{The List} Terrain and terrain improvements

[Nikolai]

NB! Because the limit for the lenght of thbis post is reached, and I didn't know of such a limit, the list is divided. The rest is to be found here, here and here.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction

Terrain; the environment of our civ. Terrain improvements; the ways civ alters its environment. Here; the place to find ideas on how this should be done in Civ4!

-List Threadmaster Nikolai

Summary

In the start of the discussion, the "terrain" and the "terrain improvements" parts of the list was most debated. People are mostly agreeing on the need of a new and vastly improved terrain/map, but when it comes to the actual kind of new terrains, the ideas are splitting.

Later in the discussion process, the old public works vs. workers discussion arose. Pages after pages of this discussion filled the threads, and many ideas was proposed and debated.

The third large discussion point, was railroads and transportation. Most people think that it have to be changed. Infinite movement for example, is not particulary popular everywhere, one might say.

Related threads

Radical ideas http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=103739
Spherical world http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=82167
Things to borrow from other games http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=104122
Squares, Hexes, Octagons... http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=94361
Terrain improvements? http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=106007
The design decision that can have a huge impact http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=115535
Growth - should it be related to food http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=115067
Customizable Auto Workers http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=116471
What's in Civ4. Just the fact, ma'am. http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=117133
Civ IV will have a 3D map! A discussion of possibilities http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=117503
Railroads? http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=117841
A Vision of cIV http://www.apolyton.com/forums/showt...hreadid=119626
Terrain: Public Works System - Ideas http://www.apolyton.com/forums/showt...hreadid=119347
Terrain: Workers System - Ideas http://www.apolyton.com/forums/showt...hreadid=119348

Table of Contents

[b]1 - The terrain
2 - Terrain improvements
3 - Worker and PW ideas
4 - Transportation over the map
5 - Cities
6 - Pollution
7 - Mini-map
8 - Climate and weather

The ideas

1 - The terrain
1.1 - Harsher environment

It should never be possible to irrigate desert or tundra EVER. Most military units that cross them should die, as should be the case with mountains and jungles. Forests and jungles should create plains when cut down. Irrigation should be curtailed.
(Posted By Sandman)

Agreementos with the 'harsher environment' idea, but if it's implemented, better make sure that the player is guaranteed at least a stretch of 'nice' environment, with room for 4-5 cities - otherwise it'll easily get really friggin' annoying.
(Posted by Stefu)

1.2 - Terrain technology
1.2.1 - Back to SMAC

Go back toward SMAC. have certain characteristics like elevation, ruggedness, trees, grass, rocks, sand, moisture, temparature. Treat north and south poles as in Civ2. Include fungus terrain characteristic in editor.
(Posted By Brent)

1.2.2 - Spherical world

Spheric world!!
If it would be done well and nice, it could really bring some immersion, hype and a bit more sense (not including the graphics ).
(Posted by trifna)

I am strongly in favour of a civilization game with a spherical map. The reasons why a spherical map would be an improvement include:

1. A spherical map would be more realistic. The polar areas could be fully implemented, withn the possibility of nuclear exchanges over the poles, for example.
2. A spherical map would reinvigorate the game, presenting a new challenge to long-time civ players, who've grown accustomed to playing on a flat map. No other grand-strategy game has used a spherical map to my knowledge, and if civ doesn't get it, some other game will.
3. A spherical map would be aesthetically pleasing, particularly if it was combined with a renewed investment in the terrain graphics.
(Posted by Sandman)

1.2.3 - Triangular/octagonal pixels

Triangular Pixels!
Or octagonal to increase the accuracy of the modeling and to maximize strategic assault patterns.
(Posted by DarkCloud

1.2.4 - Hexgrid

I would support a hexgrid.
With a hexgrid, some adjustments would need to be made as there would only be 18 tiles in a city radius. Here are some suggestions (these suggestions generally have to deal with the population explosion of the late 19th/20th centuries that is so poorly represented in Civ I, II and III):

Either when a certian tech is gained or when a city reaches a predetermined population (ie: 1-6 = town, 7-12 = city, 13+ = Metropololis) the city expands to a third ring of tiles (anything more than 3, like in CTPII, I think would be too much). The increase in available tiles will reflect in a larger population and thus more accurately represent the modern age.
(Posted by donegeal)

We can also look at the possibility of hexagons with four-sided figures.
(Posted by Trifna)

1.2.5 - Multiple level map

How about a multiple level map, like ToT, so there is a level for land, a level for undersea, a level for orbit, and so on.


