The importance of rivers and seas(not about graphics)

[brianshapiro]

This is an odd way of looking at history.
Industrialization didn't devastate agrarian economies forcing workers to find work; the workers urbanized and went to work in factories because those factories paid massively higher wages than they could ever earn from farm work, and because agricultural productivity was low.

I think many people don't understand, though, that the United States still had a rather large agricultural sector even as long as 80 years after the industrial revolution. In the 1950s, according to statistics I've seen, about 10 million people were employed in agriculture. By the 70s, it declined to 3.5 million, and today is around 2 million -- and keep in mind growths in overall population since the 50s, so the percentage of farm workers per the population is shrinking faster.

Whats happened are two things. The first is the industrialization of farms with agri-business, the invention of heavy machinery to do farm work, which reduced the amount of workers a farm needs. And the second is that since the Cold War, our trade policy has shifted towards opening markets in developing countries.

The second factor had initially helped countries like Mexico, as produce there is able to be produced and sold at cheaper rates. However, the movement of agri-business over the border since NAFTA has been devastated the Mexican agricultural sector in the same way it did here in the US. Independent farmers were driven out of work and flooded to urban centers, where wages plummeted with the new competition.

Of course its true, that in the mean time, agriculture had survived on government subsidies. But the transition to where we are today in a service economy with a relatively small agricultural sector took the entire 20th century to happen.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I generally agree with the concept that most food should be locally produced. However, I'd be in favor of some traderoute-type mechanic that allows transfer of some food from one "city" to another. Didn't CivII caravans give you this option?

The trick would be to make it expensive and risky and inefficient in the early game (but still possible if you really wanted it to happen). Only the richer and more powerful cities would be able to do it, and as techs such as refrigeration become available maybe it becomes a more feasable option.

 

[dulsin]

The risk is self evident. If you are building a city up on grain shipments from a foreign power you will be in a bad place when your relations with that nation turn sour or war/barbarians disrupt the trade route.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Yeah. And I'd put in something to the effect that every two food sent=1 food received (or something like that) to account for spoilage and inefficiency in the system.

I think it could be shoehorned into the current system instead of creating a whole new one. There's not a huge difference between sending someone gold/turn and sending them food/turn. You'd have to designate a target and originating city, but that's about it.

 

[B-29 Bomber]

How about this: food can be traded between cities but only a quarter of the food stored can be traded and only if there are city(s) that are lacking food. Also to fix the river issue tiles adjacent to rivers get the movement bonus that roads give and they get 3 times the food production. That'll make'em really valuable. Not only that but rivers giving the road bonus was in civ 2.

 

[B-29 Bomber]

then the player with the most nearby rivers would have the advantage.

Maybe the more advanced you get the less of an impact it would have. Or when you get the steam and flight techs. This would represent the fact that when trains came along rivers became less important. And even more so with the advent of flight.

 

[Calouste]

Maybe the more advanced you get the less of an impact it would have. Or when you get the steam and flight techs. This would represent the fact that when trains came along rivers became less important. And even more so with the advent of flight.

It seems that initially (middle ages) rivers will get more important, not less. Apparently Civil Service in Civ5 gives +1 to every riverside farm.

 

[Ahriman]

Many private farmers and tenants lost their farms in every instance of industrialization.

I think you are mistaking the industrial revolution with (in particular the British) Agricultural revolution. The enclosures happened long before the industrial revolution. And industrialization did not force private farmers off land. The growing demand for labor in cities encourages people to leave farms; this is not at all the same as being forced off your land.

Of course industrilization increased farm productivity by introducing new tools and processes which could replace workers who were less efficient and more expensive.

To some extent, but not that much actually. Most farming remained pretty much manual labor well into the industrial era. Once you have tractors, and fertiziler factories that is a huge deal.
But changes in farming practice and methods over the 18th and 19th century were probably more important than on-farm technological changes.
[Off-farm changes in processing of agricultural products like cotton are a different story.]

I meant to say no more than that many farmers were devastated by industrialization. That is all.

And I do not think this is true. The main reason that people left farms is because better options became available elsewhere, not because farm life became worse. Farm life had always been miserable.

What you are not admitting is that food availability is what governs how large a city gets not food production. If a city is successful and can import more food than it produces that city may import from more regions than a 3 tile circle centered on the spot the first settler planted his flag.

