The importance of rivers

Flandrien1 · November 6, 2002, 07:47

Rivers give you:
- extra food (with irrigation)
- extra commerce
- extra defense
- a free aquaduct
(- anything else I forgot ?)

My impression is that AI civs with access to rivers are usually twice as large as AI civs without it.

In multiplayer with many players, you are bound to have players with access to rivers, and players without.
Are they doomed ?

Pyrodrew · November 6, 2002, 08:09

Quote:

In multiplayer with many players, you are bound to have players with access to rivers, and players without.
Are they doomed ?

I would wager the guy who starts in the middle of the jungle with a river would be more doomed than the guy who starts with no rivers, in the grass & with some cows to talk to.

Flandrien1 · November 6, 2002, 08:20

Why ?
You can clean up jungle (if you are industrious, you can even do it fast), but you cannot irrigate if you have no water.

Of course, if you have tons of resources to compensate, while the other does not have any, things look much better.

Pyrodrew · November 6, 2002, 08:48

1st, Jungle is slow to clean up - this is ancient age. By the time you have them cleared my early growth (from those cows & those common shield grasses) will have provided a very strong lead.
2nd, while you are creating workers to cut jungle I'm sending people to other Civs plus maybe hit some goody huts & future leaders.
3rd, Jungles disease - that will slow you down even further.
4th, I can find great early resources in my grass... wheat, more cows, wine, & horses. Your early great resources... dyes, silk, spices & gems (these are better later when your cities are big & know plenty of Civs).
5th, due to distance corruption, being in the center of the map is going to make you a far more likely target for someone's future growth. You best be superb at diplomacy & pray there is no warmonger trapped underneath (or above, left, right) of you. He might wait for you to clean up some of the jungle for him 1st tho.

True, no river is no heaven... but I can think of worse.

Firebird · November 6, 2002, 08:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Flandrien
Why ?
You can clean up jungle (if you are industrious, you can even do it fast), but you cannot irrigate if you have no water.

Of course, if you have tons of resources to compensate, while the other does not have any, things look much better.

Well, its not what I call fast, when its compared to improving grassland. And then you have to improve the grassland under the jungle afterwards. Nope, I'm with Pyrodrew on that one.

But of course the starting position can make a huge impact on both your strategy and your chances. Rivers are a good thing, but they also slow your movement around your empire down in the ancient era. IMHO rivers are just one of the parameters of a startposition.

If you are looking for a way to make the most of your starting position, you should take a look at some of crackers pages:
http://www.civfanatics.com/doc/civ3/...r/civ3_starts/
I found it interresting although I've been playing Civ3 since it came out.

Effraides · November 6, 2002, 10:33

If you happen to be unlucky enough to get stuck in the middle of a jungle when you start... you may as well just cut your hands off at the wrist... your workers will be about as effective. Its hell... pure hell, gimme the riverless, cow covered grasslands any day.

Redstar · November 6, 2002, 10:42

Biggest importance of rivers is being able to make the hoover dam wonder later = ))

alva · November 6, 2002, 10:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Flandrien
Rivers give you:
- extra food (with irrigation)
- extra commerce
- extra defense
- a free aquaduct
(- anything else I forgot ?)

extra food???

you also get;

slower movement,

it can be more difficult to do some defensive attacking (units on the other site ofthe river, get the same defence bonus.

But rivers are a bonus in general

btw: an lake is enough to build Hoover

Flandrien1 · November 6, 2002, 11:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Effraides
gimme the riverless, cow covered grasslands any day.

Even if you are next to a guy with cow covered grassland with a river ?

(A human player of course, not just an AI.)

jshelr · November 6, 2002, 11:31

Are we sure a lake is enough to build Hoover??

Catt · November 6, 2002, 14:25

Unless I am misremembering (and I don't think I am) Hoover or a hydro plant requires a river; a nuclear plant just needs fresh water (river or lake).

Catt

alva · November 6, 2002, 15:01

hmm, I was pretty sure about the lake thing. Not anymore though

not anymore now

vmxa1 · November 6, 2002, 16:29

I just built a hydro in a city with only a lake, when I failed to get Hoover (Ai got a leader and zapped me).
This was with PTW 104f.

Effraides · November 6, 2002, 17:01

No, i would still take the grassland with river of course... but we were talking about jungles with river vs. grasslands with none... I would take the grasslands anyday.

Catt · November 7, 2002, 00:26

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
I just built a hydro in a city with only a lake, when I failed to get Hoover (Ai got a leader and zapped me).
This was with PTW 104f.

Are you sure that there wasn't a river nearby? The PTW editor has the "Must be near a river" box checked for the Hydro Plant and "Must be near water" checked for the nuclear plant.

Catt

vmxa1 · November 7, 2002, 01:29

Catt, I am only sure that I never built a nuke plant in my life. It also says that lakes are a series of coastal tiles. I think I read that in the readme. I will not swear no river was around, but I do not think so as the lake was big. I am on another game or I would check.