[Religion and Revolution]: Drying Swamps, Digging Riverbeds, Planting Forrests

[raystuttgart]

Hi guys,

most of you know that I have created many concepts over time.
I would like to present another one.

Some remarks about this concept:

1. I am not sure if this is historically correct.
2. I am not sure if this would be a good idea considering gameplay.
3. It is however technically possible and AI could be taught to understand this with moderate efforts.

Basically the idea is to give Pioneers further possibilities to change the landscape.

1. Drying Swamps / Marsh (new Terrain we have planned)

• Pioneer would get another Action (Button) "Dry Swamp"
• Thus they could transform Swamp into Savanna, Marsh into Grasland.
• Would remove all terrain features (like Jungle)
• Would destroy all improvements already build (like Lodge, Farm, ...)
• Would take relatively long and be expensive
• Only possible in own cultural borders

2. Digging Riverbed

• Pioneer would get another Action (Button) "Dig Riverbed"
• Thus they could basically create new rivers
• Only possible if existing river adjacent
• Would take relatively long and be expensive
• Only possible in flat lands
• Only possible in own cultural borders

3. Planting Forrest (Something like this has already been done in other mods.)

• Pioneer would get another Action (Button) "Plant Forrest"
• Thus they could basically create new Forrest-Features
• Depending on the Terrain, the appropriate "Forrest"-Feature would be chosen
• Would destroy all improvements already build (like Farm, ...)
• Would take relatively long and be expensive
• Only possible in own cultural borders

Feedback ?

 

[JosEPh_II]

2. Digging River bed, possible other name "Dig Canals". In NE there were several early canal systems built.

I like all 3 suggestions.

Didn't the original Colonization have some of this, like most of part 1, iirc it did.

JosEPh

 

[raystuttgart]

2. Digging River bed, possible other name "Dig Canals". In NE there were several early canal systems built.

We could call it "Canal" but it would really be a river.
This is no improvement.

Didn't the original Colonization have some of this, like most of part 1, iirc it did.

I don't think so, but I might be wrong.

 

[Hrvoje193]

I like ideas.

 

[Robert Surcouf]

I like those ideas. However I don't know if digging river bed is historical. This should cost some time and/or money...

We could call it "Canal" but it would really be a river.
This is no improvement.

Indeed it should be called "Canal" although in game terms "Canal = River"

I don't think so, but I might be wrong.

I don't think so either.

 

[raystuttgart]

However I don't know if digging river bed is historical.

I am not sure either.

This should cost some time and/or money...

It would cost both.
(The amounts are matters of balancing.)

Indeed it should be called "Canal" although in game terms "Canal = River"

I don't care about the name of the Action.
I just wanted to make clear what I am talking about.
(It is a river and no improvement.)

 

[orlanth]

hmm I really like those ideas as well!

The early colonists would not have had the capacity to drain marshes and dig canals, but they certainly did develop this later on, I think they should not be available from the start and should require a later Knowledge/Invention. I'd agree they should be expensive and take many turns, so you wouldn't want to change every single tile. It may be even simpler for the AI to not use it if its too hard to make it use this appropriately, that would be fine too since they'd still be an interesting if rare option for human players to use only in special situations.

Indeed it should be called "Canal" although in game terms "Canal = River"

I think what Ray means is the action in Civ4BuildInfos can be named "Dig Canal", but the result will create a River on the map which will have to show up with the standard name River and not Canal. I think that is fine and not a problem at all. :thumsbup:

 

[raystuttgart]

I really like those ideas as well!

Great.

The early colonists would not have had the capacity to drain marshes and dig canals, but they certainly did develop this later on, ...

I think so, too.
But it would not be a problem from my side, if the feature was simply available from the beginning.

I think they should not be available from the start and should require a later Knowledge/Invention.

If you guys would prefer to have to unlock these features, that is ok for me, too.

I'd agree they should be expensive and take many turns, so you wouldn't want to change every single tile.

Indeed.
But as I said, that is a simple matter of balancing in XML then.

It may be even simpler for the AI to not use it ...

Would probably not make a real difference if AI does not use these features at all.

I think what Ray means is the action in Civ4BuildInfos can be named "Dig Canal", but the result will create a River on the map which will have to show up with the standard name River and not Canal. I think that is fine and not a problem at all.

Exactly.

