Do rivers give access to resources?

Gramphos · October 13, 2001, 15:43

This screen shows that the city have access to two resources, and obviously it is only connected to a river, no roads. Can we from that make the conclusion that rivers work on connecting you with the trade network?

Shiva · October 13, 2001, 15:48

Could the city have been bulit on one?

Gramphos · October 13, 2001, 15:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Shiva
Could the city have been bulit on one?

Maybe, but not on two.

and will the resource stay if you build on it, or will it be destroyed?

Sandman · October 13, 2001, 15:59

Don't know about resources, but check out this screenshot .

I am absolutely convinced that river/deserts are excellent food production sites. A lush green flood plain and a wheat bonus. It has to be true.

The diplomat · October 13, 2001, 16:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandman
I am absolutely convinced that river/deserts are excellent food production sites. A lush green flood plain and a wheat bonus. It has to be true.

I think yo are right. This is excellent.

Crouchback · October 13, 2001, 17:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandman
I am absolutely convinced that river/deserts are excellent food production sites. A lush green flood plain and a wheat bonus. It has to be true.

If there is any realism in the use of terrain resources then this should be true.

David

Gramphos · October 13, 2001, 17:57

Somebody hijacked my thread

This thread is about resources, not about food production. And yes it should be true.

What do you think? Are rivers links in the trade network?

Fiil · October 13, 2001, 18:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Gramphos
What do you think? Are rivers links in the trade network?

It would make sense! But who knows...

Inverse Icarus · October 13, 2001, 18:54

Vgriph: there are no strategic resources on the top left, but it does have beavers? and spice?

Crouchback · October 13, 2001, 19:00

But it could be that the resources are under the citizens working the field being gathered without the aid of roads. Yes, I know that isn't supposed to work, but there resources on the tiles being worked.

Dan the Man said this was a beta picture, so could be a mistake or something.

David

dainbramaged13 · October 13, 2001, 19:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Gramphos
Somebody hijacked my thread

This thread is about resources, not about food production. And yes it should be true.

What do you think? Are rivers links in the trade network?

yes

Immortal Wombat · October 13, 2001, 19:14

Incidentally, judging from that screenshot, it seems to suggest that once you found a city you have "explored" the surrounding city radius, like in CtP/2, and unlike Civ2 where you had to move the unit all round to get the best use of land.

The diplomat · October 13, 2001, 19:41

Did anyone also notice that 2 of the garrison units have little happy faces next to them, which seem to be the same happy faces of the 2 luxuries. Do luxuries make units happy? Maybe the happy faces represent free support. Perhaps, some luxuries increase happiness, while others increase free support.

In another screenshot, we can clearly see a happy face next to the citizen. But in this one, the happy face from the luxury is next to the military unit. What is the explanation?

Crouchback · October 13, 2001, 19:57

Quote:

Originally posted by The diplomat
Did anyone also notice that 2 of the garrison units have little happy faces next to them, which seem to be the same happy faces of the 2 luxuries.

I assumed that was just the usual "police" effect of troops garrisoned in the city, as with all the other Civ games. Hence the smilies are next to the luxuries in that picture.

Things that make people happy.

David

The diplomat · October 13, 2001, 20:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Crouchback

I assumed that was just the usual "police" effect of troops garrisoned in the city, as with all the other Civ games. Hence the smilies are next to the luxuries in that picture.

Things that make people happy.

David

You are right. silly me. I guess I was just reading too much into it!

Jaybe · October 14, 2001, 03:35

Yes Gramphos, there seem to be no roads, only rivers. The two "resources" within the city radius are cattle, so they only provide extra food. Therefore, it does appear that rivers link cities to resources just like roads and harbors do.

Kramsib · October 14, 2001, 05:53

/quote Yes Gramphos, there seem to be no roads, only rivers. The two "resources" within the city radius are cattle, so they only provide extra food. Therefore, it does appear that rivers link cities to resources just like roads and harbors do. /quote

I was a bit lost but you are right Jaybe, the two sources are cattle. Spice and "Woodchuck" (I don't know how to say it in English) could be goods the city is trading from other cities, perhaps, in exchange of money.

