lakes with oceans). Over time you could build longer and more eleaborate canals, eventually allowing you to connect good industrial appears with the ocean(althogh indiredctly). A bit farfeetched, but so is the fact ships only travel on the ocean.

 

[wisewood]

To Mertarthio,

my english is not that good since i am from Greece...well....

 

[superpelon]

Colonization had two types of rivers.... major and minor... this could be modeled into the game. make major rivers usable by ships and require bridges to cross... minor rivers dont.

 

[Me-262]

yes,in real life sometimes the safest way is to go up the river so they should do it. nuke `em all.ha ha ha