Import from where???
The in-game "city" population includes the rural population. What do you think it means to have one your citizens working a farm tile? It means that the population is living in the rural area, worknig on farms.
All food must be grown somewhere. I don't understand why you guys seem to think that there is some external food supplier that is invisible in the game.

The major difference between the modern world and the ancient world is not cars and planes, it is security. In the old world you didn't trade iron ore to your neighbor he would just use that to help invade later. In the Roman empire like today we have high levels of security and that is why cities are able to depend on long supply chains. The day those supply chains break these cities will descend into chaos and the people will scatter or starve

I disagree, I think changes in transport costs are massively important in affecting trade levels.
I reject that nations lived in a state of autarky. People in south-eastern France would be at least as likely to trade with people in Savoy or Genoa than they would people in northern France.
Basic levels of security were established a long time ago. Anything post-dark ages in Europe, there was sufficient security for people to be able to trade.

I think many people don't understand, though, that the United States still had a rather large agricultural sector even as long as 80 years after the industrial revolution. In the 1950s, according to statistics I've seen, about 10 million people were employed in agriculture. By the 70s, it declined to 3.5 million, and today is around 2 million -- and keep in mind growths in overall population since the 50s, so the percentage of farm workers per the population is shrinking faster.

Yes, most of the really important mechanization of agriculture is very modern. Tractors and combine harvesters really reduce the need for labor.

Apparently Civil Service in Civ5 gives +1 to every riverside farm.

Civil service?? Seriously?

 

[Calouste]

Civil service?? Seriously?

Yep: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9404833&postcount=101

 

[Ahriman]

I guess the idea is that Civil Service tech means the general provision of goods by the state (beyond security), including large-scale irrigation and infrastructure projects?

I suppose I can see that....but its a bit of a reach.

 

[Calouste]

I guess the idea is that Civil Service tech means the general provision of goods by the state (beyond security), including large-scale irrigation and infrastructure projects?

I suppose I can see that....but its a bit of a reach.

Well, in Civ4 Civil Service allowed you to spread irrigation to tiles that weren't adjacent to rivers or lakes. Same idea, different implementation.

 

[dulsin]

Import from where???
The in-game "city" population includes the rural population. What do you think it means to have one your citizens working a farm tile? It means that the population is living in the rural area, worknig on farms.
All food must be grown somewhere. I don't understand why you guys seem to think that there is some external food supplier that is invisible in the game.

From one city/region that has extra food to one that is short. Wheat and soybeans in Argentina go to South Africa to support the mining towns. Trade has always been about supplying needs.

The reason that food shipments are not normally considered the major trading good is because of low cost, high weight, and spoilage factors. Even for a major food exporter like the United States food is less than 10% of our total exports. That is still $900 Billion worth of food shipments that are going to other countries. Not to some urban center three tiles away. Grain, beef, and pork crossing oceans to keep people in Asia from starving.

If those food shipments were completely cut off some of it could be made up from local production but many people would suffer and some would starve. This is not a minor blip. This is a major driving force in trade and has been for centuries.

Before the fall of Rome no other nation could afford to ship food long distances to support one pampered city. After the fall of Rome it was not practical to import food. It was too expensive and you could not depend on those ships surviving from one trip to the next. Trade in the dark ages was a high risk high reward operation where a single voyage would either see you dead or rich for life.

Trade in food is how we were able to establish cities in the first place. People in the villages grew food and traded for good the city people made. With increases in technology, infrastructure and security the practical distance that food could be shipped has increased from a few miles to the entire globe. The 5 tile foot print of cities in Civ 4 allows us to ignore that until the modern age but that does not make it wrong.

 

[GoGerbilGo!]

I think you are mistaking the industrial revolution with (in particular the British) Agricultural revolution. The enclosures happened long before the industrial revolution. And industrialization did not force private farmers off land. The growing demand for labor in cities encourages people to leave farms; this is not at all the same as being forced off your land.

I'm sorry, but I'm working and cannot reply until tonight. But it does seem that you are correct on this point. It seems I need to reread my history so as not to make a bigger fool of myself.

Unfortunately, on the point regarding trade and city growth we still disagree. I will reply as soon as I can.

 

[Calouste]

From one city/region that has extra food to one that is short. Wheat and soybeans in Argentina go to South Africa to support the mining towns. Trade has always been about supplying needs.

The reason that food shipments are not normally considered the major trading good is because of low cost, high weight, and spoilage factors. Even for a major food exporter like the United States food is less than 10% of our total exports. That is still $900 Billion worth of food shipments that are going to other countries. Not to some urban center three tiles away. Grain, beef, and pork crossing oceans to keep people in Asia from starving.

