The importance of rivers and seas(not about graphics)

[paradigmx]

First of all, this is not about the Graphics from the Civ V screenshots so please keep discussion about that out of this thread, it's about the importance of rivers in general.

In Ancient history, Civilizations began and expanded based upon the rivers in the area. Mesopotamian Civilizations centered around the the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers, all settlements founded along them and trade conducted through them. Egypt was founded along the Nile and the kingdom relied on the river. Chinese civilizations where formed around the Yellow River, Yangtse, and West River respectively. As far as seas go, the Mediterranean, Caspian and Blacks seas where of major importance to the peoples living in those areas, the Mediterranean sea specifically has been central to at least a dozen major powers in history.

Even during the colonial periods, cities where founded on rivers, lakes and seas, The St Lawrence, for example, was of major importance, in North America and almost all travel was done through rivers while discovering the new world. The Hudson's Bay company(one of the first corporations in history) was incorporated to manage the trade routes on present on the Hudson's bay(strangely enough). Most native settlements where based around the Great lakes or other bodies of water as well.

This brings me to my main point, I have never, in a civ game, felt the absolute need to rely of the path of rivers in founding my civilizations, I would rather spend a few turns to build a road to a more resource intensive BFC than to found on a river that would give me an instant trade route. Bodies of water need to have a vastly more important role in Civ, just as they have in history.

Water has been the single most important resource in history, and should be the single most important resource in Civilization.

 

[Schuesseled]

I almost always build cities near rivers or on rivers if possible to reap the benefits of the levee. Maybe the problem isn't with the game but with you.

Rivers provide +1 food to all tiles surrounding it with farms, its called irrigation baby! Plus its the only place you can build farms early on.
Rivers provide +1 Hammers on all tiles with the levee ifa ciuty sits on the rivers, very cool building.

Start using the rivers, matey!

 

[Souron]

Well there are two separate benefits of rivers that caused them to be the hub civilisation. The first is irrigation, and the second is trade. Naval mobility was a factor too, but a much smaller one.

I think the irrigation benefits of floodplains are in fact well handled in civ already. Health problems can be a bit large, but over all it's good to build a great person farm near floodplains. Grassland and plains benefit from irrigation/farms too, but this is less historical. There could be more balancing to make rivers worth what they should be food wise, but I don't see a need for many huge changes.

The trade benefits, though, I agree are under done. Currently there is only a single commerce benefit, and trade route benefits. Oceans (and seas) are slightly better, because trade routes via the ocean are easier then extending roads to foreign nations.

I think that the trade benefit of rivers is a poor representation; it should not be the tiles that get the bonus, but the city itself, by virtue of being next to a river. I'm not sure how best to evaluate the exact benefit, however. The trade route mechanic in civ four was somewhat opaque, and did not give the player much control. The trade route mechanic in civ 2 was similarly opaque, though the player was able to choose the routes. In civ 2, the mechanic was certainly not connected with the trade benefits of rivers. I'm not sure if it was in civ 4 either.

 

[duckofspades]

I remember after civ declared only fresh water could build irragation building along rivers. Would build along rivers and slay any civ next to a river. Just to get a monopoly on population growth.

 

[paradigmx]

Yes, in IV the importance of rivers was vastly increased, and the Levee did add to that, but I felt that it was almost too little, too late. As far as food, 1 or 2 good food resources is usually enough to get a city up to a pop of 12-13 by mid-game without a river, IMO the effect of food resources should be lessened when not bordering a water tile, after all, cows need water too.

For trade, A river tile should add a lot more to the commerce of a city than it currently does, and 2 or more cities founded on the same river network should have bonuses, possibly stacking bonuses to show the importance of trading via river networks.

I do use rivers in Civ IV, but still not to the degree that an ancient civilization would have.

 

[GoGerbilGo!]

I do not think that Sid Meier is the guy who is going to make that kind of game. I don't even think he knows how to. This is the 5th (or is it 7th) iteration. If he knew what to improve, he'd done it by now. Ultimately, how cities, trade, and terrain function in Civ needs to be radically reconsidered to take into account some of these more important and obvious aspects of our history, while also maintaining the pleasing simplicity of the gameplay. In the end, Sid Meier has been successful because he has long realized that pleasing simplicity of gameplay is what makes his games popular. But I do believe that your suggestion like many others' and his primary imperative need not necessarily be mutually exclusive.

In Civ, the potential of a city is more or less capped by its surrounding terrain, regardless of trade route. But in reality, this is clearly not the case. I wonder if something like the internal trade and traffic used by the simcity franchise could be used to promote the importance of rivers in the civ franchise. Instead of tying city growth to how much food resource is in its vicinity, city growth should be tied to direct trade routes somehow, micromanaged by the computer. For one thing, building and maintaining rails and intercity roads could be made very expensive, making rivers and sea lanes more important. Canals and aquaducts could be built to supplement rivers for various reasons.

