So my economy collapsed...Rivers overpowered?

[andrewlt]

It's not just rivers. The game is designed for your economy to be quite crap when not in a golden age but we get frequent golden ages. So tiles that have even 1 token production and gold are so much better than more specialized tiles that specialize in either food, production or gold. Whereas in Civ 4, the specialized tiles are pretty good as well.

 

[beestar]

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.

I think grassland could do with a production improvement. Plains can be farmed to produce 2F 1H, but there's no workshop-style improvement that will give hammers to grassland (correct me if I'm wrong here).

 

[ShaqFu]

I think grassland could do with a production improvement. Plains can be farmed to produce 2F 1H, but there's no workshop-style improvement that will give hammers to grassland (correct me if I'm wrong here).

Manufactory. That's it.

I understand that it was to prevent some of the insanity of Civ4 workshops (football fields being more productive than hill cities), but sheesh. Your high food cities can't ever get anything done; enjoy spending a fifth of the game building a Universities in science cities.

 

[Celevin]

I'm halfway to thinking one of the best ways to fix this game is by increasing EVERY tile by 1 production and 1 gold. Take the magnifying glass over everything else afterwards and adjust them accordingly.

 

[Monsterzuma]

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

You can build scouts and disband them for a 40% conversion rate (build @ 25P, sell @ 10G).

 

[skallben]

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....

This is exactly the core of the problem I believe.

Manufactory. That's it.

I understand that it was to prevent some of the insanity of Civ4 workshops (football fields being more productive than hill cities), but sheesh. Your high food cities can't ever get anything done; enjoy spending a fifth of the game building a Universities in science cities.

Yes, now there is just that working engineers is so unsatisfactory with only one hammer for it. Without freedom policies I cannot get myself to do it. Scientists and merchants take priority. Not to mention an eventual engineer might be of great strategical value for rushing a key wonder.

I'm halfway to thinking one of the best ways to fix this game is by increasing EVERY tile by 1 production and 1 gold. Take the magnifying glass over everything else afterwards and adjust them accordingly.

Point and agreed. Not maybe exactly that solution but I have a hard time seeing how to balance things out without increasing yields.

You can build scouts and disband them for a 40% conversion rate (build @ 25P, sell @ 10G).

Yeah, it's strange is it not, how could the devs miss this?
And wealth paying 10% when science pays 25% conversion rate.

 

[Nefelia]

It's not just rivers. The game is designed for your economy to be quite crap when not in a golden age but we get frequent golden ages. So tiles that have even 1 token production and gold are so much better than more specialized tiles that specialize in either food, production or gold. Whereas in Civ 4, the specialized tiles are pretty good as well.

There is more then one way to play the game.

I tend to expand aggressively, with happiness being in the low positives or negatives. Golden ages are not common occurrences for me, and yet I am able to keep the gold flowing in rapidly.

Golden ages are very powerful in Civ V. However, in order to benefit from them frequently you have to sacrifice size, and thus gold, production, and science.

 

[skallben]

There is more then one way to play the game.

I tend to expand aggressively, with happiness being in the low positives or negatives. Golden ages are not common occurrences for me, and yet I am able to keep the gold flowing in rapidly.

Golden ages are very powerful in Civ V. However, in order to benefit from them frequently you have to sacrifice size, and thus gold, production, and science.

What he means is that since GA gives +1 hammer/gold you require tile to have at least one. So many build improvements accordingly.

Besides, you can get plently of GA time from Great people, also there is Taj Mahal and +50% GA length wonder if forgot the name of.

 

[Nefelia]

What he means is that since GA gives +1 hammer/gold you require tile to have at least one. So many build improvements accordingly.

Besides, you can get plently of GA time from Great people, also there is Taj Mahal and +50% GA length wonder if forgot the name of.

Yes, I understood that. His greater focus on Golden Ages would lead him to maximize tiles accordingly. I have chosen to specialize my cities without Golden Ages in mind and do not feel that Golden Ages are needed to manage a successful economy. Thus far in my latest game I have only had two Golden Ages, the second being the result of the Taj Mahal I built only because I had a large tech lead and nothing better to build in my capital city.