You can name the (Mouse-Over text of the) button for the action whatever you want.
I don't care.
Also this could be renamed in XML at any time.

The result however would alsways be a River.

 

[colonialfan]

I'm kind of on the fence about this one.

Digging canels/riverbeds, and draining swamps is for the most part historically inaccurate throughout the time period the game covers.

Canels
There is evidence in North America during the colonial period, that some small scale canels (under a mile in length) were constructed, but these were typically no more than pre-existing ditches/streams that were enlarged. In the 1780's and 1790's canels start to become more important but even then, few become more than wishful ideas given the immense cost in terms of labor and money. Simply there is not enough organization or willingness to pay for them. By the 1800's a few canels are in existence in the US, but it is really only after the war of 1812 that canel building becomes big.

I'm struggling with this one in particular because canels were built to imporve trade routes and make transportation of goods cheaper and more widespread. Given that no vessels can sail on the river system we currently have, aside from increased production yields along the canel, I'm failing to see the purpose of the canels in the game?

Swamps
As for draining swamps, again very labor intensive and costly. The technology, willingness and money was not there. Why exhaust your finances to drain swampland when you could more cost effectively purchase more productive land elsewhere? Washington DC was built in swampland and they were still draining the land there in the 1860's and 1870's, some 80+ years after it was founded.

Planting trees
There was no reforestation policy in colonial America although throughout the Americas there was a policy of slash and burn, particularly by Indian nations, which did create new virgin forests over time.

I agree with Orlanth that if these features are to be included they should not be available for quite some time into the game and should be really expensive in terms of tools and the time it takes to complete them, to better reflect historical accuracy.

 

[Shoobs]

The labor and cost of one tile canal should be atleast four times that of chopping a forest and be somewhere in the ballpark of 400 gold, probably more. You need a darn good reason to build them, such as lack of a particular type of resource you want to manufacture: Coffee berries for example, or improving pasturelands ( thus making sheep less viable )

 

[Commander Bello]

Some remarks concerning these ideas:

1) History
Drying swamps actually was performed in middle Europe (German town names ending with -rod, -rot, -roth, -reud are at least a hint). Yet, it took time, manpower and a strict organization to perform such a task.

Reforestation was rarely done. There's a reason why Italy and Spain lack huge forests, nowadays.

Digging "rivers/canals". AFAIR, there was a canal built in France, more or less connecting the western coast to the mediterranean one. The Netherlands and England may have had some canals, too, but I don't know when they have been created.

2) AI
The AI should be able to make meaningful use of such features. Given the fact how often even experienced players disagree with another player's decision about what to do with a certain tile, I have my doubts about how easy it will be to teach the AI to use these features in a meaningful way (see remarks below).

3) Gameplay
Chopping a forest takes 6 turns on standard speed (8 for jungles). Now, imagine how long it would take to GROW a forest until it becomes useful.
And what would you be allowed to do with that forest? Chopping again? I severely doubt the usefullness of that feature, as in most cases it will be much more efficient to transport the needed yields to that very town.

Digging canals is quite similar (but holds more problems, as you [better: the AI] would have to learn that it can only be built if connected to an already existing river. Sure, you may gain additional yields from it (or even be allowed to construct certain buildings), but will it be worth the effort? Again, the AI might be the biggest problem here.

Drying swamps: literally, this means replacing one terrain type with another (or maybe adding a new FEATURE), adding more or allowing for different yields gained from that very tile. This MAY be interesting, but once again it may be hard even for the human player to determine when and if the effort will be profitable. And the AI will always have a hard time to determine this.

In total:
I am unsure about the historic accuracy, I am wondering about the balancing and I doubt that the AI will make meaningful use of such features.
Adding features for the sake of adding doesn't look like the best idea.

 

[colonialfan]

Some remarks concerning these ideas:

1) History
Drying swamps actually was performed in middle Europe (German town names ending with -rod, -rot, -roth, -reud are at least a hint). Yet, it took time, manpower and a strict organization to perform such a task.

You are right that most European countries dried some swamp areas from the middle ages onwards, but like you said it took time, manpower, organization and lots of money. But then again land was a highly valuable commodity in Europe and at a premuim, so the effort could be worth the cost. In the America's, especially North America, where land was more plentiful, it was easier and cheaper just to buy land elsewhere.

