Are we getting canals NOW?

[Rex_Mundi]

An obvious way to limmit bridges and tunnels would be to only allow them on costal waters, not in ocean.
Another would be to require more mentainance and construction time based on length.
Ex:
Length 1 takes 10 turns and cost 4 gpt.
Length 2 takes 30 turns and cost 10 gpt.

But as stated above, 1UPT and combat on these fields needs to be figured out.
Can a tank attack a battleship sailing under the bridge, or over the tunnel?
Can the battleship attack the tank in a tunnel?
The same goes for canals, can a tank attack a battleship sailing in a canal?

 

[eromrab]

An obvious way to limmit bridges and tunnels would be to only allow them on costal waters, not in ocean.
Another would be to require more mentainance and construction time based on length.
Ex:
Length 1 takes 10 turns and cost 4 gpt.
Length 2 takes 30 turns and cost 10 gpt.

But as stated above, 1UPT and combat on these fields needs to be figured out.
Can a tank attack a battleship sailing under the bridge, or over the tunnel?
Can the battleship attack the tank in a tunnel?
The same goes for canals, can a tank attack a battleship sailing in a canal?

I don't like the increasing costs thing. Plus it sounds too complex to program.

BUT. Another thing about bridges/tunnels... if a boat comes by and pillages a space with a tank on it... does the tank die or embark? lol. I would say die, because I think another point is that no one should be able to embark from the bridge. Only the coast.

 

[Rusty Edge]

haha, I can't lie, bridges would be fun... but man they'd be difficult to "police" to make sure the enemy didn't come by and destroy them.

Also, how do you handle combat? Can a land based force attack an enemy that is "under" the bridge? Lots of mechanics to figure out...

I guess there are a lot of mechanics to figure out. I'd agree with no embark from or dissembark to the structure. I'd apply 1UPT with regard atacks between enemy ships and troops.

Canals- Ships in canals operate like ships at sea, except they are subject to zones of control by land units. Canals may be pillaged or repaired by workboats.

Simple approach Bridges and tunnels are the same gameplay-wise.

No land movement cost for crossing, just like there's no cost for crossing rivers on roads once the roads actually cross the water. No stopping on the bridge or tunnel,it's one side or the other, like a river. If you want to defend the structure, you need a destroyer or something, just like other water improvements.

Strategic Approach Bridges and tunnels are different gameplay-wise . Both are a tile for land units, with no defensive bonus and the movement cost of a railroad. It takes multiple attacks to remove the stucture. Any damage will prevent other land units from using the structure. The structure can be repaired with workboats if the structure hasn't been removed.

Tunnels are only vulnerable to attacks by subs, however any unit in the tunnel is as helpless as if it were embarked, & destroyed when the tunnel is attacked.

Bridges are vulnerable to attack by sea , air, and ranged attacks from nearby land units. A unit on the bridge may defend, and must be destroyed or forced to retreat off of the bridge before the bridge may be pillaged, or passed beneath. A ranged attack is possible from a bridge.

Thoughts?

 

[eromrab]

Canals- Ships in canals operate like ships at sea, except they are subject to zones of control by land units. Canals may be pillaged or repaired by workboats.

Simple approach Bridges and tunnels are the same gameplay-wise.

No land movement cost for crossing, just like there's no cost for crossing rivers on roads once the roads actually cross the water. No stopping on the bridge or tunnel,it's one side or the other, like a river. If you want to defend the structure, you need a destroyer or something, just like other water improvements.

I think that canals should be like making a river too... which means that if there is no road there, it takes an entire movement point. This would make it so that you could use them defensively... *evil grin*

Canals crossing rivers would be something that would need to be worked out. lol.

Also, people in tunnels should not be able to be attacked or even seen by the enemy. If the enemy happens to pillage that tile, then bam, that unit is dead.

As for canals, I think the first canal tile (on the water) should be a special improvement that operates like a fort. That way only allies can enter your canals. That makes it more... realistic.

 

[Smote]

It should be like a tradepost (or a road?) that simply takes 3x time for a worker to construct, and stacking rules equivalent to being in a city should apply.

 

[livin1492]

One square on most maps would likely be enough, that is, with Civ III (I haven't upgraded yet). I am looking at a modded 180 x 180 World map, and the gap between England and France (tunnel) is one square, the gap between Denmark and Sweden is one square (bridge) and the Panama region is one square (canal). There may be times when more than one square would be appropriate, but, in most cases, I think the one tile is plenty.

As is, I find myself going to war with a nation, or sending a boat to strategic locations before development reaches them, if lucky, to establish a city to act as the Suez or Panama Canal. If playing random maps, I always place cities to connect water. It really can make a difference, and it annoys me that the developers don't care about such improvements.

 

[Tabarnak]

I want canals. That could be a nice addition.

 

[ViterboKnight]

I agree, some modern techs could allow both canals and short bridges across costal water.

Maybe, the first and last tile of such a connection should be a fort (meaning, a station, or a tollgate), and the central tiles are improvements with a long construction time and an high maintainance cost (in order to reduce the spam).