1.3 - Suburbs
1.3.1 - Suburbs in a hexgrid

[On the discussion about using a hexgrid]
However, since most Civ players aren't going to space their cities 6 hexs apart to take advantage of the additonal hex ring, I would also like to see the worker job of "Build Suburb" added. As I stated in another thread, the action would consume the worker and place a "town" graphic on the grid. Now if the "Build Suburb" action was limited to the inner ring of hexs surrounding the actual city, we would get a fine graphical representation of "Urban Sprawl". Now to fix the actual population explosion problem I mentioned at the on set of this post, I would have the "Build Suburb" action add two food to the tile it is built on (now I know that building a suburb on farm land does NOT increase the food gained from that farm, but the added food will reflect a higher population in the city it is attached to to better represent the population explosion).
(Posted by donegeal)

1.3.2 - Worker builds suburbs

I have also be wanting a good way to deal with Urban Sprawl/Suburbs. Currently, for astetic reasons, I use the Urban Sprawl graphic for rail roads. Looks good, but then you get the Urban Sprawl everywhere. I have been wanting a "Suburb" tile improvement. The graphic would be similar to a "town". Suburbs would only be allowed to be built in the inner eight squares surrounding the actual city (maybe even giving cities the ability to build naval/costal things even if they are one tile back of the coast) and only on flat terrain (Grassland, Plains, Desert). Have a suburb add one or two of each food/shield/commerce (added food to show that the city is now larger population wise, added shield to show that there is infact more than one city working to complete something, and added commerce for all the extra trade that goes on). Building a Suburb comsumes the worker.
(Posted By donegeal)

1.3.3 - City growth builds suburbs

When a city gets to a certain size, any additional growth has a chance of happening not in the city center, but in a suburb. This turns a surrounding tile into a "suburb" tile. These tiles do not produce food, or shields, but can hold up to 5 citizens which can be made into tax collectors, or workers, or whatever.

The upside is that it gives you a lot of flexibility in terms of whether you want the city to be commercial or producing or science, etc. The down side is that you have to double irrigate, or farm other tiles to feed them. And you have to defend them from enemy attack.
(Posted by wrylachlan)

1.3.4 - Suburbs must not increase food output

I like the "build suburb" idea, but INCREASE FOOD?! WTF?! What we really need to increase is Production and trade. In civ3 those specialists were goddamn worthless.
(Posted by Azazel)

1.4 - Terrain-specific Civs

Let some Civs be more suited to specific terrain types, such as mountains, arctic, desert, forest, and islands.
(Posted By Brent)

1.5 - Text and names on terrain
1.5.1 - Naming of the terrain

However, past units it would be fun to have the option of giving names to terrain features. No default random ones to clutter the map, but (deleteable) ones you make like 'Monte Cassino', 'the Little Big Horn', the Mississippi, the Rhine, the Urals, etc. Names for map places that you can put anywhere and turn off if you don't want to see them.
(Posted by Seeker)

Place names. It would be good to have the option to put the place names in game (and obviously when editing an scenario).
(Posted by Kramsib)

1.5.2 - Ability to add text on the terrain

The ability to right click on terrain and add text (from SMAC). This adds a great deal to the experience.
(jimmytrick)

1.6 - Landmarks

Landmarks: like in SMAC.
(Posted by J-S)

1.7 - Terrain affects units
1.7.1 - Damage from some terrain types

Terrain afects units: some units should not be able to cross certain terrains without damage. That is afterall why both Napoleon and Hitler failed in Russia.
(Posted by J-S)

1.7.2 - Chance to damage units in certain terrains

Certain terrains have a percentage chance each turn you move through them of taking away hitpoints. It could be as though the terrain itself were a unit and it "attacks" you as you go by. Certain units or civs would be more immune than others to these effects ie. Mayans have no jungle penalty or a late game Special Forces unit that is imune to all terrain penalties...
(Posted by wrylachlan)

1.8 - No tile overlay

As for radical... I'd love to see a sphere witout any sort of tile overlay. You would tell units to go to coordinates instead.
(Posted by Fosse

1.9 - Terrain types
1.9.1 - Volcanoes
1.9.1.1 - Active and dormant volcano

Dormant is very fertile, but has a risk of becoming active...
(Posted by Seeker)

