So my economy collapsed...Rivers overpowered?

[skallben]

After a consecutive golden age for I don't even know anymore, I just kept feeding it. Boom, no more great persons and I land on -60 gpt... This is on a standard-size continents.

I am at war but had to disband a few units since I broke the back on the germans and just keep slowly taking cities now. I teched for Electricity and now I'm building stock exchanges all over but I still notice in this game I have kind of lousy economy.

So I start looking around at the map, my lands. I notice the impact rivers really have. It's half a tradepost per square for free, except you miss rationalism bonus, never really thought about it in those terms before but it's really huge.

I checked my capital. 10 river squares. 60 gold income, that is with a bank and marketplace. So 15 out of 60 is due to geography...

I like the game, but except from AI there is also production and economy I am sceptic towards.

edit: Err, this was supposed to be in general forums.

 

[MeowTau]

Yeah... I guess it is realistic or whatever as so many cities are by rivers. But seriously I've gotten to the point where I won't even play a game if I don't start by a nice river.

 

[ignite]

Build more tradeposts, don't build so many units, don't build so many useless buildings, and your GPT will be fine. Coastal cities are pretty decent as well for good. Obviously there are many things benefiting river cities (hydro plant adds 1 production to every tile near a river I believe). That's pretty far late in the game, but still...

 

[Syiss_]

Yes rivers are very powerful. Crucial for a good production city (since food resources don't give much of a boost any more), and very beneficial for a gold city. All that river gold gets run through the multipliers from buildings too. Riverside hills are also great for farming.

 

[dannythefool]

Yeah... I guess it is realistic or whatever as so many cities are by rivers. But seriously I've gotten to the point where I won't even play a game if I don't start by a nice river.

That's more or less what happened in reality

 

[MaXimillionZero]

Rivers>Non-rivers
Plains>Grassland

The impact of rivers is much bigger than in Civ IV though, what with the reduced improvement yields.

 

[agentkirb]

In my one game I've completed I never had a problem with economy. I had a decent sized Roman Empire (10-12 real cities, 8-10 puppets).

-Roads connected every city, but only just enough (no unnecessary roads).
-A few railroads, really just enough to connect a few cities to your capital, and sometimes you can get away with far less. I'd probably just have one railroad going across from one end of your empire to the other (I'm assuming your capitol is on one side of a continent).
-No unnecessary buildings!! Pick the direction you want to go as soon as you can and build the appropriate buildings for that strategy. If you are doing a tech victory, build libraries and such and don't build temples and monuments. If you are going for a military victory you should probably build units and barracks (although maybe not in every city). I usually don't mess with +food buildings unless I want to populate a city really fast (maybe it's my last city I plan on settling) or if said city is starving. You don't neccesarily want highly populated cities once you reach 15+ (this is only if you have a lot of cities). Obviously go for the +gold buildings because they have no drawbacks (other than time).
-Keep enough military around for defense, unless you are going for the military victory of course.

And this is all I can think of to help control your economy. In my game I had a large enough empire I didn't really notice rivers, it evens out once you have over 10 cities in your empire.

Like I said though, in my game I never had an issue with economy. Was pulling over 200 GPT, and then when I was able to build railroads that cut itself down to about 80 and by then I won the game via tech victory (I did conquer two Civs in the process early in the game).

 

[dalowrider]

just try a game with arabia and only put 1 or 2 farms and maybe a mine around your capital, litter everything else with trading posts and buy your food from maritime CS, you will still see nice size cities and a gold of +200 per turn, more than enough to make up for any lost hammers.

also only build happiness and money buildings in most places, culture where you wanna eat up tiles and science buildings in your largest cities (over 6 or more depending)

and dont forget the +1 science to trading posts perk!

EDIT: I should say when i tried this strat I had about 21 (later 30+) cities and always kept 200 gpt average, even without tearing down newly conquered roads and connecting every city with railroads, one golden age had +600 gpt

 

[mamelukes]

you may just shift some none money output tile to the merchant in the city

 

[kaltorak]

Up to king I have never had any money problems, and I hardly ever build a tradepost.

But I can't give any further advice, I don't do anything special. I just look at what I need and what I don't

 

[alpaca]

Well? Rivers are good, and they should be. You can still get a nice empire going without a river but they are a welcome boost.