I really think that this entire settler unit-one tile city needs to be scrapped in favor of a more natural city growth. I am thinking of a function similar to the one in simcity. In those games, you could lay aside various commercial, industrial, residential, military, and port zones and let the computer grow those tiles as you have zoned for them. Civ does that with the worker unit, which develops tiles with mines and farms, for instance. But I think "cities" should be allowed to grow and decline depending on some internal script determining trade routes to important cultual and industrial centers, instead of using food resource. When a "city" is given permision to "grow" because of various trade factors, including rivers, then you should be allowed to add a "city" tile somewhere nearby your first city. And if a city is doing well, then you may be given another tile to turn into a city. Then you can either expand a successful city and make it more successful, or grow a new city further away to expand your territory.

This way, you would want to build cities where the computer would weigh as valuable points of trade routes--such as on rivers.

Or something like that.

 

[Souron]

No, food was a huge factor in city growth too, and civ handles that part well enough. It's trade that's the issue. But it would be enough to make it so that cities not on rivers or coasts produce a whole lot less commerce, so that it is not worthwhile to build inland cities, unless they had really, really good resources, or until all the good spots are taken. The problem as I see it, is how to model the trade worth of a city, without drastically deviating from the simple and successful model of commerce that civ has.

Also, I think whatever method is used, I think ultimately the player must be in control of city growth. Nothing done by obscure algorithms. Everything that happens should be a choice of the player. To do otherwise would be against the spirit of civ. Civ is about controlling an empire, not simulating the rise and fall of civilization.

 

[Shurdus]

I almost always build cities near rivers or on rivers if possible to reap the benefits of the levee. Maybe the problem isn't with the game but with you.

Rivers provide +1 food to all tiles surrounding it with farms, its called irrigation baby! Plus its the only place you can build farms early on.
Rivers provide +1 Hammers on all tiles with the levee ifa ciuty sits on the rivers, very cool building.

Start using the rivers, matey!

You settle by rivers because in the industrial era offers you a building to make use of that river. The OP is spot on there in so far that there is not a lot of incentive to settle rivers. In history, settling near water was essential, in civ it is optional. Rivers are not nearly important enough in civ, I can see the point adresses in the OP.

Also settling occurs typically pre the AD era. Settling in such a way that you profit from a late game building is actually not a good idea. Just saying.

 

[Hafnia]

Yes, in IV the importance of rivers was vastly increased, and the Levee did add to that, but I felt that it was almost too little, too late. As far as food, 1 or 2 good food resources is usually enough to get a city up to a pop of 12-13 by mid-game without a river, IMO the effect of food resources should be lessened when not bordering a water tile, after all, cows need water too.

For trade, A river tile should add a lot more to the commerce of a city than it currently does, and 2 or more cities founded on the same river network should have bonuses, possibly stacking bonuses to show the importance of trading via river networks.

I do use rivers in Civ IV, but still not to the degree that an ancient civilization would have.

Also, I think the health issues of having large cities located away from a fresh water supply are insufficient. First, the actual penalty is too low, and second, it is too easily alleviated by building an aqueduct. The penalty should rise sharply as the town grows, and the price of the aqueduch should be calculated using the distance to the closest fresh water source, not just be a fixed price.

On the other hand, many real-life cities are founded on smaller rivers than the ones included in Civ. The map would probably be too cluttered with rivers if they were all included.

 

[GoGerbilGo!]

No, food was a huge factor in city growth too, and civ handles that part well enough. It's trade that's the issue. But it would be enough to make it so that cities not on rivers or coasts produce a whole lot less commerce, so that it is not worthwhile to build inland cities, unless they had really, really good resources, or until all the good spots are taken. The problem as I see it, is how to model the trade worth of a city, without drastically deviating from the simple and successful model of commerce that civ has.

This is only somewhat true. Ancient cities were built around farming communities. But increased trade ability quickly allowed urban centers to grow far from rural areas. By the time climate change forced the great exodus out of Mesopotamia into Egypt, India, and Greece, this transition was already happening. Even the Romans heavily relied on grain import from Egypt to feed themselves.

I happen to live in a certain southern Californian desert, which happens to contain the largest mass of American people outside of a certain urban area in New York-New Jersey. On the other hand, America's great breadbaskets--like Central California and the Great Plains do not contain a whole lot of people. But according to Civ, the game, America should be most populated in the flyover states. That's clearly not realistic.

City growth should be tied to the cultural and trade value of a city, not how much crop resources are in its vicinity. And rivers and coasts should have the greatest weight in determining it. When you look at continents, it is not hard to notice that the greatest mass of peoples on earth live on coasts and along rivers, not necessarily near rural farmlands.

 

[Hamil]

The main problem with cities and rivers, food, health, commerce is, that citygrowth in civ just relies on foodressources. In reality a city could grow even to an extend, that it couldnt feed all population on its own, but had to relate on trade (f.e. Rome). So if work or commerce is the main driving power of population growth (incl. migration), it would increase the importance for a city of having river/sea access and good infrastructure.

But i think this would make the whole citygrowth too complex for a game like civ.

 

[GoGerbilGo!]

The main problem with cities and rivers, food, health, commerce is, that citygrowth in civ just relies on foodressources. In reality a city could grow even to an extend, that it couldnt feed all population on its own, but had to relate on trade (f.e. Rome). So if work or commerce is the main driving power of population growth (incl. migration), it would increase the importance for a city of having river/sea access and good infrastructure.