Digging "rivers/canals". AFAIR, there was a canal built in France, more or less connecting the western coast to the mediterranean one. The Netherlands and England may have had some canals, too, but I don't know when they have been created.

The canal in France, if its the right one I'm thinking of and Robert would certainly know better than I, was first started in the mid 1660's. However, it was only partially completed and was not eventually finished until the mid 1800's.

The Dutch started building canals in the 16th & 17th centuries and the English started in the 17th and 18th centuries. Of course there were canals before in both countries but this was the main period of canal building.

 

[Robert Surcouf]

Some remarks concerning these ideas:

1) History
Drying swamps actually was performed in middle Europe (German town names ending with -rod, -rot, -roth, -reud are at least a hint). Yet, it took time, manpower and a strict organization to perform such a task.

Oh interesting! I didn't now about that.

Reforestation was rarely done. There's a reason why Italy and Spain lack huge forests, nowadays.

That is true indeed. This feature is interesting from a players perspective. It is as best not entirely historical (at worst it isn't historical at all). But it could add some fun gameplay. So it's a simple question: would we rather stick with historical facts (and forget a little gameplay improvement) or shall we rather improve gameplay (even though it isn't historical?
If a colony has no forest tiles around, it could really really be helpful to add a forest.

Digging "rivers/canals". AFAIR, there was a canal built in France, more or less connecting the western coast to the mediterranean one. The Netherlands and England may have had some canals, too, but I don't know when they have been created.

Oh! Your talking about the Canal du Midi (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canal_du_Midi)
This was during the 1660's (you're right Colonialfan !)... during Louis XIV's reign . Louis XIV was probably the greatest French king . I don't thing there was enough manpower in the new world at the same time to do such work!

In total:
I am unsure about the historic accuracy, I am wondering about the balancing and I doubt that the AI will make meaningful use of such features.
Adding features for the sake of adding doesn't look like the best idea.

I understand... Le'ts see what the others think...

 

[raystuttgart]

I am unsure about the historic accuracy, ...

I am not sure either about historical accuracy, but the features are definitely not totally unrealistic or fictional.
Also, we are playing "Alternative History" to some degree.

I am wondering about the balancing ...

Well, the balancing would be simple XML tags.
Don't see how this should become a problem.

I doubt that the AI will make meaningful use of such features.

I am sure, that it would generally be possible to teach AI to use these features.
It would really be pretty much straight forward rules when they should use them or not.
Of course, AI is never as smart as a human player, but that is the same with all features.

The question is, if this would even be necessary.
It would probably be much easier and almost the same result if AI would simply not use the features at all.

Adding features for the sake of adding doesn't look like the best idea.

What makes you think that we would add a feature "just for the sake of adding" ?
We do add features, because we - the Religion and Revolution team - like them.

"We like the feature" is the only reason we really need to care about.
(If somebody does not like the features we create, he may simply create his own modmod and remove, change or add features in the way he likes.)

However, if I read the posts correctly, colonialfan does not feel comfortable with the features, so the ideas will land in the archive.

 

[orlanth]

I did some research, and it looks to me like these could be very reasonable features to include. For instance, the USGS historical review below specifically mentions that during the mid 1700s many coastal plain wetlands were actively drained and converted to farmland.

http://water.usgs.gov/nwsum/WSP2425/history.html :

Early 1600's to 1800--Colonial Settlement
Wetland drainage began with permanent settlement of Colonial America. Throughout the 1600's and 1700's, colonization was encouraged by European monarchs to establish footholds in North America. The effects of this colonization on the landscape became obvious in the early to mid-1700's.

During the 1700's, wetlands were regarded as swampy lands that bred diseases, restricted overland travel, impeded the production of food and fiber, and generally were not useful for frontier survival. Settlers, commercial interests, and governments agreed that wetlands presented obstacles to development, and that wetlands should be eliminated and the land reclaimed for other purposes. Most pioneers viewed natural resources from wetlands as things to be used without limit (Tebeau, 1980). The most productive tracts of land in fertile river valleys in parts of Virginia had been claimed and occupied before 1700. The resulting shortage of choice land stimulated colonists to move south to the rich bottom lands along the Chowan River and Albemarle Sound of North Carolina on the flat Atlantic coastal plain. Initially, settlements consisted primarily of shelters and subsistence farms on small tracts of land. To extend the productive value of available land, wetlands on these small tracts were drained by small hand-dug ditches. During the mid- to late 1700's, as the population grew, land clearing and farming for profit began to affect larger tracts of land; many coastal plain wetlands were converted to farmland (fig. 3). Once drained, these areas provided productive agricultural lands for growing cash crops.