Off-topic, I think people are over-evaluating rationalism. I never had significant problems getting more than enough science (haven't played on Deity, though) by getting my population up with the aid of maritime city states, so Theocracy was a lot more useful for me than the whole Rationalism tree would ever have been. Sure, the two SPs may up your research by 50% or so but that hardly matters when I'm researching new techs in 5 turns anyways

 

[dalowrider]

Off-topic, I think people are over-evaluating rationalism. I never had significant problems getting more than enough science (haven't played on Deity, though) by getting my population up with the aid of maritime city states, so Theocracy was a lot more useful for me than the whole Rationalism tree would ever have been. Sure, the two SPs may up your research by 50% or so but that hardly matters when I'm researching new techs in 5 turns anyways

during the game i mentioned earlier I had the 2nd largest civ on the continent with a skeleton force military since i was putting production into money and happiness buildings

I also had saved 2 GS from earlier eras while waiting for a slingshot. I had just gotten to renaissance, only the bottom most line up to before rifling maybe 1 or 2 more but not much, popped 1 for rifling, used my saved SP's to branch to the 2 free tech, filled the line above that (with fert and the other) and popped the other for dynamite and used my ungodly money production to buy rifles and artillery and mow down the other civs on the continent no prob

It comes a little late but if you hold steady until it gets there you can get a ridiculous tech/military lead at a very decisive point in military strength increase

 

[Celevin]

The lower tile values make rivers and golden ages much more powerful. I'm not liking it... And it would be a total pain in the ass to try and fix.

 

[Ahriman]

And it would be a total pain in the ass to try and fix.

Yes. You would have to redesign tile yields, improvement yields, all build costs, unit costs, maintenance, everything that cost gold.... etc.
The whole economy engine.

Its probably easier to reduce golden age length, but even that doesn't quite work, it still favors the river tiles too much over the others.

 

[alpaca]

I don't agree golden ages should be "fixed". They are powerful and they should be. In Civ4 I mainly used golden ages to avoid anarchy when switching civics but the economic effects weren't that great.

Rivers might be another issue because the +1 gold is very strong, especially with golden ages. But I see them just as another luck factor for the map generation: Starting near a lot of luxury resources is also a big advantage while starting in the middle of a desert is a disadvantage. I personally don't want a game where every starting position is equally good.

 

[Celevin]

Yes. You would have to redesign tile yields, improvement yields, all build costs, unit costs, maintenance, everything that cost gold.... etc.
The whole economy engine.

Its probably easier to reduce golden age length, but even that doesn't quite work, it still favors the river tiles too much over the others.

Yeah, it's a total pain. All of a sudden research agreements and city states are completely out of whack. That would take a lot of sample games to realign. Plus, I'm wanting to stay in the "fixing" territory instead of "balancing", as there's a whole new bunch of things in the latter that I'd do as well.

 

[Ahriman]

I don't agree golden ages should be "fixed". They are powerful and they should be. In Civ4 I mainly used golden ages to avoid anarchy when switching civics but the economic effects weren't that great.

Rivers might be another issue because the +1 gold is very strong, especially with golden ages. But I see them just as another luck factor for the map generation: Starting near a lot of luxury resources is also a big advantage while starting in the middle of a desert is a disadvantage. I personally don't want a game where every starting position is equally good.

The problem as I see is the interaction between golden ages and rivers, and golden ages and plains/forests.
If you're in grasslands, then golden ages are massively less useful, no matter what you do, and if you're not on a river (eg you get a non-river coastal start) then they are also vastly less useful.

And then the fact that river terrain gives *so* much higher yield than non river terrain.
In Civ4, 1 extra commerce was no big deal, when a cottage tile might be giving 4 commerce even away from rivers. But when trading posts are capped at +2 gold....

 

[Demartus]

Just go through your cities, and focus a few on gold production (as opposed to default/production/etc.). Playing on marathon, I dropped down to -180 gpt after a golden age, and shifted maybe a quarter of my cities to gold production, and I was suddenly up to 130 gpt.

Also, producing "wealth" is practically worthless. 10% of production? Really? Most cities would net a meager 2-3 gpt extra from it.

 

[rune42]

Every civ has a huge chance of starting next to a river, so I don't see much of a problem. Part of the strategy in Civ games has always been a "make due with the land you've got", and "expand/conquer the land you want" and this iteration is no different.

 

[Diadem82]

I entirely agree with the OP. Rivers are extremely powerful and important.

Not only do they give free income, they also offer some buildings you can't otherwise build. And huge defense bonusses. I had this awesome game where I had a city just behind a chokepoint with 2 rivers crossing the choke. I held off wave after wave of enemies without a melee battle

I simply reset if I do not start next to a nice big fat river. I know some people like the challenge of having a bad starting position, but I rather get my challenge from cranking up the difficulty.