But i think this would make the whole citygrowth too complex for a game like civ.

I agree with the first part. And it is important to note that this is what makes trade important. Middle eastern states rely on food imports. They have to trade! Russia requires seaports. They have to expand! There is no reason to invent arbitrary mechanisms to force players to trade or expand. Just simulate and greatly simplify real trading practices.

I think there are ways to simplify the process and keep gameplay smooth. But the game design needs radical reconsiderations, as I wrote above. First, intercity roads and rails must be much more expensive to build and maintain. What I do is plaster my entire territory with roads and then replaster with rails, later. But we shouldn't be allowed to do this. If not roads, at least rails should be costly to build and maintain. This would force players to grow cities on rivers, lakes, and seas.

The computer should calculate the value of a city internally. You would be able to influence a city's value with buildings and specialists. A Great Wonder, for instance, would then be more valuable to build, then as something to ignore while you raise your army.

Your civ should be capped by how much food it has access to, however. On the other hand, you should also be allowed to grow your population by buying food units. "Food unit" is each of those food icons that currently tell you how much food your city is producing. In civIV, for instance, all cities have at least 2 units of food. Any extra food unit available allows it to grow its population. I think, instead, food units should be culled nationwide and you should choose whichever city is worth growing and giving that city extra units to grow. You should be allowed to sell the rest in a deal to food-poor civs.

Maybe this is not the best way, but I can come up with other ideas, too.

 

[Tomice]

Has +1 trade route for cities at rivers already been mentioned as suggestion?

 

[Xzylvador]

Don't rivers already give a +1 commerce per tile?

 

[Tomice]

Don't rivers already give a +1 commerce per tile?

They do, but this does not adequately represent the real-world value of rivers. Most bigger cities/capitals are next to a major, shipable river (AFAIK: Rome, Paris, London, Vienna, Hamburg,... ).

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Has +1 trade route for cities at rivers already been mentioned as suggestion?

Maybe not +1 route, but a bonus to each trade route that uses waterways instead of roads. Maybe +100% or something until the invention of steam.

 

[GoGerbilGo!]

Has +1 trade route for cities at rivers already been mentioned as suggestion?

I just think that city growth potential needs to be tied to trade units and not food units. Food units need to be used in a radically different way that would foster trade between cities and between sovereign states. Thus, a trade bonus on rivers and on coasts should properly grow a city more than any crop resource. In other words, corn should not help grow a city faster. Likewise, nearby gold, silver, or gem deposits could also help grow a nearby city.

 

[GoGerbilGo!]

^I take that back...corn should indeed give growth bonus, but only by giving it trade units. Excess crops helped grow specialization within civilization after all by boosting food supply. So, I guess corn could give a healthy supply of both food and trade...at least in my suggestion.

 

[Hamil]

Corn could also give great advantages to citygrwoth, but only before mechanisation of farming. After the industrial revolution, needed workforce in the secondary sector (like factories and manufactories) was the main power for migration and therewith citygrowth. In modern age the tertiary sector and living quality became the main reasons for high populations.
All the eras had in common, that the concentration of political power was also a reason for people to move to a city.

So i think it should be a model like this:

stoneage - classics: Food ressources give population growth bonus
Political power (capitals) give population growth but minor to food
Production capacities give population growth but even minor to capital

medieval - ind. rev.: Food ressources give no longer growth bonus, instead they can give
commerce bonus
Political power still gives growth
Production main power of growth

modern age: Food see former age
political power see former age
production lesser impact on growth then industrial age
Commerce gives even greater advantage, then former ages
(didnt mention it there)
New power = living quality (for example natural wonders, wonderbuildings,
high health, special buildings)

 

[GoGerbilGo!]

Corn could also give great advantages to citygrwoth, but only before mechanisation of farming. After the industrial revolution, needed workforce in the secondary sector (like factories and manufactories) was the main power for migration and therewith citygrowth. In modern age the tertiary sector and living quality became the main reasons for high populations.
All the eras had in common, that the concentration of political power was also a reason for people to move to a city.

Hello, Hamil. I was considering just what you suggest here. This is why I without competence replied to myself above. But then I also considered your other thought, which is to keep things simple. I think it would be simpler to tie "trade units" alone to city growth potential (max population reachable) and allow the user to collect the total harvested and imported food units and designate them to whatever city he would like to grow.

In the early game, when the user has fewer cities, it would be easier to focus growth on one city this way, especially if the state had access to a rich crop resource. Crop resources and farms should be given a nice trade boost relative to other early tile improvments. Farms should also be easier to build than other improvments. So even a fortunate city-state built around farmlands could still grow large early on. Later in the game, a larger state would require that food units be dispensed more widely. Cottage improvements that would have matured would make towns a more valuable improvement for growth than crop resources and farms, relatively, because of their greater trade value. In this case, the user may naturally want to spend his food resources on making a culturally and trade-important city into a mega-city at the expense of less trade-valuable cities that is surrounded by crop resources or farms.

I think this is a simpler and rational way of doing it. What do you think of this?