That is the reason why there is no strategic sources on the top of the screenshot. Do you remember there is two kinds of sources? strategic, like silk, oil, aluminium, and others like cattle wich increment food, shields and commerce. I wonder if strategic ones also increment them.

If you look carefully, the cattle more on the top produce more food than the lowest one, and they are in the same kind of terrain type. I spent some time to notice the river but, ... What happens to the river?, it doesn't go through the squares, it goes by the side of the squares so the two adjacent squares of the river gain the profit. What a new, strange and amuzing change in rivers, isn't it?

Gramphos · October 14, 2001, 06:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Kramsib
I was a bit lost but you are right Jaybe, the two sources are cattle. Spice and "Woodchuck" (I don't know how to say it in English) could be goods the city is trading from other cities, perhaps, in exchange of money.

You can't trade without a trade network. Unless it is a bug with this old shot rivers must connect cities in the trade network.

Quote:

What happens to the river?, it doesn't go through the squares, it goes by the side of the squares so the two adjacent squares of the river gain the profit. What a new, strange and amuzing change in rivers, isn't it?

It was noticed a while back. It is a good change

.

Faboba · October 14, 2001, 09:14

This change in rivers could have something to do with borders...... rivers are natural borders afterall, it would stand to reason that Sid would find some way of representing this. Also it is more representive of reality. Afterall look how the entire egyptian civilization was able to flourish with nothing but the nile providing fertility in the lower reaches.

Jason Beaudoin · October 14, 2001, 09:23

I'm certain that those resources are being connected via the river. Firaxis would have never overlooked rivers as excellent transportation routes for trade and resources. This is not a bug, I'm certain of it. This is resource gather via rivers!

Excellent!!!

Tventano · October 14, 2001, 10:19

Since CivI both roads as rivers form the transportation network, so I am quite convinced that would not suddenly change, nice to get the confirmation through that image.

In the same image I see that the river has its spring in the mountains west of Thebes, looks quite realistic!

cyril25376 · October 14, 2001, 10:46

Cool feature, you don't have to waste time to build roads. Another point: rivers cannot be destroyed like roads.

Executor · October 14, 2001, 11:01

Can (advanced) workers create rivers like in SMAC?

Gramphos · October 14, 2001, 12:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Jason Beaudoin
I'm certain that those resources are being connected via the river. Firaxis would have never overlooked rivers as excellent transportation routes for trade and resources. This is not a bug, I'm certain of it. This is resource gather via rivers!

Excellent!!!

The fact that makes me concerned is that the official FAQ says nothing of rivers as a transportation network.

splangy · October 14, 2001, 12:54

Rivers are INBETWEEN squares so they cant be used as tranportation, they might even be a obsticle like in E.U.

Yoleus · October 14, 2001, 13:00

Quote:

Originally posted by splangy
Rivers are INBETWEEN squares so they cant be used as tranportation, they might even be a obsticle like in E.U.

A nice, stategical and hopefully true observation

SteveJH · October 14, 2001, 13:01

Quote:

Originally posted by splangy
Rivers are INBETWEEN squares so they cant be used as tranportation, they might even be a obsticle like in E.U.

I remember hearing they still give you a trade bonus on all surrounding squares though.

Admiral · October 14, 2001, 13:16

Quote:

Can (advanced) workers create rivers like in SMAC?

Presumably they can't, because CIV 3 does not go into the future and we cant create rivers now (or at least not without a tremendous waste of energy).

Faboba · October 14, 2001, 13:47

One minor thing... We all accepted the extra trade/commerce on river tyles as a demonstration of the trading benifits of a nearby river, however if we're using rivers to send tradegoods doesn't it kind of negate this?

UPDATE:FOR THOSE THAT HAVEN'T BEEN LISTENING, A STARTING CITY ON A RIVER IS NOW EVEN MORE USEFUL.......

Gramphos · October 14, 2001, 13:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Faboba
UPDATE:FOR THOSE THAT HAVEN'T BEEN LISTENING, A STARTING CITY ON A RIVER IS NOW EVEN MORE USEFUL.......

Do rivers still give +50% defense? or is that gone with the rivers located in the edge of the tiles?