Rivers, navigation & ZOC?

Tabun · May 18, 2001, 14:07

All,

OK, pardon me if I'm uninformed. But since Mr. Briggs has mentioned the new ZOC rules for Coastal Fortresses here, I've been looking for some more input.
It's occurred to me that I haven't seen the question of river tiles being navigable to ship/boat units addressed. I assume that ground units will still receive some sort of modifier when they're on a river tile, ala Civ2. But will any sea unit be able to penetrate a landmass by traveling up a river?
Now, if this has been addressed, and some/all sea units will be able to travel up some/all river tiles in Civ3, my next question applies:
River travel, of course, opens up a whole new can of worms for ZOC rules. But one specific rule I am curious about is the influence exerted by an enemy city's Coastal Fortress, while a unit is traveling up an adjacent river. I know what effects are planned for ocean-going units, but a river is a MAJOR naval choke-point and I'd like to hear everyone's' thoughts on this situation and whether any of this has been given consideration by Firaxis.

Thanks,

Tabun

SerapisIV · May 18, 2001, 14:26

quote:

Originally posted by Tabun on 05-18-2001 02:07 PM
But will any sea unit be able to penetrate a landmass by traveling up a river?

I'm not so sure this will be possible, only because screenshots show rivers as being between tiles in Civ3, not running through them as all previous Civ-style games have had. If this is true, I don't think the engine could handle units existing between tiles.

meriadoc · May 18, 2001, 15:16

Too bad because having the rivers on the individual tiles would be nice. They did make nice movement modifiers in the previous Civ games, and I confess that I would like to see ships, at least the smaller ones (somehow I don't see a Nimitz-class supercarrier going up a river), be able to navigate up the rivers. On the other hand, if the rivers are in between the tiles, they do make nice natural borders. I wonder what Firaxis has planned for them.

------------------
The Electronic Hobbit

Tabun · May 18, 2001, 18:44

Uh, SerapisIV...

Are you sure the rivers travel only on the borders of the tiles? This screenshot shows pretty well where the borders of the tiles are, and the river in that shot is most definitely NOT on the border!

Doesn't matter too much, but I think Firaxis will be displaying rivers much the same way they have been since Civ2. Regardless, it doesn't look like they'll be allowing any size water unit on rivers. Well doh.

I'm, over it.

------------------
Tabun
"All the seeming of a demon that is dreaming" --E.A. Poe
[This message has been edited by Tabun (edited May 18, 2001).]

SerapisIV · May 18, 2001, 23:26

quote:

Originally posted by Tabun on 05-18-2001 06:44 PM
Uh, SerapisIV...

Are you sure the rivers travel only on the borders of the tiles? This screenshot shows pretty well where the borders of the tiles are, and the river in that shot is most definitely NOT on the border!

The Baltimore screenshot is the oldest game screen we have. The most recent shots, particularly Firaxis' own, show rivers in between tiles, not through

examples:
Gamespy
Firaxis 1
Firaxis 2

[This message has been edited by SerapisIV (edited May 18, 2001).]

Tabun · May 20, 2001, 11:43

OK, cool

I'd not studied those shots. My bad.

Quartz Dragon · May 20, 2001, 15:42

quote:

Originally posted by meriadoc on 05-18-2001 03:16 PM
(somehow I don't see a Nimitz-class supercarrier going up a river)

Depends on the river, the Nimitz could easily move part way up the Amazon.

quote:

Originally posted by SerapisIV on 05-18-2001 14:26PM

screenshots show rivers as being between tiles in Civ3, not running through them as all previous Civ-style games have had.

Actually this would make it easier to implement by simply adding new tiles (say a shallow water or major river tile). Bridge construction would be more difacult over such tiles (posibly requiring modern construction tecniques).

ancient · May 20, 2001, 21:12

wouldnt you think naval units could go down some rives and not others? it seems obvious to me that they have different sized rivers planned..

El hidalgo · May 20, 2001, 21:55

It might be a case of seeing what I want to, but does it appear to anyone else that in the screen shots there are areas of river which appear deeper/shallower than other areas of river? Might certain parts of the rivers shown be navigable and other parts not? Or do you think it's something else? I really hope that rivers don't act like roads -- I always thought that was stupid.

If anything units should move slower through rivers and have defense bonuses reduced for certain units, unless they're on a boat. Hard to swing a sword or shoot a gun while treading water in the Mississippi.

By the way, it is possible for ocean going ships to go up some rivers. Manaus is a deep-water port 900 miles from the ocean: http://www.uoregon.edu/~sergiok/brasil/manaus.html

My Wife Hates CIV · May 20, 2001, 22:31

The carrier I was on went up the mississippi river.