 

[eromrab]

My idea is to introduce an expansion with walls and canals- improvements build on the edges of tiles. Walls give a bonus to friendly units in a tile next to them and replace the current ones in cities. Canals look and operate like rivers, but are built. They must be built starting from a water source to a water source and each tile must border flatland.

That just doesn't make sense for canals... then you can't move ships through them. The only benefit it would give is a passive benefit like any other improvements.

Also, in the name of good programming, all mods should be separate. That way they're easier to put into "bundles" and such.

 

[omegatripod]

I agree! Canals need to be made right now!

 

[MARDUK80]

I agree! Canals need to be made right now!

I conqur! I loved canals in Civ4:BTS. A real strategic element in them. Hope to see them return in CiV. Would be nice to build them near polar caps to get over that one land tile and around the continent.

 

[JustBCoz85]

I'm not a modder yet but to keep things simple why not just give a settler the ability to create a coastal tile? Should I limit them to only get the ability in the industrial era?

Making a costal tile should fix everything politically too, because it would operate the same with trade routes etc. And it would be difficult for land units to cross.

Anyone know if your ships can enter a city owned by someone you have an open borders agreement with?

 

[steveg700]

Would be nice. Many civ's relied on these throughout history. Of course, if they're simply man-made rivers, you can't send naval units down them. But they'd help with trade, they'd help with irrigation at Civil service. Would give rich civ's something they could pay maintenance for.

 

[Viregel]

Would be nice. Many civ's relied on these throughout history. Of course, if they're simply man-made rivers, you can't send naval units down them. But they'd help with trade, they'd help with irrigation at Civil service. Would give rich civ's something they could pay maintenance for.

After a paticular tech, you could send naval units down canals and rivers. Canals need to be added though, as they have been built be several different civilizations over different time periods.

 

[SaiH]

I would suggest that a canal can be built like a road with moderate maintainance costs. It should have a max. length of 3 (flatland) tiles and units should not be allowed to end their move on these tiles.

 

[NukeAJS]

I'm not going to read the whole thread, but canals were possible in civ4 via forts. They could only be three tiles long, those tiles had to be in your territory, and they couldn't use cities (inland or coastal) as any of those three tiles but three forts could all be next to a city, if needed.

It worked great in civ4 bts. And I highly recommend that it's returned to civ5.

 

[vra379971]

I would suggest that a canal can be built like a road with moderate maintainance costs. It should have a max. length of 3 (flatland) tiles and units should not be allowed to end their move on these tiles.

I don't think you need to have a max length. The ancient Chinese canal system was geographically MANY MORE tiles than three. The easy way to manage length is by managing costs. The way gold is in Civ 5, especially now, you just have to make canals that are 1 hex somewhat expensive, and then go up from there.

So, you can totally build a 15 hex canal. I just hope you're ready to pay 150 gold a turn for it

 

[Depravo]

I don't think you need to have a max length. The ancient Chinese canal system was geographically MANY MORE tiles than three. The easy way to manage length is by managing costs. The way gold is in Civ 5, especially now, you just have to make canals that are 1 hex somewhat expensive, and then go up from there.

So, you can totally build a 15 hex canal. I just hope you're ready to pay 150 gold a turn for it

The Chinese canals, early industrial era canals in Europe and any canal not specifically designed for modern oceangoing ships were primarily commercial arteries and are better represented by roads IMO. Come to think of it, the Grand Canal should really be a wonder.

 

[vra379971]

The Chinese canals, early industrial era canals in Europe and any canal not specifically designed for modern oceangoing ships were primarily commercial arteries and are better represented by roads IMO. Come to think of it, the Grand Canal should really be a wonder.

Tell that to warring states armies Its not that I disagree with you by the way, its just that gameplay wise, I don't think there needs to be that distinction.

With a huge maintenance cost, you can open up canal building with Engineering and forget it. The lack of gold will keep size in check. My worry is not human wise. Its AI Logic coding wise.

Grand Canal could offer you a maintenance discount.

 

[eromrab]

The Chinese canals, early industrial era canals in Europe and any canal not specifically designed for modern oceangoing ships were primarily commercial arteries and are better represented by roads IMO. Come to think of it, the Grand Canal should really be a wonder.

I'm sorry, but I completely disagree.

What about the Erie Canal in NY? It stretched across the entire length of NY from the Hudson River south of Albany to Lake Erie, connecting many lakes in between and DIRECTLY forming the basis for the cities of Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, and Utica... and INDIRECTLY Chicago, Detroit, and establishing NYC as *the* #1 US port for a very long time.

There were similar canals in the works in the South that never made it to completion. It was a "space race" of sorts to establish the first water pathway from the Eastern Seaboard to the Western side of the Appalachian mountain range. To this day, water transportation continues to be the cheapest form.

And that's not even mentioning canals like Panama and the Suez that drastically reduce shipping times and allow a projection of naval power by those able to command it.

Roads don't even come remotely close to representing that.