Are rivers to simple?

[Dis]

ships going up rivers? I don't think so.

[Virdrago]

Originally posted by Xentropy
Hmm, I usually play on Fractal maps and find rivers to be quite plentiful and long most of the time. You get the occassional 1-2 tile long river (usually one that stops frustratingly short of entering a desert), but many very long rivers, sometimes which connect two or three civilizations, even.

I get the same. I think rivers are fine as they are.

[Dis]

What is a realistic river, really? There are so many different types, it'd be hard to code them into the map generator.

I'd just like to see a wide variety of different lengths. But what I'd really like to see in future installments of civ is elevation. I'd like to see rivers orginate from peaks (or lakes) and drain to seas and oceans (or a lake). And perhaps in some rare cases have them drain to a basin (desert). Though those types of rivers are generally small, but we have them in Nevada.

[eris]

Other than not having enough river tiles around my capitol, I have no problems with the rivers as is.

[Ijuin]

A three-tiered river system might be a bit too complex--notice how Civ3 had a three-tiered sea system, and in CIV they chose to simplify it back to two tiers. Let's just go with the small and medium river types and forget the super-big ones.

[Shogun Gunner]

Originally posted by Platypus Rex
in the grang scale of Civ, river issues is way back on my list

I am happy with the way it is now

*this does remind me of the cananal issue thread

nothing to add

[LordShiva]

Makes things too complicated. And bridge-building etc. is for tactical, not strategic games. Bridges are too small for a Civ-style map.

[Dis]

yeah bridges are too small. That can be represented by destroying the roads. Now if aircraft could destroy improvements, that'd be nice. But there'd have to be a limitation, one bombing run will not destroy all the bridges in a 100 km2 area.