I do agree that the rivers are somewhat ugly, but you're playing with a rectangular grid where the rivers cannot cut across on a diagonal (at least, I've never seen rivers cutting across a grid square along the diagonal).
Especially the non water ones/ they kinda break the visual unity of what you see.
What non-water rivers? I cannot think of any non-water river I've seen in-game.
Yeah but the benefit of Civ was that Rivers didn't occupy tile space in Civ. There is never ANYTHING on a river tile in FE. Also, there's nothing like putting your town right beside that awesome 4/3/3 River spot only to finout out you'd better build a monument first because there is no room for your city.
When did Civ move rivers to between the tiles? I've only ever played Civ 2, and at that point rivers were tile features similar to roads (which makes much more sense than the stuff in FE where no matter which way you travel, rivers always stop you).
I agree with you nanako, the rivers could use some attention, mostly the point where it looks like they where placed atop the grass like aqueducts for a hidden underground faction.
~ Kogndej
I agree with this, except that when I see the in-game rivers I think of canals rather than aqueducts. I think if they'd get rid of the part that makes the river look like its flowing between raised banks and sitting at a higher level than the surrounding terrain, it would fix (at least mostly) this impression.
The water is a different colour from the ocean it flows into
This bit isn't really a problem. Ocean water generally looks much different from river water, since the river water generally has much more sediment suspended in it. If you're going to complain about water color, then river water needs to be more brown (at least, in areas where it's reasonable to find loose soil which could be picked up by the river) and the ocean water color would only change right around the point where the river flows into the ocean.