I entered my Taj Mahal-induced Golden Age with a gold surplus of 89, and exited the Golden Age 30 turns later with a surplus of 143. The Golden Age was useful for speeding up my market/bank production, but hardly the difference between a successful and failing economy. If one is incapable of producing a decent surplus of gold outside of a Golden Age, then they are simply not using all of the tools at their disposal and using Golden Ages as a crutch.

One thing to recall: Golden Ages will increase your production significantly. If you are not careful you can easily end up building more units and buildings than you can support outside of the Gilden Age. I found myself falling into that trap midway through the Taj Mahal's GA, and shifted production towards Wonders and Research rather than the more costly alternatives.

 

[skallben]

Yes, I understood that. His greater focus on Golden Ages would lead him to maximize tiles accordingly. I have chosen to specialize my cities without Golden Ages in mind and do not feel that Golden Ages are needed to manage a successful economy. Thus far in my latest game I have only had two Golden Ages, the second being the result of the Taj Mahal I built only because I had a large tech lead and nothing better to build in my capital city.

I see, I misinterpretet you. I agree GA should be seen as a bonus rather than a requirement.

One thing to recall: Golden Ages will increase your production significantly. If you are not careful you can easily end up building more units and buildings than you can support outside of the Gilden Age. I found myself falling into that trap midway through the Taj Mahal's GA, and shifted production towards Wonders and Research rather than the more costly alternatives.

That is what I learned after over 50 turns of golden ages, deficit hit me like a sledgehammer. You easily lose track on the normal course of the empire.

 

[zzzz]

Riverside hills are also great for farming.

I agree, but when my worker sits on a hill I got only the option to mine or trading post it but no farm!

so how do you farm a hill?

 

[Johan de Witt]

I agree, but when my worker sits on a hill I got only the option to mine or trading post it but no farm!

so how do you farm a hill?

You can only farm hills next to a river.

 

[Roxlimn]

I don't see rivers in Civ V being more powerful than they were in Civ IV. In Civ IV, starting River got you your obscene Financial bonus right off the bat, you got more gold to start with anyway, and you also save tons of worker time because it acted to connect trade routes and strategic and luxury resources as well.

Riverside starts have upsides and downsides. Mostly, it's beneficial, but it costs your units more to cross from one side to the other, which costs you in worker time. This is not only important in prioritization of tile improvements, but also when you get attacked by barbarians and when you're placing cities for the road network later on.

Provided that you have a rich enough start, you can easily survive without a river. Gold and Silver multi-starts are fantastic, particularly when you also have a coast with multiple Fish resources. Lots of gold, good startup food.

Of course, you'll still want to found extra cities near rivers, but the commentary here gives me reason to believe that most players are overstating the importance of rivers and not giving as much importance to other tiles.

For instance, river tiles are fantastic, but they tend not to be covered in forests and hills. Generally, you get Jungle, plains, and grasslands. Rich, but not very production-heavy.

A site without a river, but with decent food sources, Forests, and Hills would make for a fantastic production city. It would cost your empire money to sustain it, probably, since it won't be making much money, but it will be raking in lots of production.

 

[Gather]

That is what I learned after over 50 turns of golden ages, deficit hit me like a sledgehammer. You easily lose track on the normal course of the empire.

Ah yes, I love that trap. It's even better when you've had a golden age for so long and concurred so much that your Puppet Cities have built so much junk that your about you collapse from upkeep.

Not to mention the awesome real life historical similarities (I think)

 

[Sermok]

I find that the commerce policy that reduces the total cost of building roads. Its 3 policies to get it but late game its a must I find for a good economy.

 

[SolkaTruesilver]

"Rivers are overpowered in the game!"

And they also are in real life. Rivers have been, and still are, the lifeblood of any relatively serious nation.

I see no problem with forcing us to focus on rivers. Actually, I like it. It gives some strategic intensive.

 

[skallben]

I don't see rivers in Civ V being more powerful than they were in Civ IV. In Civ IV, starting River got you your obscene Financial bonus right off the bat, you got more gold to start with anyway, and you also save tons of worker time because it acted to connect trade routes and strategic and luxury resources as well.

I disagree with this for several reasons. Financial was pretty obviously OP and your statement says more about financial in cIV than it does about the rivers in it.

