(2-WD) Cities not adjacent to Water can be connected to the Ocean with Canals

[axatin]

In the discussion of a bug on Github (here and here) is was mentioned that canals were originally intended to connect cities to the ocean also if they're not next to a lake. A city like the one shown below (image taken from the github issue) would then be able to build military ships.

Spoiler :

As this would be quite a change, I would like it to be discussed and voted on by the community:
Proposal: Cities that are not at a lake can be connected to the ocean using canals.

To clarify, forts and citadels would still count as canals only if they're next to water, so it would only be possible to connect cities that are one tile away from the ocean. Also, this would not affect coastal buildings, which are still only buildable if the city is directly at the coast.

 

[alchx]

The possibility of building a fleet in such cities would be unfair. This city cannot be attacked from the water.

This is also an abuse - we get more tiles on the ground, which is important in the early game (there is almost nothing in the sea before the appearance of harbors), we have protection from half the directions, and if desired, we can easily make a port city.

 

[CppMaster]

Can the city also build lighthouse and other naval buildings?

 

[Delvemor]

From what I can read, the proposal only involves city connection. If it's only about city connection by sea, and not also naval buildings and units, I don't see how it would be a problem.

 

[axatin]

It would include naval units, and city connections, but not lighthouses and other buildings

 

[Delvemor]

It would include naval units, and city connections, but not lighthouses and other buildings

Then I would amend the proposal accordingly for clarity.

 

[Stalker0]

It would include naval units, and city connections, but not lighthouses and other buildings

I'll disagree with that. I feel you need to go all the way or not at all.

 

[Rekk]

I'll disagree with that. I feel you need to go all the way or not at all.

The proposal is consistent with how it works now (cities cannot build coastal buildings of they are only connected to coast via canal).

 

[Stalker0]

The proposal is consistent with how it works now (cities cannot build coastal buildings of they are only connected to coast via canal).

Cities can't currently make naval ships though either...that's the whole point of the proposal.

I feel like if your in for a penny, then go in for the pound. Either make the city function as a coastal city in all ways....or its a non-coastal city. We don't need a weird "hybrid"

 

[Rekk]

Cities can't currently make naval ships though either...that's the whole point of the proposal.

I feel like if your in for a penny, then go in for the pound. Either make the city function as a coastal city in all ways....or its a non-coastal city. We don't need a weird "hybrid"

Cities can currently make naval units (but not buildings) if they are adjacent to water and connected to ocean via canal.

 

[Rekk]

Regardless, I don't agree this should be a thing. We currently have a role that started that naval units can travel through forts/citadels/cities if they are adjacent to a body of water. We don't need to add another exception to this.

 

[pineappledan]

This would be an abusable mechanic. You could field a navy without any of the risk of a coastal city. If your fleet loses just build a farm over your canal and you're no longer vulnerable to any sea attack. Extremely gamey; this not behavior we should enable.

IMO it's already bad enough that we allowed connection to lakes that connect to seas via canals to function as impregnable naval cities, but at least that's a relatively uncommon ability that serves as a reward for lakeside city placement. This is just a universal abuse of mechanics.

 

[axatin]

Then I would amend the proposal accordingly for clarity.

Proposal text amended.

The proposal is consistent with how it works now (cities cannot build coastal buildings of they are only connected to coast via canal).

Exactly. A change to when it's allowed to build coastal buildings should be discussed in a separate proposal, if there is interest.

 

[Tekamthi]

isn't there already an sql option to enable in-land canals? never tried it, but sure i've seen it in past versions. convert this proposal to make the sql option toggle-able in advanced options, and I'll be onboard. valid concerns raised by some above but none are necessarily game breakers to me. Just don't cheat if you don't want to be a cheater.

 

[axatin]

there is an option GLOBAL_PASSABLE_FORTS, yes. But I'm not really a fan of putting everything into the advanced game options. If you consider it cheating, just vote against it

 

[azum4roll]

Possible softlock: what happens if you build a ship in such a city and then the canal is destroyed? The ship can't go anywhere but also can't stay in the city.

 

[rkkn]

Possible softlock: what happens if you build a ship in such a city and then the canal is destroyed? The ship can't go anywhere but also can't stay in the city.

do the same as what happens when you are no longer allowed in someone's borders

 

[rkkn]

This would be an abusable mechanic. You could field a navy without any of the risk of a coastal city. If your fleet loses just build a farm over your canal and you're no longer vulnerable to any sea attack. Extremely gamey; this not behavior we should enable.

I agree. but what if we made removing a fort take just as long as building one? and you have to remove it before you can build something else there

 

[pineappledan]

You want to create an entire new mechanic -- removing improvements without replacing them -- just to justify this marginal, exploitative change?

 

[rkkn]

You want to create an entire new mechanic -- removing improvements without replacing them -- just to justify this marginal, exploitative change?

it can't ride off the one used for removing roads?