If those food shipments were completely cut off some of it could be made up from local production but many people would suffer and some would starve. This is not a minor blip. This is a major driving force in trade and has been for centuries.

Before the fall of Rome no other nation could afford to ship food long distances to support one pampered city. After the fall of Rome it was not practical to import food. It was too expensive and you could not depend on those ships surviving from one trip to the next. Trade in the dark ages was a high risk high reward operation where a single voyage would either see you dead or rich for life.

Trade was risky past the dark ages to well into the 18th century. Even if the ship didn't sink, mortality rates on East Indiamen were 20% or so on a typical 18-24 month voyage due to accidents, scurvy and other diseases.

 

[Schuesseled]

actually to be technically accurate civil service will give +1 food to all farms bordering rivers and lakes. So extra benefits.

^ I like this it makes rivers more important as wanted, i also hope before civil service farms with irrigation from being next ato a river or lake also recieve a + 1 bonus, and this makes it a +2 bonus. because a farm not having a irrigation bonus till the middle ages sounds lame, and will decrease the importance of rivers in the early game, as im sure the OP would have a fit about.

 

[dulsin]

Trade was risky past the dark ages to well into the 18th century. Even if the ship didn't sink, mortality rates on East Indiamen were 20% or so on a typical 18-24 month voyage due to accidents, scurvy and other diseases.

During this time frame the most important trade route was the Triangle Trade; Slaves, Molasses, and Rum. The New world was shipping timber, tobaco, spices, sugar, indigo, fruit and grain back to Europe. Fruit and Grain were the least important on that list but it was there even in the 1700s.

 

[Souron]

actually to be technically accurate civil service will give +1 food to all farms bordering rivers and lakes. So extra benefits.

^ I like this it makes rivers more important as wanted, i also hope before civil service farms with irrigation from being next ato a river or lake also recieve a + 1 bonus, and this makes it a +2 bonus. because a farm not having a irrigation bonus till the middle ages sounds lame, and will decrease the importance of rivers in the early game, as im sure the OP would have a fit about.

Well truth be told, aside from flood planes, most riverside terrain was not irrigated, until there was a central authority to organize the effort. Basically until civil service. And that's because areas that get decent rainfall do not need irrigation except as a protection against drought.

I like this change because it implies that we finally have true farms. In civ 1 (I believe) and civ 2, farms were a late game irrigation update. Which was strange, because farm existed way before refrigeration. In civ 3, there were no farms. In civ 4, most farms required river access, so they were irrigation renamed. Only resource farms could be true, unirrigated farms. In civ 5 it seems we can build farms everywhere.

 

[CoolLizy]

As best as I can remember, there were no "farms" in Civ1.

 

[Akkon888]

One comment about this.

In order for this to be realized in gameplay, a few things should happen IMO:

1) The map gen must have enough rivers, or else global isolation will result
2) Fresh water must be regarded as a resource and is required by every city, with req increasing along with population. Fresh water can NOT be traded.
3) You must settle your first city by water/river (otherwise HUEG disadvantage)
4) You must settle all other cities by water/river (otherwise HUEG disadvantage)
5) If (4) is ignored, an improvement (water pump?) must be built between a city demanding fresh water and a city supplying it. Water Pump = Req. Tech (Machinery? Engineering?)
6) The source of fresh water tiles (rivers, lakes) require estimation (that is, how many years the source will last before drying). Random events may accelerate the process.
7) Maybe desalination plants for coastal tiles Modern Era (very expensive)

Just idea.

 

[Schuesseled]

Well truth be told, aside from flood planes, most riverside terrain was not irrigated, until there was a central authority to organize the effort. Basically until civil service. And that's because areas that get decent rainfall do not need irrigation except as a protection against drought.

I like this change because it implies that we finally have true farms. In civ 1 (I believe) and civ 2, farms were a late game irrigation update. Which was strange, because farm existed way before refrigeration. In civ 3, there were no farms. In civ 4, most farms required river access, so they were irrigation renamed. Only resource farms could be true, unirrigated farms. In civ 5 it seems we can build farms everywhere.

Im not talking about a massive irrigation network, that's where the civil service bonus comes in, all im saying is that by having a river or a lake neighbouring your farm it should be able to grow more food, because the ground is naturally irrigated. (to some extent)