Widespread wetland drainage was most prevalent in the southern colonies. In 1754, South Carolina authorized the drainage of Cacaw Swamp for agricultural use (Beauchamp, 1987). Similarly, areas of the Great Dismal Swamp in Virginia and North Carolina were surveyed in 1763 so that land could be reclaimed for water transportation routes. Farming on large plantations was common practice in the South and necessitated some drainage or manipulation of wetlands.

By the 1780's, immigrants had settled along the fertile river valleys of the Northeast and as far south as present-day Georgia. Wetlands in these river valleys suffered losses with this settlement (fig. 4). Small towns and farms were established in the valleys along the rivers of Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, and Pennsylvania. Settlement extended to the valleys beyond the Appalachian Mountains in Virginia and followed the major rivers inland through the Carolinas by 1800.

Canals:

As also mentioned by Joseph, canals were important early on for local trade in some areas of the Northeast. As one example an extensive network of canals had been dug by early Dutch settlers of Manhattan by the time England took control in 1664
http://www.beerhistory.com/library/holdings/greggsmith1.shtml

.. New York was a different story. Established by the Dutch, England took control in 1664 and found a network of canals which imitated the Dutch homeland. Manhattan island lacked an abundant supply of fresh water and even the brewers had difficulty obtaining enough water to produce adequate amounts for drinking. Surprisingly, despite all their canal digging, the Dutch had not sunk a single well in the village, a situation the new administrators soon remedied. As a resort, brewing rapidly expanded.

The Cut River Canal was first built by the Pilgrims in 1636; and bypass and sluice canals were built & operated in 1767 by a company formed by John Ballandine.
http://brrm.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/The-Ballendine-Canal.pdf

Here's an interesting book about the Potomac Canal Company formed in 1785.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Potomac-Canal-Washington-Waterway/dp/1933202181

Larger canals began to become very important for industry and trade around 1790, well within the plausible time scale for a nation reaching independence, given that this mod simulates alternate history and there is a wide range of nations and possible circumstances that might reasonably have occurred.

I don't feel strongly either way about the forest-planting suggestion, but I do agree it would have been possible. There were efforts to plant large plots of potentially useful trees such as apple trees in areas of wilderness (for cider rather than timber), I suppose "Johnny Appleseed" would have been active in the late 1700s to early 1800s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Appleseed

 

[raystuttgart]

I did some research, and it looks to me like these could be very reasonable features to include.

colonialfan already said, he does not feel comfortable with these ideas.

So let us leave it with this.
(We are not going to force features into the mod, if a team member does not like them.)

 

[raystuttgart]

@colonialfan:

Just to clarify this:

Do you feel uncomfortable with all 3 of these features ?
Or could you agree on implementing one (or even all 3) of them under certain conditions ?

 

[colonialfan]

Hi guys,

Just to clarify my stand on the three issues.

Reforestation
Although not completely historically accurate, I don't have any huge objection to this, just as long as its plausable, i.e, no planting trees in snow caps, trees take a really long time to grow, etc. For colonies that have no forest tiles nearby it might be useful for them to have this option.

With reforestation I could go either way.

Canals
Seeing that the canal feature would be just like the river feature and inaccessible to ships, I don't see how they would be any different to the river feature we currently have and therefore what they would add to the game? Orlanth is correct that canals did exist in Colonial America. Baslladine's canal though, is the exception rather than the rule. The Cut River Canal of 1636 was a pre-existing tidal creek that was simply widened and deepened. The canals on Manhattan were also pretty much the same. Pre-existing waterways made bigger.

With Canals, I guess my biggest hang up is does it bring anything to the game other than decoration? It is true that I am not a fan of a canal feature, but I can't discredit it on historical grounds (at least small scale canals anyway ). So If the rest of the team want canals, I'm happy to go with the team consensus, though I think they should be costly and time consuming to construct to keep an air of historical authenticity.

Draining swamps
I've no big objection to this feature either. It did happen historically but very much on a small scale (for most of the time period the game covers), and over a prolonged period of time just given the limited technology, and great financial cost of such an operation.

With draining swamps, I'm fine with this feature, so as long as with the canals their cost and time to construct reflect historical accuracy.

