Rivers- between, not through, map squares

[Gilgalad5]

Ah, the age-old question in strategy-game design...

I really think it's a Catch-22; if you go for rivers as squares, you can represent the economic and demographic boons of fertility in river valleys--and it generally adds realism in the pre-industrial age, since rivers were the most efficient mode of bulk transportation.

On the other hand, their major military importance is forgotten. You can't even attempt to replicate the imperial Roman technique of fortifying the entire length of the Rhine and Danube. I have noticed this problem in Civ2 when trying to seal off hostile "borders" with fortresses---you can't build a real "active defense."

I realize there are ways to get around this, but my philosophy is, why make the terrain and other surface features more complex when diplomacy and other meta-elements could be improved?

If I had to make the choice, I would stick with the current rivers-as-squares.

[rremus]

How about the extra food/shields you get from rivers now? This is a realistic feature, and how will it be implemented? You could make the squares on both river sides have extra resources, but, at the current map scale, it could make rivers too powerful resources.
I also think there should be a distinction between a small river that only offers extra food/shields to a square and does not affect unit moving speed. These rivers could well cross map squares. Big rivers should offer extra food/shields to squares on its both sides and should flow only between squares. Olso, these should be difficult to cross (1/3 movement speed) but can improve unit speed along them. Building roads across small rivers should be available as soon as Road Building is available, but building roads across big rivers should be available ony with Bridge Building.

[Grumbold]

On the current scale (and any size we are likely to get next time) anything except the largest of rivers is already invisible and discounted. That being so, I personally would prefer the rivers-as-borders approach. Since the majority of Civ country-country diplomacy is of the 'proactive' kind, building a city or fort with a defensive bonus from several approach angles could be very advantageous.

[Stuff2]

I like this idea.

[Deathwalker]

I like it, but it needs more thought.

------------------
I have walked since the dawn of time and were ever I walk, death is sure to follow