Do you terraform rivers?

[Drago Sinio]

I was wondering if anyone else likes to terraform new rivers , and if there is any way to figure out where the river will go , exactly. I mean if there is a formula or a rule that covers it? If you "drill to aquifer", does the river go downhill, or south, or what?

A good point to remember is that while it takes several turns to drill, it improves three or four squares at once. And the rivers also act as extra roads. Two improvements, in multiple squares, for the price of one!

I often have several crawlers per base pulling in extra energy, and the rivers help get them to the desired square a few turns quicker. So for my (builderesque/hybrid)playing style, thats like three improvements at once.

[Purple]

They run downhill (although I seem to remember uphill rivers in the Crater), so I try to get the biggest bank for my drilling buck by finding the highest square in the region and letting gravity work. I mostly use them in arid regions to improve the resources, but the travel bonus is helpful, too.

Another thing to note is that existing rivers may be rerouted with judicious terraforming, raising or lowering an area to achieve the desired result, although surprises are frequent.

[WhiteElephants]

It isn't till late in the game that I go about drilling aquifers, but I too pick the highest elevation square in the area and cross my finger hoping it goes where I want it to.

I believe that rivers also add to the moisture of the squares it runs through. I know arid will go to moist, but I can't say for sure whether moist will turn to rainy.

[Lefty Scaevola]

I do a simultaneus (can't START one adjacient to an existing river square) drill to aquifer in all the farm/collector squares around my super science base, its also the only place I build an echelon mirror.

------------------
Gaius Mucius Scaevola Sinistra
Pontificator Pendanticus
older richer & wiser than you

[RedFred]

I've spent some time trying to figure how the heck rivers will determine their direction, square by square and it is beyond me.

Rather than just going for the really high points, consider places far away from other bodies of water. You get the biggest return that way. Also, the rivers tend to meander more if the whole area is of similar height such as in the Uranium Flats.

[Hydro]

Rivers created by terraforming will generally go downhill. I have had good luck by finding the highest point, determining the 'down' side I want, and then letting it rip. The worst that can happen is you get a river that isn't in quite the right place, but, as mentioned, there is no downside to a river (extra moisture to a square, energy, extra movement). A couple of superformers can drill one in 4 turns (16 turns/2 for super/2 for two formers, I think), so just move them over and try again.

From a hydrologic/hydrogeologic point of view the whole idea is ludicrous, though. Creating a sustainable river from an aquifer? Not likely. For that matter, the idea of creating/destroying land by terraforming is ludicrous, too. I gave up trying to rationalize both issues a long time ago.

Hydro

[Drago Sinio]

Thanks all, for the tips and ideas. I tried a very un-scientific test, drilled about 8 new rivers. The length of the new rivers created varied from one to twelve squares.
I think it might be a good idea, while playing a game, to pick a particular area when you first get the tech, (Eco. Engineering?) and put a group of 5 or 6 formers in a line down the center of the area you want rivers in. Then start them all drilling on the same turn. I think you would end up with a river "delta", and you could then expand into that area, siting the bases according to where the rivers went. It would be fun to try, anyway.

[MariOne]

You know that when attempting to dig a borehole adjecent to an existing one you get a message stating that it's not allowed.
I guess still at the demo time, it was found out that starting them simultaneously will work around that limitation.
Some players argued that it was a cheat.
Of course there was not unanimity, but eventually that opinion gained weight enought to be addressed in SMAC Enchantment 3.0 fixes:
"- You can no longer start building two boreholes next to each other."
So, it was NOT left to the judgement of players to choose whether they wanted to use that "feature" or not. The developers recognized taht they forgot to code a check to block that workaround.
Someone would have regretted losing flexibility, but there was also less room left for arguments (and we don't miss it).

Now, don't you think that the two issues are exactly identical?
Personally, that is my favorite example against those who say that if you don't agree to ban a BUG, then anyone is free to exploit it.
I rather think that IF there's ambiguity about something being a "feature" or a "bug", then we can accept the "live and learn".
But IF there is clear evidence that a trick exploits a BUG, fairplay calls that you should at least make the other players in each specific pbem advised, and agree whether for that game you like to allow it or ban it.

