Rivers: trade and defense. But travel?

[Bisonbison]

Ok, so we know that rivers will run between squares in civ3, that they'll add trade bonuses to adjacent squares, and that they'll add defensive bonuses in combats occuring across rivers.

What I'm wondering is whether they'll still influence travel. Will they speed my way if I travel along them? Anyone know?

[Haphazard]

I should think so, and have seen no evidence for otherwise. It's a small concept, but one that has worked well. Given the Firaxis mantra of 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' it will be in.

[Wexu]

Rivers give a bonus in defense? Is that sure? Great!

Firaxis

[Green Giant]

Its been a while, but I think rivers negatively influence defense.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Bisonbison
Ok, so we know that rivers will run between squares in civ3, that they'll add trade bonuses to adjacent squares, and that they'll add defensive bonuses in combats occuring across rivers.

What I'm wondering is whether they'll still influence travel. Will they speed my way if I travel along them? Anyone know?

I recently played Civ I for the first time in years. I had forgotten there was no movement bonus for rivers then. I missed it sorely, so I am hoping Civ3 will keep the bonus! You hear me, Firaxis? I thought so!

Something I've been wondering is if you can sail boats down a river. I think this woyuld be very usdeful. Anyone know??

[Lorizael]

How would you work out using rivers for movement if they are in between tiles? Would it just be that tiles next to rivers got a movement bonus. That wouldn't be very realistic. Maybe it would require some simple technology.

Btw, I think the delta graphics for rivers are so much cooler then the ones in Civ 2. Hmmm, I wonder if small ships like Trirems could travel along rivers, could it be done?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Black Fluffy Lion
Something I've been wondering is if you can sail boats down a river. I think this woyuld be very usdeful. Anyone know??

The mechanics of this would be problematic. Considering a unit actually represents several thousand men, and a ship perhaps dozens of ships, allowing them to move down a river might present a balance issue. I think the increased movement was a good representation of that. I'd hate to see a battleship moving down a river and delivering bombardment...that wouldn't be too realistic (shudders at own use of that phrase)

Cheers

[Trifna]

Well it has some limits...

Let's say you're moving a unit such as a phalanx. A phalanx unit can be... 100 men? 200? 500? If you'd like to travel them, you sure would need a trireme unit or whattever.

[El hidalgo]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


The mechanics of this would be problematic. Considering a unit actually represents several thousand men, and a ship perhaps dozens of ships, allowing them to move down a river might present a balance issue. I think the increased movement was a good representation of that. I'd hate to see a battleship moving down a river and delivering bombardment...that wouldn't be too realistic (shudders at own use of that phrase)

Cheers

I don't know if one unit always does always represent several individual units. I can see that being the case with a phalanx (how can you have a phalanx composed of one man?), but I doubt very much that is the case with nukes. With ships I don't think that's the case either.

As to the question of ships moving along rivers: it depends on the river and the ship. The largest ocean-going vessels can travel up the Amazon all the way to Manaus, which is about in the middle of the Amazon basin. Philadephia is a large freshwater port. So it's certainly possible. On the other hand, a city located on a smaller river might not be able to accomodate the largest modern vessels, which need a channel depth of 40-45 feet. There is also the problem of rivers silting up. But these can be solved by dredging or canals.

The advantage to locating a city on a river versus on the shore would be that you have fewer points to defend against bombardments. So it would actually be a good deal for a defender.

I'm very much in favor of allowing ships to travel along rivers. Amd actually I'd like to see land-based units slowed down by travelling along a river. A phalanx can make better time on land than marching in a river. If you want the phalanx to move faster you need to board them on a ship. And if a land unit is in a river, it should get a defense penalty, not a bonus. Much harder to defend yourself when you're treading water.

In order for this to work, though, you'd need at least two river depths, preferably three. One would be too shallow for any boats, except maybe canoes and similar craft (which would not stand a chance in the ocean any distance from the shore). The other would admit boats; if you add a third, this would admit large modern ships, while the second would only admit older units that are not as large.

*Sigh*... maybe in Civ 4...

Interesting thing about rivers, in Civ 1 they were their own terrain; in Civ 2 they were added to other terrains; and in Civ 3 they are between terrain squares. So it seems like they're still trying to figure out how to handle them...

[Sabre2th]

Originally posted by Green Giant
Its been a while, but I think rivers negatively influence defense.

I don't know what game you're playing, but rivers gave you a 50% boost in defense in civ2.

[Rakki]

rivers are great for defense. The only problem occurs when you have cross 'em. Which makes their placing between squares in Civ 3 quite logical.

What would be nice is being able to build canals using workers so we can shuffle naval units from one side of the continent to another....

[Lorizael]

Now that I think about it, it actually makes a lot of sense for boats on rivers and units traveling on them. Normal units cannot go on ocean squares because they're out in the water, and if rivers are in between tiles you probably can't move on them either.

But a boat could move in through a delta, travel along the river, pick up units, and then the units would be faster. That would be really cool, and fairly realistic. Though I do think it should be limited to smaller vessels.

I still think units could cross a river because that just required a simple raft (depending upon the size of the river though)

[Rakki]

try do that with a defended riverbank and you'll be picking arrows out of your butt and rocks out of your helmet

[JellyDonut]

Rivers should negatively influence travel! In Civ2, you could cruise down a newly founded river with your phalanx, but where in the world did they get that boat? Did they carry it over all those hills and plains just in case they ran into a river? Now Firaxis has the rivers placed in between tiles, so you will be crossing them with units, which should take longer than just going across a meadow. It would take a while to get, say 300 men across a river, don't you think?

[Roman]

No info about travel AFAIK.

[Nemo]

I saw somewhere that rivers no longer give you extra resources, but now it is the tiles adjacent to the river squares that have the extra resources. and i dont see why there would still not be defense/movement bonuses, like in civ 2