Rivers- between, not through, map squares

[FreeChina]

The concept of a river running through a square completely contradicts the idea of rivers as natural boundaries.
In most cases, rivers divide nations. It's unrealistic that one nation controls a river and both banks, but one side is just a narrow strip of very good land.
The idea of a river between tiles allows both bordering tiles to have the inherent benefits. Defensive bonus would be for combat across rivers.
Should be a movement penalty as well.

[Psion]

This idea deserves some thought. I think I like it.

[OreoFuchi]

That's one of the best ideas I've heard, especially if borders are in Civ3.

[jdlessl]

Good idea. Right up there with having directions for the flow of those rivers.

How would you do food production bonuses then? Just give it to the squares on both sides of the river?

--
Jared Lessl

[Dauphin]

How would you incorporate the movement bonus that rivers give?

------------------
Pax Vobis.

[Ribannah]

quote: Originally posted by FreeChina on 12-07-2000 06:03 PM In most cases, rivers divide nations.

Ehmm, no, this is not true, nor is it historically logical. Once a tribe discovers a river, they will naturally settle on both sides of it.

About the only time that a river ends up as a border happens after a war in which neither side was powerful enough to cross.

------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire

[OreoFuchi]

quote: Originally posted by Big Crunch on 12-07-2000 07:16 PM How would you incorporate the movement bonus that rivers give?

I think food and transport bonuses go to the squares on both sides.

[FreeChina]

In response to the idea of one tribe taking the whole river, that's what any civ with any sense would attempt to do anyway, planting settlements on both banks up and down stream. However, if another rival were to get to the river at about the same time they would have to share.

Food, trade, and movement benefits apply to both banks. Rivers are that important in history.

Now this idea might be just for major rivers. Lesser tributaries could still stay within a tile.

[Evil Capitalist]

That has to be one of the most obvious, briulliant ideas I've heard in a long time. Why didn't any of us think of that?

People- you aren't being productive.

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

Excuse me???? I've posted literally 3 different threads on this, suggesting this very topic, do some research.

I agree with this totally.

[Tical_2000]

quote: Originally posted by Big Crunch on 12-07-2000 07:16 PM How would you incorporate the movement bonus that rivers give?

I say scrap the entire river-movement bonus thing. Rivers should impede the movement of ground based forces, not improve it. Anyways, what the hell happens with that? Do the troops construct canoes from nearby trees and paddle three squares up the rive in one turn??? I never truly understood that concept in Civ.

[Tical_2000]

quote: Originally posted by Tical_2000 on 12-08-2000 04:24 PM I say scrap the entire river-movement bonus thing. Rivers should impede the movement of ground based forces, not improve it. Anyways, what the hell happens with that? Do the troops construct canoes from nearby trees and paddle three squares up the rive in one turn??? And how do regiments of tanks so easily swim up the river?! I never truly understood that concept in Civ.

[Tical_2000]

what the? -- oops.

[Dauphin]

A lot of exploration was done via rivers. Especially in jungle, and forested areas as it was easier and quicker to do so. You didn't even have to use boats just travelling along the banks and the flood plains where the ground was flatter is enough of a bonus. The obvious presence of water reduced time looking for water to drink.
[This message has been edited by Big Crunch (edited December 08, 2000).]

[jdlessl]

So it marginally improves travel time going upstram and greatly improves it going downstream? Ok.

Going across them without a bridge should certainly impede progress, but not by much. It's not going to take a regiment a year (or more!) to build a temporary bridge, after all. Maybe if the military engineers are implemented, one of their their jobs would be to build a one or two turn bridge that the other units can use to cross and not lose movement points. I imagine that's already been suggested somewhere.

--
Jared Lessl

[Gilgalad5]

Ah, the age-old question in strategy-game design...

I really think it's a Catch-22; if you go for rivers as squares, you can represent the economic and demographic boons of fertility in river valleys--and it generally adds realism in the pre-industrial age, since rivers were the most efficient mode of bulk transportation.

On the other hand, their major military importance is forgotten. You can't even attempt to replicate the imperial Roman technique of fortifying the entire length of the Rhine and Danube. I have noticed this problem in Civ2 when trying to seal off hostile "borders" with fortresses---you can't build a real "active defense."

I realize there are ways to get around this, but my philosophy is, why make the terrain and other surface features more complex when diplomacy and other meta-elements could be improved?

If I had to make the choice, I would stick with the current rivers-as-squares.

[rremus]

How about the extra food/shields you get from rivers now? This is a realistic feature, and how will it be implemented? You could make the squares on both river sides have extra resources, but, at the current map scale, it could make rivers too powerful resources.
I also think there should be a distinction between a small river that only offers extra food/shields to a square and does not affect unit moving speed. These rivers could well cross map squares. Big rivers should offer extra food/shields to squares on its both sides and should flow only between squares. Olso, these should be difficult to cross (1/3 movement speed) but can improve unit speed along them. Building roads across small rivers should be available as soon as Road Building is available, but building roads across big rivers should be available ony with Bridge Building.

[Grumbold]

On the current scale (and any size we are likely to get next time) anything except the largest of rivers is already invisible and discounted. That being so, I personally would prefer the rivers-as-borders approach. Since the majority of Civ country-country diplomacy is of the 'proactive' kind, building a city or fort with a defensive bonus from several approach angles could be very advantageous.

[Stuff2]

I like this idea.

[Deathwalker]

I like it, but it needs more thought.

------------------
I have walked since the dawn of time and were ever I walk, death is sure to follow