1.9.1.2 - Unability to build on volcanoes

Volcanoes: Unable to build on them as mountains are now (but no roads or mining is allowed either)
(Jer8m8)

1.9.2 - Hills divided into new terrain types

Hills divided into Mediterranean/Chaparral and Foothill, med hills are more agricultural, foothills more barren.
(Posted by Seeker)

[b]1.9.3 - Impassable terrain/Some terrain hard to pass
1.9.3.1 - Impassable mountain

Would establish a clear line between mountainous but passable terrain (switzerland, nepal) from totally impassable peaks.
(Posted by Seeker)

1.9.3.2 - Impassable tiles

Have more tiles which are totally impassible and/or impassible in a certain direction. The code is already in the game for not being able to go from one tile to another in a certain direction. Its used for wheeled units crossing rivers without a road. Why not add in cliffs, or mountains that are too steep to climb.
(Posted by wrylachlan)

1.9.3.3 - Some terrain hard to pass

What if the movement cost of a tile was not determined by the tile itself, but the tile border? For example Grassland:Grassland is 1, but Mountains:Grassland is 2. Similarly Grasslands:Mountain is 3 because you're climbing up the mountain, but Mountain:Mountain is only 2 because you're walking along the ridge.
(Posted by wrylachlan)

1.9.4 - Plateau

Distinguish between saltwater and freshwater, and have them give different resources, saltwater producing salt.
(Posted by Brent)

1.9.5 - Rice paddies

More fertile than swamps, found in deltas, don't disappear with irrigation.
(Posted by Seeker)

1.9.6 - Ocean Trench

More fish, adds more 'stuff' to look at in the ocean besides coastal/deep sea.
(Posted by Seeker)

1.9.7 - Badlands/Mesas

Hills for obs. purposes but very dry, irrigation gives 1 food.
(Posted by Seeker)

1.9.8 - Natural harbour
There should be a 'natural harbour' type of terrain that makes sea improvements much cheaper to any city built on it and also gives extra trade.
(Posted by Sandman)

1.9.9 - Shallow water type

Shallow water type, at allows only small ships to sail there.

Why? To make it easier to defend coastal lines from massive invasions.

How to manage an invasion from sea then? Not sure, either the big ships must carry those small ships as cargo with the other units or you could allow units to "cross" that watertype using all movementpoints to advance only one tile. I am sure some has better ideas for this.

How to bombard then? Again not sure.... But you could allow bombarding units to fire up to two (or three or more) tiles away, couldn't you?! AFAIR that was possible in the old war-game The Perfect General 2.
(Posted by TheBirdMan)

1.9.10 - Basic terrain types

Peaks (really high mountains)
Mountain
Hill
grass
plains
desert
tundra
glacier

Jungle, forest, and swamp are 'improvements' in this model, similar to SMAC forest and fungus.

Some terraforming should be allowed. With really advanced technology, it should be possible to terraform a mountain into a hill. However, the system should remember the original terrain. While a mountain can be transformed into a hill, and a hill into plains, a tile that was originally a mountain cannot be levelled into plains.
(Posted by lajzar)

1.9.11 - Sea terrains
Coast
Seas
Oceans
Iceburgs
Ice Cap
Shallows

Coast, sea, and oceans are as per civ3. Iceburgs represent a shipping hazard, and ice caps are impassable except for subs. Shallows represent about 1/5 of all coast tiles, and possibly other areas (such as the Dogger Bank in the North Sea). The following special rules apply to shallows:

Certain large ships (carriers, dreadnoughts, battleships) cannot enter shallows.

Most units can only unload from a transport if the transport is in a shallows tile or if unloading into a friendly city.

Marines (including any unit with this flag) can unload from a transport into hostile cities or from normal coast tiles.

In addition, Oceans may have a trade wind (direction) flag. Any sail ship moving in the same direction (or with a 45 degree angle) gets a movement bonus. Note sure how easy this would be for the system to randomly generate maps so this feature would appear to mesh with reality.
(Posted by lajzar)

1.9.12 - Natural

Forest (plains/grass/hill only)
Jungle (grass only)
Swamp (grass only)
Nature Park

Forest, swamp, and jungle replace the traditional separate terrain types. This isn't a gameplay change, as these terrain types couldn't have farms or mines anyway. It is more a change in the internal logic used. The Nature Park corresponds to national parks. It appears around late industrial times (Yellowstone was the world's first iirc), and provides a trade bonus and a pollution bonus.
(Posted by lajzar)