I won't have problems to play building river mazes and deltas, but I'd like that all the players in a game agree about it.
Consider your approach to that trick:
- you think that it is an intended feature, that is, you can't indeed *begin* a river adjacent to an *existing* one, but nothing explicitly forbids to start them adjacent before the first is completed
- you think that it's a "secret passage" bonus left there for "smart" players to be found, to work around the prop up rule designed to separate the unimaginative from you.
- you think that the designers decided a limitation on the allowed actions, they put explicit in-game messages stating that you can't do something, and then forgot to check all the paths which could workaround the intended game limitations.

As a nitpicker I would even spouse the first interpretation.
But ESPECIALLY after the decision about boreholes, which should "make jurisprudence", I think that if you enjoy confronting your gaming skills on a common coherent ground, you should rather consider the third approach.

I like the fact that it's not "fixed", but instead we still can choose about it game per game.

I am tho a bit surprised that someone can go ahead and use it as a smart trick without the slightest doubt...
(especially considering the ranks of "puritans" usually dwelling here, people who call even the most legal and clearly intended game aspect a cheat, only because it would make some practice "too convenient" - and because they didn't think of it first.... )

[Drago Sinio]

Well, I have to agree it probably is a minor cheat to start multiple rivers at the same time. But I play against the AI, so that doesnt really matter to me. They cheat too!

I just started a new game, went for the tech to drill aquifers asap. I happened to start in the Monsoon Jungle. I built a couple of extra formers, and sent them up above the edge of the jungle. I spaced them one square apart, trying to get rivers all thru the area. It worked pretty well. I got some nice long meandering rivers that really improved the terrain. I then expanded into that area, building bases on rivers, three square apart. Saved me from building roads, too. Good deal.

[Skanderbeg]

I see that most people drill rivers to get their land more moist for food production. But the main goodie is the 1energy per square they provide. So it is a very good idea to drill some at the highest points fo your energy parks.
I drill rivers if my formers don't have anything else to do, and that is especially in games in which I have the WP.

[Aredhran]

To determine the course of a new river is a very tedious process. And predicting the change to an existing river a terraform up/down will have is even more difficult.

Basically, you have to look at the altitude of the square where you drill your river, and then compare it with the 4 adjacent squares (1,3,7,9 below)

1 2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9

The river will flow in the lowest square. You'll then repeat the process starting from the new square, until you reach the sea, or a river tile (this can make rivers go in circles)

I usually don't bother predicting the course. Just pick any high-altitude tile and drill down.

Aredhran

[Drago Sinio]

I did another test on this, starting a line of four adjacent formers at the same turn. It produced only one river, along the line of formers.

So I think it is probably most efficient to just drill to aquifer from the highest square in each bases production radius as soon as you get the tech. You will get a "random improvement in many squares at once. And assuming you already have one former in each bases radius, you dont waste time moving the former around.

[cbn]

I didn't usually terraform rivers since extra boreholes or more basic quicker things (forests, farming) are more of a priority. Also I didn't see point of doing this before getting energy restrictions lifted as I assume that you could not go beyond the ceiling and solars are so much quicker.

However in my current game (double-blind, Miriam, map of Planet)I found it quite effective. I was on the rather large continent in the middle with the Uranium Flats, Garland Crater and the nexus. I had it all to myself and couldn't discover Doc Flex to find anyone (and it was my first game on this map since I used to always play random --- it took a while to figure out which direction was best to raise land towards other landmasses). So I was in the position where I had so little tech that each of my cities had every facility it could build at the time. I started pumping out extra formers (I had the WP Special project).

Some of these went boreholing but I started about 6 of these building rivers, starting around the rim of the crater. Most rivers only went 2 or three squares into the crater but a couple went down the outside 5 or 6 squares. I had a heck of a time predicting where they would go but the end result is an extra energy from most affected squares.-- quite a little boost actually. Once restrictions get lifted this will even be wothwhile in the flats.

I am now thinking about how this can be structured into an energy park-- hmmmm


cbn


[This message has been edited by cbn (edited December 18, 2000).]