River squares

[SirOsis]

River squares are quite good with the extra commerce and no need for an aqueduct. However, how can I tell if a square is next to a river?

Some places it is obvious while others I think I am next to the river but find out I'm not. What methods do people use to make sure the tile is adjacent to a river (or a lake)?

[TheArsenal]

Pressing “Control – G” let’s you see the grid lines on the map, that should make it easier see how the terrain aligns in relationship to where you want to place your city.


- edit: clarity

[Solomwi]

Right click on the tile for "Terrain Info". If it's unroaded and showing positive gold production, it's a river tile. If it shows zero gold, it's not. The problem I often run into is the "river corner", where you know the tile alignment, so gridlines don't help, but just don't know if that little meandering end of the river is considered bordering your tile or not. This usually happens with mountains on the adjacent tile.

[SirOsis]

Exactly what I was looking for thanks guys. Yes, the "river corner" is what I always have trouble with.

[Rhothaerill]

Another thing is to right click on a tile. If it comes up with '1' in the commerce square and doesn't have a road or commerce producing resource on it then it is a tile fed by a river.

EDIT: Oops, cross posted with Solomwi. I hate getting interrupted halfway through writing a post.

[Solomwi]

Rhoth... pfffffffttttt, always good to have my advice bolstered by an expert.

[Rhothaerill]

Expert? I'm hardly an expert.

But thanks.


Oh wait I just saw the wink smiley...never mind

[Ecthy]

Right click on the square, and if it produces trade it's next t oa river, that's what I do to find out

Or just move a worker on it and see if he can irrigate or not

[GhengisFarb™]

What would really be cool is if rivers acted as natural roads and units had a move bonus for going up and down the tiles adjacent to them.

[vmxa1]

They dropped that, it was in Civ2. Rivers reduced your movement cost.

[Datajack Franit]

I AM an expert

[Ecthy]

Yeah, I think it was clever to remove that bonus, wasn't very realistic. Too helpful for exploration.

[SirOsis]

It is realistic for large rivers. It's much easier to explore the Amazon by travelling the river than hacking through jungle. Early explorers used rivers much more than overland routes as long as the river was not too hazardous.

[Ecthy]

yeah, but 1. it works in both directions (large rivers?) and 2. if you traverse a continent with a chariot for 300 years and find a river in a desert how are the chances they'll have boats to go on that river on?

[GhengisFarb™]

Bur realisticly it DOES work in both directions. The Americas were explored by their rivers first. Explorers went up the St Lawrence, the Amazon AND the Mississippi. In fact the first settlement on the Mississippi was quite a way up river.