1.9.13 - Other new terrains

Glacier: the food/shield/commerce production of this terrain would be 0/0/0, although being next to a river would still give the bonus commerce; no terrain improvements could be built on glacier (including irrigation, mines, and roads); no planting forests on glaciers; movement cost of 3; can't build cities on glacier

Arctic: production would be 0/0/0, but could be mined; in addition, could have roads built on them, but not rails; no planting forests in arctic terrain either; movement cost would be 2

Shield-Land: represents heavily eroded ancient mountains; a hybrid of hills and plains; production would be 1/1/0; irrigation would provide 1 additional food, mines 2 additional shields; movement cost would be 1; low (20%) defensive bonus; can contain forests

Ice-Flow: an overlay on top of coast, sea, or ocean terrain; high movement cost (of 3?); chance every turn for units occupying ice-flow tiles to sink (with lesser chance for more modern units to sink); production would be same as underlying terrain

Ice Cap: another water-based terrain; zero production; impassable except to units flagged to pass through or under this terrain (such as nuclear subs)
(Posted by Xorbon)

1.9.14 - Forest being an overlay

I would like forests to be an overlay tile that adds +1 sheilds, not a terrain. if you cut down a forest it will stowly grow back (100 turns?). about terrain names with forest:

Grassland + Forest = Temperate Forest, Tropical Rain Forest

Plains + Forest = Chapparal/Mediterrainean scrub, Monsoon Forest

Hills + Forest = Upland Forests

Mountains + Forests = Montane Forests, Cloud Forests

Tundra + Forest = Taiga

Coast + Forests = Mangrove Swamps, Kelp Beds, Coral Reefs
(Posted by Odin)

1.10 - Terrain dependant on "neighbour"

ONE thing about terrain: puting tiles in an aleatory manner just doesn't give the best results. An amphasis should be put on "next to huge mountains, there's more chances to get little mountains", "next to a delta there's more chances to get better plains", "next to desert, there is less chances to see jungle", etc.

It changes a landscape AND strategy alot (strategy would include to get "this region" or "this other region"!)
(Posted by Trifna)

1.11 - Rivers a bigger part of the game

Rivers need to become a bigger part of the game, there should be some wider rivers say 3/4 of a tile, or multiple tiles, with fish, in them at locations, etc.

You should need a large river in the city to build the dam imporvement.
You also would not be able to cross these until after getting engineering and then building a bridge across them. This would not be automatic it would cost more worker time. If this is a variable width, it could cost more at a wider spot. You should need to upgrade your bridge to allow the railroad or mechanized units to cross it as they put to much strain on the bridge you built in the middle ages.
(Posted by marcthornton)

[hexagonian]

Multiple levels of shield/food/gold tile improvements, based on tech advances.

...AND LIMIT ROADS/RAILS TO MOVEMENT ONLY, AS WELL AS GET RID OF INFINITE RAIL MOVEMENT

[ixnay]

How about keeping infinite rail movement, but restricting the number of units that can take advantage of it? City improvements and technologies could increase this limit.

[Optimizer]

Nikolai - you should switch paragraphs 1 and 2. Obviously one has to decide about terrain issues before terrain improvement.

[Optimizer]

Terrain improvements should have more levels, so that an industrial farm or mine is many times as productive as their ancient counterparts.

This will allow well-developed civs with small territory to be more productive than larger civs with less infrastructure.

[Kuciwalker]

1.2 - Natural Parks
Natural Parks and Protective land. If you are going to be able to designate borders it would also be cool to designate natural parks that could help combat pollution. This land could sacrifice shield bonus' for commerace. (Posted by Japher)

Seems rather pointless, and reminds me of some of the more agonizing CtP(2) features

[Fosse]

There is strong support of a spherical map, which is getting discussed elsewhere but is so intimately linked with terrain that it should be mentioned in the initial post. Then the thread can discuss ideal terrain for both the flat map and spherical.

I agree with skywalker about designating parks and so forth being tedious, and I'd oppose that option being in Civ 4.

I definatly support doing away with infinite movement, but do not want to see a rail use limit.

I have NO desire to have workers (or public works!) "build" suburbs. Let the graphics represent the city size, and spill into adjacent tiles if necessary. Building suburbs sounds like a chore, and a silly one at that.

