Desert

[Dis]

although rivers are our primary irrigation source here in the southwest U.S. It's the only thing that allows farming of any sort. But I do agree that the food bonus of flood plains/desert is too much. I just don't feel it should provide more food than grasslands.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Dis
But I do agree that the food bonus of flood plains/desert is too much. I just don't feel it should provide more food than grasslands.

Then you don't understand how floodplains work. Whenever a flood occurs, there's a large amount of silt and organic debris that gets deposited on the land on both side of the river/stream. This acts like a natural fertilizer than continually renews the land. Grassland on the other hand, if not managed properly, will gradually lose it's fertility. This is partly due to nutrients being removed when the crop is harvested, and partly due to erosion, either wind or rain. Unless the farmer actively works at maintaining the fertility of the land, it will eventually become next to useless.

[Dis]

but we don't have floodplains along the Colorado river. . It's mostly rocky and desert.

[Hermann the Lombard]

...and particularly difficult to irrigate when the river is 5,000 feet below the surrounding plateau!

[Willem]

Originally posted by Dis
but we don't have floodplains along the Colorado river. . It's mostly rocky and desert.

I think the model of floodplains used in the game are the Nile and Euphrates rivers. On those two systems, flooding adds a great deal to the fertility of the surrounding land. Even the Mississippi has a similar process occurring. The Colorado is a bit of an aberration as far as river systems go.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Hermann the Lombard
...and particularly difficult to irrigate when the river is 5,000 feet below the surrounding plateau!

that too. . But the grand canyon doesn't go the entire way. Once you get past the Vegas area, the surrounding mountains and cliffs fall away more.

Of course the river doesn't actually flood anymore with the numerous dams on it.

so perhaps if the player builds a hydro plant (though I don't know of anyone who actually builds these), the food bonus of flood plains should go down.

[Martin the Dane]

Well I guess the desserts along the Colorado river would be desert hills, or mountains, in civ4 terms. I have lived on flod plains and they sure are fertile, even though the river sometimes washes the crops away. But yes deserts should be usable, maybe desert towns, that generates ½ as much gold as regular towns.

[Hermann the Lombard]

You get the desert towns to fill up by posting ads for beachfront property...

[Yosho]

Even today, though, most severe deserts are mostly empty of people, and there are large areas of the world that simply can not be farmed in any practical large-scale way. People can live there today, but there's usually no good reason to.

[Dis]

if there is no river, the only way to get water is groundwater pumping. And that supply is limited. Even today, population in deserts is limited. My city wouldn't be as big as it is without the Colorado river. Because we started emptying our springs and aquifers back in the 60's. It was only in the 1960's we began to use colorado river (lake mead) water because we had to. We were running out.

So I'm okay with civ4 restrictions.

[Urban Ranger]

Well, the Usians is rather wasteful with water. A better model would be Israel. They have been quite successful in making use of the desert.

[bongo]

Whta's that tech called again? "Drip irrigation"?

Even the moon is habitable if you put enough effort in it

[johnmcd]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Well, the Usians is rather wasteful with water. A better model would be Israel. They have been quite successful in making use of the desert.

True, but largely by concentrating all the water available to Israel and Palestine in Israel. I'm not sure that approach would work if the water was distributed equally across all the land that yields it.