I'd like to see bridges over the rivers.

[MattPilot]

is ZOC as we know it from SMAC back in Civ4?

if yes, i'm really happy

[Shogun Gunner]

never played SMAC -- how did it work there?

[GeoModder]

't Is a quite blocking feature there.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KyuuA4
OK. How about establishing "artificial" choke-points?

Fortresses.

[MattPilot]

Originally posted by GeoModder
't Is a quite blocking feature there.

???

never played SMAC -- how did it work there?

I think Civ2 had the same system. When you were in in a square adjacent to an enemy unit, you couldn't move to a square that was also adjacent to either the same enemy unit or a different one. Unless of course you had a friendly unit in that square (think paratroopers). You could, however, attack the unit that is causing the ZOC.

By removing this feature in Civ3, they removed a big part of the tactical combat gameplay.

Smaller nations had a chance of stopping or slowing big stacks by simply fortifying units on mountains & forts. Paratroopers were useful in creating paths through enemy territory.

I really wish they bring back real ZOC. It was a big part of combat.

[Shogun Gunner]

Ah...the traditional ZOC from military simulation board games (ala Avalon Hill, SPI, et al). yes, I also prefer that system.

Civ3 still has the zone of control to an extent, however it only occurs when an enemy unit moves from one square to another square within the unit's ZOC. And then, it doesn't seem to happen 100% only by a predetermined probability. The best you can do is knock of a HP from the moving enemy unit. It's much weaker.

[Straybow]

In some ways the distinction of bridges doesn't work on this strategic scale. Over the length of a game turn it doesn't matter much whether units cross a bridge or use ferry service or even build their own ferryboats. If the river is really huge or in a deep canyon then ancient wood and stone bridgebuilding won't be any use.

[Sirotnikov]

If the river is really really huge, it might as well be represented by a sea square

[GeoModder]

Or a number of lakes interlinked.

[KyuuA4]

Originally posted by GeoModder
Or a number of lakes interlinked.

Even the largest/widest rivers (like the Amazon) aren't that wide.

[Max Sinister]

AFAIK, at its mouth its more than 20 km wide. Not enough for a world map (where a tile is 100 x 100 km), but on a map of South America...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Straybow
In some ways the distinction of bridges doesn't work on this strategic scale. Over the length of a game turn it doesn't matter much whether units cross a bridge or use ferry service or even build their own ferryboats. If the river is really huge or in a deep canyon then ancient wood and stone bridgebuilding won't be any use.

But it'd be nice to see them on the map, rather than the current ugliness of the road running under the river, IIRC.

[Xorbon]

Originally posted by GAZ082
1- If im not wrong, in all CIVs you requiered the Engineering technology for being able to build roads over rivers (aka, bridges). So, the answer is no.

You are wrong.

In the original Civilization game, 'bridge building' was a tech all on its own.