Tabun · May 21, 2001, 09:35

There's no doubt that IF Firaxis announced that all rivers were navigable by all maritime units, that we'd complain immediately. Not because we'd get to use this really cool new tactical concept, but because it would be a superficial-level addition. Ships come in different sizes, and--I think it's fair to say we're all leading up to the same thing--rivers come in different sizes!

Regardless, I copy/pasted the entry I used above to start this thread to an email to the Firaxis Civ3 team. I don't have high hopes that they'll address it on their "Ask the Civ Team" page, but, anything's possible!

------------------
Tabun
"All the seeming of a demon that is dreaming" --E.A. Poe

Quartz Dragon · May 21, 2001, 13:45

I hope you mentioned this thread

Marquis de Sodaq · May 21, 2001, 14:23

Traffic along rivers was until the modern era faster than on land, thus the move bonus in civ2, El Hidalgo. Your legion wasn't swimming along, it was on boats, of course. With years per move, they had plenty of opportunity to disembark and attack someone.

Yes, the idea of a navigable river as a terrain type (a second type of water, basically) would be grand. Bridges could actually be an object that would have to be built, and could be destroyed, as well. I have no idea how they would program it to allow any nation's units to go under, tho...

Regarding the screenshots: Whatever that forest special is, it looks like a pile of old tires! Unless rubber is what's intended, what is it?

El hidalgo · May 22, 2001, 00:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Marquis de Sodaq
Traffic along rivers was until the modern era faster than on land, thus the move bonus in civ2, El Hidalgo. Your legion wasn't swimming along, it was on boats, of course. With years per move, they had plenty of opportunity to disembark and attack someone.

Yes, the idea of a navigable river as a terrain type (a second type of water, basically) would be grand. Bridges could actually be an object that would have to be built, and could be destroyed, as well. I have no idea how they would program it to allow any nation's units to go under, tho...

Regarding the screenshots: Whatever that forest special is, it looks like a pile of old tires! Unless rubber is what's intended, what is it?

I realize that it was until modern times faster to go via river than over land. But I wonder why if you need to get in a boat to cross the sea (ocean, lake) you would not need a boat to travel via river. Do all the units carry portable boats (inflatable dinghies?)? Do boats await you at every point on every river, even those by which you have no city, or in other, as yet unexplored continents? IMHO the model is lacking. I think you are right that the assumption is that there is a boat there, but to me it doesn't make sense. And anyway it's not what I want; I want a distinction between navigable and non-navigable rivers!

Anyway, rather than argue about navigation of rivers (I would love to but I wonder if it would make much difference at this point), I'd rather find out why certain stretches of river seem shallower and narrower than others in the screen shots. My hope is, as I make no secret, that certain stretches are navigable (by certain ships) and others are not. I do wonder about those tires, now, too... could that be jungle terrain? If so then maybe it is tires. Er, rubber.

SerapisIV · May 22, 2001, 07:16

Quote:

Originally posted by El hidalgo
I'd rather find out why certain stretches of river seem shallower and narrower than others in the screen shots. My hope is, as I make no secret, that certain stretches are navigable (by certain ships) and others are not. I do wonder about those tires, now, too... could that be jungle terrain? If so then maybe it is tires. Er, rubber.

Hey if this is true, I wanna see. Which screenshots El Hidalgo? I wanna see what rubber might look like too.

Tabun · May 22, 2001, 08:21

Nope Quartz Dragon. I didn't have that much foresight to mention this thread to Firaxis (It was 1 message @ the time... mine)

It's still fun to consider how gameplay would be IF you could send certain units up certain size rivers. The ability to penetrate a continent would rock, but not as much as setting up a city on one side of a river and building a coastal fortress to defend your homeland! --Just a little pipedreaming to keep the conversation goin'!

BTW, any Apolyton admin who reads this: I like the new digs! (new forum)

El hidalgo · May 22, 2001, 12:56

Quote:

Originally posted by SerapisIV

Hey if this is true, I wanna see. Which screenshots El Hidalgo? I wanna see what rubber might look like too.

The screen shots mentioned in the post above. Check it out and let me know what you think is going on:

http://www.gamespy.com/asp/image.asp...v3/image18.jpg
http://www.firaxis.com/civ3/images/a...ap_Screen2.jpg
http://www.firaxis.com/civ3/images/a...Map_Screen.jpg

SerapisIV · May 22, 2001, 16:43

looks to be just aesthetics to me, it changes every other tilke from thin and swiggly to straighter and wider. I think its just for looks more then actually changing gameplay, but I've been wrong before though.