[J-S]

1) PUBLIC WORKS : exactly like in CTP.
2) City sprawl: when cities reach a certain pop, they automatically sprawl to adjacent tiles.
3) Landmarks: like in SMAC.
4) Terrain afects units: some units should not be able to cross certain terrains without damage. That is afterall why both Napoleon and Hitler failed in Russia.

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by ixnay
How about keeping infinite rail movement, but restricting the number of units that can take advantage of it? City improvements and technologies could increase this limit.

Infinite rail movement is a crutch that kills the need to think strategically, especially regarding defense.

And giving rails/roads economic development effectively makes it almost impossible to cut enemy movement, because every tile has a road/rail.

[Kuciwalker]

I'd still like infinite movement as an option in the editor. IIRC many C2 games used it very innovatively (like the wormhole in the DS9 scenario).

[Shogun Gunner]

Let me join the bandwagon and stop infinite railroad movement. 'nuff said.

Regarding, terrain improvements, I'm not crazy about national parks. I must admit to missing one thing about Civ2...irrigation to farmlands. Twice the effort for workers (I'm bracing myself for the comments from people who hate anything that increases the amount of micromanagement), but I liked the nod to improved strategies and technologies in domestic production.

I'm willing to bet a lot of people don't want that back

[Fosse]

I'd be okay with farms, if we stick to the proposal someone else (forgive me for neglecting credit where credit is due, I just don't want to browse the many threads right now!) made about limiting irrigation to right along the water's edge.

You would farm over your old irrigation, netting improvement, but you would also farm over everything else as well, which you couldn't irrigate.

[Nikolai]

Originally posted by Optimizer
Nikolai - you should switch paragraphs 1 and 2. Obviously one has to decide about terrain issues before terrain improvement.

Done. And I have updated with the new ideas posted here.

There is strong support of a spherical map, which is getting discussed elsewhere but is so intimately linked with terrain that it should be mentioned in the initial post. Then the thread can discuss ideal terrain for both the flat map and spherical.

Sorry, but I must have missed that. Can you give me a link? How strong is the support btw?

[alva]

Adding another vote for doing away with infinite rail movement.
-
The one negative from this is of course worker management(assuming no public-works). Any ideas on how to solve this?

edit: added management

[Nikolai]

Originally posted by alva
The one negative from this is of course worker (assuming no public-works). Any idead on how to solve this?

Is a word missing here? Worker what?

[alva]

Looks fine to me..
-
Seriously, what I mean is that late industrial/early modern, so many workers are around to manage and for that alone, I do like rails as they are now.

It's bad enough to control them as it is without having to make sure how to get them to work as soon as possible(shortest route) or worse, wich worker I should use on what tile.
With rails this isn't that much of a problem as you can take one from the other end of your empire to come and help finish a task. etc..

Better now?

So the question is, how can could this be handled without having infinite rails?
One answer could be for example to give workers infinite moves,, say starting modern, while other units don't.

[hexagonian]

But why...

Workers are considered units, same as any military unit - they can be captured. So your worker will take several turns to reach its destination. Plan ahead and be patient...

[alva]

Sure, the thing is, if you a hundred of the little sods running around it might get a tad tedious.

[Nikolai]

I agree that the model as for today is a bit...tedious. But maybe this discussion is better suited under a topic about units? Just to hold the discussion into terrain and terrain improvements.

[Kuciwalker]

I'd like pollution to be removed. It doesn't really provide the player with any strategic choices (come on... are you actually going to forgo building Factories and Hospitals? It wouldn't help you anyways, even in the long run.) and it is incredibly annoying.

[alva]

3 - Worker jobs
3.1 - More worker jobs

I like both the CtP and CivIII version of terrain improvements, but just for the sake of arguement, I will be going from the perspective of CivIII. I want to either be able to add worker jobs or already have them in. Examples: Loved the ability to Irragate a second time in CivII. Give this back.
(Posted by donegeal)

3.2 - Public Works, not workers

PUBLIC WORKS : exactly like in CTP.
(Posted by J-S)

This is from this threads summary. Some subject are always going to overlap certain area's.

[alva]

I'd like pollution to be removed.

I would like to see some implementation of pollution, having said that, I do agree that the current model is annoying and little to gameplay.
How about making it so that it affects production and income.
(people are more often sic, blahblahblah) IE average production will be lower due to pollution (could be on a wordwide level with cities producing most pollution being affected more ).

Edit: some major typos

[alva]

RE: pollution: trees really should reduce pollution!

