 |
|
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.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Green Giant
|
|
Its been a while, but I think rivers negatively influence defense.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
Something I've been wondering is if you can sail boats down a river. I think this woyuld be very usdeful. Anyone know??

|
|
|  |
 |
|
El hidalgo
|
|
quote: 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
|
|
quote: 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.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15. Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|