Canal Improvement

[Hawaiian]

What they really need is a better graphic for the forts. They need to have separate graphics for a landlocked fort and a water-connecting fort. It is just so painful to the eyes looking at forts with ships in them. Ditto that for forts on top of resources.

Every other graphic fits nicely with the landscape except for forts, which just sit on top of anything there.

 

[TommyTankRush]

Canals were very important commercial arteries until the railways came along. Unfortunately, their heyday was probably too brief (1780 - 1840?) for them to feature in the game (you'd just have built a system of canals by the time it came to replace them all with railways!)

I do think that anyone building a mod that covered this period would do well to feature them.

 

[Mesix]

Canals were very important commercial arteries until the railways came along. Unfortunately, their heyday was probably too brief (1780 - 1840?) for them to feature in the game (you'd just have built a system of canals by the time it came to replace them all with railways!)

I do think that anyone building a mod that covered this period would do well to feature them.

I don't know about that. The Panama Canal and the Suez Canal are still very important lanes for shipping today. If it weren't for the importance of Panama Canal, the US would build larger ships. Current ships must be able to pass through the Panama Canal (an aircraft carrier has several inches of clearance on each side).

 

[TommyTankRush]

I don't know about that. The Panama Canal and the Suez Canal are still very important lanes for shipping today. If it weren't for the importance of Panama Canal, the US would build larger ships. Current ships must be able to pass through the Panama Canal (an aircraft carrier has several inches of clearance on each side).

... I didn't really mean the big ship canals, I meant the man-made waterways that criss-cross Europe (especially in the old industrial centres in England).

Just deep enough for a flat-bottomed riverboat, they were a cheap and (relatively) fast way of transporting raw materials. You would have a horse or two harnessed to the boat - it would tow the boat along, walking alongside it on the (erm) tow-path. Especially useful for shipping coal from the mines to the factories.

 

[ilovesimgolf]

Well, there are rivers and rivers. Some clearly ships would be able to sail up, others clearly not. There should be different types of river.

I would have to agree with you here. This definitely makes sense!

We have already distinguished plains and grasslands, so why not rivers, streams, and creeks?

The defensive bonus from a creek could be 5% (the soldiers are mad about getting their feet wet?), 10% for a stream (wading across is no fund at all), and the current 25% for a river (swimming is even worse)

Ships other than workboats could travel up rivers, but workboats could go in streams as well to connect river-based resources?

Just a though I'm putting out there!

-- ilovesimgolf

PS: I want canals too!

 

[lutzj]

Not necessarily, or so I've read. If you go Fort > City > Fort with the two forts next to water, then ships can pass through the city as well. I haven't actually tried it yet myself though, it's just something I've seen on the forums.

already tried it... the ship won't go inside the city

 

[ilovesimgolf]

already tried it... the ship won't go inside the city

I've heard the same thing, but have not had the time to actually try it yet. Apparently you need something like this for it to work:

N = land
O = ocean / sea / coastal
L = lake
F = fort
C = city

N N L L N
O N L N O
O F C F O
N N N N N

So basically, you need the city to be on a body of water, too; otherwise, it can't house land units.

Am I right here?

--ilovesimgolf

 

[dragodon64]

I like the idea of different rivers creeks and streams, as well as river resources, like fish. Until bridge building military land units shouldn't be able to cross rivers (streams/creeks are okay, though). Adds a new element to tactics .

 

[Party]

So basically, you need the city to be on a body of water, too; otherwise, it can't house land units.

--ilovesimgolf

You mean sea units?

And I hated simgolf!

 

[nickle84_24]

i cant wait to try and build a canal

 

[_alphaBeta_]

already tried it... the ship won't go inside the city

I haven't heard of problems like this. I'm pretty sure I've bridged two bodies of water with a fort-city-fort setup even though the city didn't touch water. Do you have a screenshot/game of your problem?

Perhaps I am mistaken.

 

[K.F. Huszár]

Hey.

I think we need a canal improvement.
OTherwise there are cities in the world with large harbours and NOT being situated on seashore. E.g.: Hamburg. So cities on rivrside and within two or three squares from large bodies of water should be able to host habors and other seasohre-bulidings.

And there also some lakes on wich ships can navigate, the Great Lakes, the Odega, the Caspean and so on...

 

[LtCowprod]

I take the fact that you can't flow down the rivers as probably since a turn is actuall a number of years the rivers freeze and so aren't navigabel.

Most military vessels can't navigate a river that would freeze in a single season. It's mainly just delta regions where you find that kind of water... which can still be represented by forts since the river is the inner-city's water source.

I'm with others though - in a technical sense its great just aesthetically cheesy seeing boats in forts.