Trade Routes and Rivers

[Magean]

We know that gold from rivers or coastline will be removed and replaced by the new trade routes system.

At first sight it makes sense : water brings money because water is an artery of commerce, but if commerce is modelled in an other way, then there's no point for this extra gold to remain.

However, there will be no economic incitations for funding a town near a river. I think it's a shame. Most of the big cities in the world are built alongside a river. I'd like to still see some advantages from watercourses... don't you ?

Maybe some bonus to trade routes for towns bordering a river.

 

[Louis XXIV]

You still can build watermills if directly on a river and get bonus to farms after Civil Service if near a river. So I wouldn't say no economic incentive.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

There were some early indications that trade routes would be benefited from settling on a river too, but i haven't heard anything on this recently.

 

[snipperrabbit!!]

I bet CCs will encompass waterways !

 

[Biologist]

The incentive for building on a river is faster early population growth. Larger populations can indirectly benefit the economy, because you can potentially work more resources from the same location. Roads also yield more GPT when built between larger cities, so getting a larger city faster helps with road income.

 

[Browd]

And you can build a Garden in a river city for faster GP production and a Hydro Plant for more late-game hammers.

 

[Optional]

You still can build watermills if directly on a river...

And you can build a Garden in a river city for faster GP production and a Hydro Plant for more late-game hammers.

Those are just footnotes for me. Already with the way the game is now the importance that rivers had for towns is being ignored. Commercially rivers are extremely vital. They better do something to save rivers. Make at least a market river dependent. Or trade posts needing a water connection or something (although I know that that's probably not going to happen).

We know that gold from rivers or coastline will be removed and replaced by the new trade routes system.

At first sight it makes sense : water brings money because water is an artery of commerce, but if commerce is modelled in an other way, then there's no point for this extra gold to remain.

But with the same argument you also can get rid of the current trade routes (roads between your towns), trade posts, markets and subsequent commercial buildings.
I haven't followed everything super closely, but I know the new trade routes can be used to channel a variety of things, at least food and hammers can be brought from one town to another. With international trade routes I got the impression any gold income was based upon how many different luxes there were between the trading partners.
Are there new internal commercial trade routes as well? I'm not really up to scratch with that, but it might be rivers have nothing to do with it, and then there's still a hiatus there for me.

 

[Louis XXIV]

How about as a compromise, they still give gold to the city tile itself if founded on a river, but not to the surrounding tiles?

 

[SammyKhalifa]

the easiest way would seem to be to have cities with a water (river) connection count as having road connections for int. trade route purposes.

Or didn't they say that "water" trade routes would be more lucrative? They could have river cities count as having a harbor for that purpose.

 

[Uberfrog]

Or didn't they say that "water" trade routes would be more lucrative? They could have river cities count as having a harbor for that purpose.

That refers to sea trade routes carried out by cargo ships, which almost certainly can't go up rivers.

I would like it if rivers counted as roads for the purpose of city connections. This would serve to counteract the loss of gold from rivers, as coastal trade routes counteract it for coasts.

 

[Louis XXIV]

The problem with that is it's an unpillagable city connection. I personally like it too, it's just that concern isn't a small one.

 

[chazzycat]

don't trade routes require roads? What if rivers can substitute for roads, saving gold maintenance and letting you move food/production up the river?

 

[SammyKhalifa]

That refers to sea trade routes carried out by cargo ships, which almost certainly can't go up rivers.

I would like it if rivers counted as roads for the purpose of city connections. This would serve to counteract the loss of gold from rivers, as coastal trade routes counteract it for coasts.

They're not saltwater transports, but river barges can move massive amounts of goods for a relatively small amount of money. I guess you're right that the units (obviously) won't be able to do that. Maybe cities connected by rivers could add the "railroad" production trade route at a slightly earlier tech than railroad.

 

[Yzman]

In the old civs rivers used to count for establishing trade routes, I don't see why this would have to be any different.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Actually, they never did. In Civ2, rivers counted as roads to represent their use in trade, but rivers were on tiles as opposed to between tiles back then. I certainly think roads should have some reference to trade, but they've generally done this through gold.

 

[Red Pearl]

civ IV BTS they did. http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/info/techs look at sailing.

 

[Heinage]

Actually, they never did

In Civ IV they did count as trade routes between cities and they were also situated between tiles like in Civ V

 

[Louis XXIV]

Interesting. Did they add that in BTS? I could have sworn that wasn't the case. In any event, I withdraw my objection.

 

[bcaiko]

I bet CCs will encompass waterways !

That would be smart. I also am a fan of caravans getting faster travel along river routes.

 

[Red Pearl]

Yes they adding it to BTS.