Rusty Edge
Deity
Those graphics have been described as "pre-alpha".
I'm still hoping for navigable rivers within tiles, and unnavigable ones between them.
Will Civ V be better than Civ IV?
- Thread starter MAHRana
- Start date
Those graphics have been described as "pre-alpha".
I'm still hoping for navigable rivers within tiles, and unnavigable ones between them.
That probably going to be ugly to code
Ahriman
Tyrant
And incredibly confusing to the player. Some rivers are between tiles while others take up a tile?
No way.
I'm hoping for un-naviagable rivers. Naval units are for the ocean.
Rusty Edge
Deity
That may very well be . It's one of those things I figured would have to be done from scratch, and Civ V seemed like a good time. They would probably be called rivers and tributaries, or something.
deanej
Deity
Or you could make navigable rivers a terrain type in addition to what we have now. The Chinese Unification scenario for Warlords used coast tiles to do this.
Ahriman
Tyrant
I've asked this before with no response; can people please provide examples of cases where large fleets of ocean-going warships had significant military impact by sailing up rivers?
Most rivers of the world just aren't deep enough to allow a modern warship up very far.
And taking your warships up rivers is pretty suicidal in wartime; they can't maneuver and so they're sitting ducks for artillery of any kind.
There are a handful of examples of age of sail ships and the very wide, lower tidal areas of rivers, like Brits sailing troops to Quebec. A handful of cases of shelling forts and the like.
But engaging in combat? Attacking land units?
I have this terrible image of a trireme sailing up the nile and attacking spearmen and chariots, or of a battleship sailing up the Mississippi.
Naval units shouldn't be able to enter the same tiles as land units, except when the land units are naval transports. We never want to have non-bombardment combat between naval units and land units, its just nonsensical. The land units could just walk away from the river, or the naval units could just sail away.
Most rivers of the world just aren't deep enough to allow a modern warship up very far.
And taking your warships up rivers is pretty suicidal in wartime; they can't maneuver and so they're sitting ducks for artillery of any kind.
There are a handful of examples of age of sail ships and the very wide, lower tidal areas of rivers, like Brits sailing troops to Quebec. A handful of cases of shelling forts and the like.
But engaging in combat? Attacking land units?
I have this terrible image of a trireme sailing up the nile and attacking spearmen and chariots, or of a battleship sailing up the Mississippi.
Naval units shouldn't be able to enter the same tiles as land units, except when the land units are naval transports. We never want to have non-bombardment combat between naval units and land units, its just nonsensical. The land units could just walk away from the river, or the naval units could just sail away.
Viking longboats?
The vikings have raided Paris, and it's not really a city at the coast.
Edit: And i'm undecided about navigable rivers.
Could at some places enhance tactics, but could also incredibly fail.
Ahriman
Tyrant
This is longboats acting as transports. Not as warships. And I conceded a few cases like Quebec of ships acting as transports.
But its land units that do the attacking, not the warships.
In Civ5 transports don't even show up, they're just part of the land units.
Whereas having warships actually able to sail up rivers means they can engage in combat with land units.
hungary had some subs, they must have used them somehow 
.No, seriously, you're probably right, you've convinced me (okay, that was easy here). With the "loss" of transporters there's no real need and reason for navigable rivers.
chris.giddins
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2005
- Messages
- 45
QED.......do you see how Gameplay became secondary to Modding...in this very thread? Sorry guys.
Ahriman
Tyrant
PeterWimsey
Warlord
The battles of Ft. Henry and Ft. Donelson in the American Civil War involved gunships on the Mississippi R. The MS R. itself was very important for transport.
While I don't really think that CiV should model ships sailing up and down rivers, I do think that Civ has generally neglected the importance of rivers when compared to roads - until the advent of the railroads, rivers (and water generally) was by far the most important way of transporting goods.
A barge, for example, can transport 1500 tons of freight. An oxcart can transport about a half ton. And river transport is much easier once you have locks (which the Romans seem to have had, although it's not entirely clear - certainly China had them by 1000, and Europe a couple of years later).
- Joined
- May 5, 2005
- Messages
- 10,128
And may be no more need for islands, too ??
PeterWimsey
Warlord
I have to say that what I'm most looking forward to in the CiV is the absence of transports. I think that it will make naval power much more important since it will now be so easy to send units across the water that you will need to have a navy to stop it from happening.
(I assume, of course, that units won't be able to travel across water until sailing is discovered, and won't be able to go across the ocean until the appropriate tech is discovered.)
Aside from the fact that this will lead to much more historical looking results, I also think that it is much more historically accurate. While civs realistically devoted a lot of resources to developing a navy, they never really (up to the present day) did the same for transports. Polynesians were able to send "Settlers" thousands of miles on outrigger canoes. Greek colonies were established in the mediterranean using conventional trading ships. And even WWII troop transports were just existing passenger liners and freighters with a bunch of bunk beds added.
Britannia ruled the waves because she had the better navy, not because the French neglected to build any transports.
(I assume, of course, that units won't be able to travel across water until sailing is discovered, and won't be able to go across the ocean until the appropriate tech is discovered.)
Aside from the fact that this will lead to much more historical looking results, I also think that it is much more historically accurate. While civs realistically devoted a lot of resources to developing a navy, they never really (up to the present day) did the same for transports. Polynesians were able to send "Settlers" thousands of miles on outrigger canoes. Greek colonies were established in the mediterranean using conventional trading ships. And even WWII troop transports were just existing passenger liners and freighters with a bunch of bunk beds added.
Britannia ruled the waves because she had the better navy, not because the French neglected to build any transports.
I'm liking the look of it so far. The hex tiles and the whole "one unit per tile" thing sounds good to me. I'm sold on the combat portion of the game, but I'm still waiting to see the economic and diplomatic parts of the game to make a final judgment.
Not even a need for water! I propose a 100% pangaea civ5
.No, navigable rivers would be difficult to implement, and with the current system there's no need to do that.
Islands are quite simple.
Not even a need for water! I propose a 100% pangaea civ5
No, navigable rivers would be difficult to implement, and with the current system there's no need to do that.
Islands are quite simple.
Water is almost really compulsory - without it, nobody would've survived.
Civ IV wasn't very complicated when it came to rivers, oceans and islands but navigable rivers would be interesting especially in Ancient eras.