 

[raystuttgart]

Reforestation
Although not completely historically accurate, I don't have any huge objection to this, just as long as its plausable, i.e, no planting trees in snow caps, trees take a really long time to grow, etc. For colonies that have no forest tiles nearby it might be useful for them to have this option.

Yes sure, trees take long to grow.
But 50 turns (just an example) would be 50 years.

The Trees planted would match the terrain, of course.

And yes, I also believe that it might be useful in some cases.

Canals
Seeing that the canal feature would be just like the river feature and inaccessible to ships, I don't see how they would be any different to the river feature we currently have and therefore what they would add to the game? Orlanth is correct that canals did exist in Colonial America. Baslladine's canal though, is the exception rather than the rule. The Cut River Canal of 1636 was a pre-existing tidal creek that was simply widened and deepened. The canals on Manhattan were also pretty much the same. Pre-existing waterways made bigger.

With Canals, I guess my biggest hang up is does it bring anything to the game other than decoration? It is true that I am not a fan of a canal feature, but I can't discredit it on historical grounds (at least small scale canals anyway ). So If the rest of the team want canals, I'm happy to go with the team consensus, though I think they should be costly and time consuming to construct to keep an air of historical authenticity.

I am not totally happy with the wording "Canal" for 2 reasons:

1. The feature would create a River.
2. A "Canal" implies something big. A "Riverbed" implies something smaller, which I have been thinking about.

This feature is about adding the possibiltiy to create additional rivers.
(Would be expensive and take time.)

I repeat:
This is simply about more rivers (that can be created by the player).

In some cases this could be interesting for the player to increase the output of yields produced on the plots.

To my opinion it is realistic that settlers were digging a few riverbeds to bring water to the farms that were a little further away from the main river.

Please let us not talk about "Canals" anymore.
People get a totally wrong impression because they think about something big.

Draining swamps
I've no big objection to this feature either. It did happen historically but very much on a small scale (for most of the time period the game covers), and over a prolonged period of time just given the limited technology, and great financial cost of such an operation.

With draining swamps, I'm fine with this feature, so as long as with the canals their cost and time to construct reflect historical accuracy.

Again I believe that it is quite realistic.
(Draining swamps has happened in Germany and other European Countries centuries before the time period of colonization.)

This will give the player the possibility to improve the terrains to his liking.
It could be a quite useful feature.

Of course, this should also be expensive and take quite some time.

-----------

Summary:

These 3 features will simply give the player the possibility to improve the terrain around his cities.

All 3 of them will be so expensive and time consuming, that the player will really think about using the features or not.

It is the decision "Better Terrain" vs. "Lots of Time and Money".

Considering AI, I believe that we can simply have AI not use these 3 features.
(It will really not make a noticable difference.)

Efforts for implementation are really not that much, if AI will not use them.

I do believe, that it is realistic, that the settlers have done changes to the landscape like described here.
(Of course they did it only in a few cases, which will probably also happen with these features.)

Balancing of the features would be exposed to XML of course.

Nothing will force a player to use these features.
A player could simply ignore them.

-----------

So if there are no objections to this, I will put this on our list.

We will see, when we will really implement the features.
(They are surely not top priority.)

@colonialfan:
Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Heartsbane]

One (very late) addition from my side purely from a playing perspective:

Hi guys,

...

Basically the idea is to give Pioneers further possibilities to change the landscape.

1. Drying Swamps / Marsh (new Terrain we have planned)

2. Digging Riverbed

3. Planting Forrest (Something like this has already been done in other mods.)

Feedback ?

1. Would be a nice feature imho later on to make cities in marshland more viable

2. Considering the costs, the uses of this would probably be rather limited. However, if there would be inventions that would lead to improved terrain improvements (e.g. the grain mill or the lumber mill from TAC-Werewolves) that would *need* an adjacent river, this feature could become very useful later. Also it would be possible to build a Great Ironworks in a city not previously near a river.

3. This would be terrific for several reasons:

1. Re-enabling wood resources: One thing i really hate is Indian villages placed on a wood resource I cannot use later once the village got destroyed by cultural boundaries or military action
2. Switch cities back to production later on, e.g. to produce artillery
3. Provide a relief against an AI with an overly strong desire to cut down all forests (happened to me in my latest two games)

Sorry for the late feedback btw.