With CS you have the yield advantage in rivercities hills as mines are sub-optimal. But then it's more about the mines than rivers themselves

It's not easy to grow cities very fast when they approach 10 anyways, so.

Of course, you'll still want to found extra cities near rivers, but the commentary here gives me reason to believe that most players are overstating the importance of rivers and not giving as much importance to other tiles.

I agree very much, and this is about production.

For instance, river tiles are fantastic, but they tend not to be covered in forests and hills. Generally, you get Jungle, plains, and grasslands. Rich, but not very production-heavy.

Havnt noticed this but if it is true then it is a good thing. Encourages specialization.

"Rivers are overpowered in the game!"

And they also are in real life. Rivers have been, and still are, the lifeblood of any relatively serious nation.

I see no problem with forcing us to focus on rivers. Actually, I like it. It gives some strategic intensive.

You like them, good for you. I like them too since they are good.
Yes Civilization was born at riverbeds. This discussion is not about the tactical value nor the historical value of rivers.

I had a game with not many rivers, it made me think.

 

[Laurwin]

Had a rather interesting game as Catherine, I got a riverside start with I think 2 gold, and 1 silver, or something crazy like that, I built a mint there, and my capital was producing like 20 base hammers and something like 40 gold, in the BCs (this might have been during a golden age but believe me my gold income was CRAZY!)

Yep,I had those horses nearby too, and went for the republic policies for +1 hammer, should have gone perhaps towards tradition to help my relatively food poor capital, which didn't really grow after 6 pop.

I guess one of the "problems" is that you really need iron, in a habitable area with food, in order to get a good production city, because you need iron nearby to build a forge in the first place. In civ4 you had forges which enabled one engineer, and gave happiness for silver, gold, or gems, and a whopping, +25 hammers.

I wonder if the bonus from stables and forge stack together? (knights ftw!)

 

[skallben]

Had a rather interesting game as Catherine, I got a riverside start with I think 2 gold, and 1 silver, or something crazy like that, I built a mint there, and my capital was producing like 20 base hammers and something like 40 gold, in the BCs (this might have been during a golden age but believe me my gold income was CRAZY!)

Yep,I had those horses nearby too, and went for the republic policies for +1 hammer, should have gone perhaps towards tradition to help my relatively food poor capital, which didn't really grow after 6 pop.

I guess one of the "problems" is that you really need iron, in a habitable area with food, in order to get a good production city, because you need iron nearby to build a forge in the first place. In civ4 you had forges which enabled one engineer, and gave happiness for silver, gold, or gems, and a whopping, +25 hammers.

I wonder if the bonus from stables and forge stack together? (knights ftw!)

Yeah good Mint can be soooo good.
Stables and forge should stack.
I never build either, you need to build 5 Horsemen in that town to make the Stables pay for themself, that's decent. Forge pays for itself after you built 1000 hammers, for me those hammers are better spent elsewhere.

If I am at war, one production city seldom is enough. Am I not at war, I try to not keep a massive army eating away my economy so continiously producing units isn't for me. I rather defend from invasion, then push out a massive force from several cities and squash the AI.

Exception: When I go for an all out conquest mania but I find that quite boring with current AIs state so I'm exploring the other victories and late eras. You could call me a passive-aggressive builder if you want.

edit: I acutally might build my first forge this game as there might be a world war and 1000 hammers is nothing in Industrial era and forward.

 

[Johan de Witt]

There are some things even better than just rivers:
Had a city with three sheep hills, a marble and an iron, the rest hills... With a granary and some maritime city states, the city managed to go to size 9 with only good production hexes worked. Needless to say, I finished quite some wonders in this city.

Had a city in the jungle with 4 banana spots and two big rivers going through it all... Focus on growth, waterwheel, granary and again some maritime city states. By the time every jungle square had a trading post, I had the +1 science from trading posts and there was a university in it, it was pumping out beakers/flasks.

I'm getting more and more used to the specializing of cities

Two tips:
Sheep on hills and deer on forrested hills... if you find a cluster of these, you have a spot for a good production city. If there are strategic resources near... even better.

Multiple banana's in jungle are great for science. Too bad you can't build trading posts on them. Don't build a plantation on them, the +1 food isn't worth losing the beakers/flasks from a university.