Are we getting canals NOW?

[awesome]

city on an isthmus. we've had canals in every single game. there's really no need to have anything else.

 

[Colonel]

city on an isthmus. we've had canals in every single game. there's really no need to have anything else.

What if placing a city on that tile is not feasible but an improvement is. I'm especially thinking of 5 with this one because of the 4 hex distance minimum. Plus having a canal piece one to two tiles would really add a strategic element as cities wouldn't be the only focus of attack. Canals, Bridges, and traversable rivers. All these things could add a major element to strategy of the game.

For instance if I have a network of roads all leading to a major river which could be traversed by destroyers and I have a bridge mid way up the river connecting either side. Then on the western side I have an enemy advancing but my military is primarily on the eastern side. Destroyer comes up the river and destroys the bridge, well now my few units on the western side are cut off now add in a Canal idea. I have a massive fleet on the eastern side of my empire but the only access to that area is via a two hex distance of land leading back to an inland lake. Use a Canal and I now can project my power to thwart their destroyers destroying my bridge. That of course gives my enemy two very tempting targets outside of forts and cities. A Canal that could bring my fleet in or a bridge which if gone could curtail my ground forces.

 

[awesome]

then you just make it so that ships can go through forts, like in 4. there doesn't need to specifically be something called a "canal."

 

[andreafin]

i had an idea for canals which required spending a GE to construct them, and they take so many turns to build. i intended that idea as a sort of canal wonder such as panama or suez, rather than the network of canals in england say which basically were superceded by railways after a fairly brief time in historical terms. i also thot the GE should be able to build tunnels in same way like the channel tunnel, or superbridges which i cant think offhand of any names but i am sure some bridges exist that ships can still travel beneath but which span channels of water. those kinds of 'wonder improvements' are all industrial age or later. i have read somewhere about ancient canals in greece and egypt that existed tho, and some in china. leaving them out entirely from civ seems an oversight - and using the fort graphic is less than satisfactory. maybe should have a choice which to build, if the hex has sea on two opposite sides. then you choose fort if its just a headland or canal if its two coastlines such as in panama on earth map.

i stress my suggestion of a specific graphic choice for canal which would be less defensible than a fort, because of the importance of canals in history. as someone said war was fought over suez.

 

[Depravo]

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.

Panama and Suez were what I meant by canals "specifically designed for modern oceangoing ships" - the type of canal that SHOULD be represented in some way.

Roads don't even come remotely close to representing that. (Erie canal etc)

As far as Civ goes, yes they do - a commercial artery requiring maintenance. The game doesn't model supply capacity or efficiency and you can't fit an aircraft carrier up there...

 

[andreafin]

hmm i have ige mod. im going to teleport a carrier onto a road see what happens