[Nikolai]

You're right, alva. Things do overlap.
Btw, I just updated the list.

[Peter Triggs]

Can't you turn pollution off in Civ3, i.e., play without it?

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by alva
Sure, the thing is, if you a hundred of the little sods running around it might get a tad tedious.

At least you can group similar units and you can path them to a destination, so the bottom line is that it only takes a few more turns to get to there. This doesn't make it any more tedious than it is currently.

[Nikolai]

Originally posted by Peter Triggs
Can't you turn pollution off in Civ3, i.e., play without it?

AFAIK, no.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by alva

I'd like pollution to be removed.

I would like to see some implementation of pollution, having said that, I do agree that the current model is annoying and little to gameplay.
How about making it so that it affects production and income.
(people are more often sic, blahblahblah) IE avertain production will be last due to pollution (could be on a wordwide level with cities producing most pollution being affected more ).

The thing is, pollution is supposed to create a strategic decision between industrializing and not industrializing. However, it is INSANELY STUPID not to industrialize, and I wouldn't have it any other way. Should not industrializing be a viable strategy to win the game? No, because it is inconceivable that anything like that could ever happen IRL.

[Fosse]

Originally posted by Nikolai
Sorry, but I must have missed that. Can you give me a link? How strong is the support btw?

Radical ideas thread.
A few posts right at the top.

This one's an older one.
I haven't read this one, but I'm sure it's worth reading if you're interested in the topic.

And how strong is the support? Well.... I sure like the idea.
The topic has come up in various threads over the past few years, and there are always strong arguments on the side of spherical maps (ha). Perhaps a poll is in order though, to determine what the people posting in this thread right now think.

[wrylachlan]

1.1B/1.7B

Certain terrains have a percentage chance each turn you move through them of taking away hitpoints. It could be as though the terrain itself were a unit and it "attacks" you as you go by. Certain units or civs would be more immune than others to these effects ie. Mayans have no jungle penalty or a late game Special Forces unit that is imune to all terrain penalties...

1.4B/5.1B

When a city gets to a certain size, any additional growth has a chance of happening not in the city center, but in a suburb. This turns a surrounding tile into a "suburb" tile. These tiles do not produce food, or shields, but can hold up to 5 citizens which can be made into tax collectors, or workers, or whatever.

The upside is that it gives you a lot of flexibility in terms of whether you want the city to be commercial or producing or science, etc. The down side is that you have to double irrigate, or farm other tiles to feed them. And you have to defend them from enemy attack.

4. Railroads/Roads

This is a huge pet peeve of mine and I think an easy fix. Why aren't there roads and railroads across 100% of the land in real life? Because they cost money to upkeep. Why do we have them at all? Because they provide an ecomic benefit in being able to get from place to place, and that benefit offsets their cost. But there is a law of diminishing returns where after you have one RR between two cities, the second costs more than its economic benefit.

How this translates to Civ is to give Roads and RR's an upkeep. Then make their economic benefit dependant on the number of nearby cities they have a direct line to - maybe a 5% commerce bonus for the first one, 4% for the next, etc. etc. That way a line directly from city A to B might cost 5 gold, but give you 8 for a net of 3, from A to C nets 2, A to D nets 1, A to E is a wash, and anything after that is a loosing proposition.

4.1 Railroad Movement
Keep unlimited movement, but add a 1 turn embarking/disembarking penalty for railroad use. If you want to get on a railroad, you can embark and go to your destination all in one turn. But in order to get off you need to wait till your next turn.

A corrolary to this is that you can only embark/dismbark at a city or worker built "train depot". Also if your unit is in a city at the end of its turn, it can be used for defense. But if you're waiting at a train depot, you can't defend with units waiting to disembark. If that train depot tile falls, the depot is destroyed and your units are automatically disembarked with severe damage.

4.? River Transportation
Having rivers between tiles for strategic importance is pretty cool. On the other hand having the early scouts travel along rivers was pretty cool too. How to Reconcile these two things?

This one's a little complicated to explain, but easy to see if maybe someone could do a mock up for me... anyhoo...

The rivers exist between the land tiles and act just like they do in CIV3 in terms of a movement penalty to cross plus defense bonuses, etc. However a unit can "embark" on the river. What this does is it costs one movement point, and shifts the grid a half square over and down which puts the river at the center of the square from the point of view of the unit. The unit can then enjoy the improved movement of the river and "disembark" when it wants to return to land.