Bridges

megagestur

Chieftain
Joined
Oct 29, 2004
Messages
22
Location
Reykjavík, Iceland
I think you should have the posibility to build bridges where ever there are narrow straights between islands and continents, mayby one or two squeres wide. That would be used for trade and units can go over it, workers can go from the mainland and irrigate the offshore islands etc.

What do you think?
 
I've always fancied that idea, as I'm so rubbish at seaborne attacks. :lol:

I'd be happy if they allowed settlers on ships to be able to do it. I

t would make the 'pillage' function of army units interesting as well but I can't see them employing it in CivIV unfortunately.

How about being able to reclaim land though, like they have done in various parts of the world such as Netherlands? That would have the same effect in being able to join land masses and making more 'arable land' for those coastal cities.
 
This would be good, but I think canals are even more important. Using artillery to blow up an important enemy bridge would be lots of fun.
 
I agree, those bridges would be mighty long :)

Depends on the scale of the map of course, but even in the Rise of Rome conquest scenario the English Channel between Europe and Britain is only one tile, and bridging that is something quite impossible (for now) :)
Could prove usefull in scenarios though, although not quite necessairy.
 
kingpenguin said:
This would be good, but I think canals are even more important. Using artillery to blow up an important enemy bridge would be lots of fun.

Agreed with the canals. The Greeks used canals back in the days of the city-states, there's no reason that they should be impossible.

Canals should only be useful/usable if they connect to water at both ends. One-square canals should be able to be built with the advent of construction, two-square with the advent of engineering, and 3-square with the advent of steam power or electricity (for operating more complex locks, and to coincide with canals such as erie/suez/panama which couldn't have been built otherwise). Canals should only be able to traverse flat land, and should only be used by the civ which controls the territory in which they're located. Should that territory fall into the hands of another which doesn't have the tech, the canal is destroyed.
 
I suggested the Chunnel as a small wonder in a Civ 4 Wonders thread. It could be built by each civ, and could represent not only the English channel tunnel, but the superlong rail tunnel in Japan, the superlong bridge connecting Denmark & Sweden, etc. Anyone for a tunnel connecting Gibraltar and Morocco?
 
I'd like to see bridges, or re-claiming land. I once played as France, building some continent-only wonders, only to discover that the map was not a Pangea, like I had selected, but continents (I really hated it when it did that, and it wasn't the first time either)! And worse, it was detached from the large central continent by only one measley little sea square! By the time I had built Galleys and put Settlers onto the new land, the English had claimed most of it, leaving me two small coastal cities with no way of expanding further because the English were blocking the way (I eventually went to war with them, and it was a huge hassle getting troops across, because of having to bridge the gap with ships). I didn't finish the game (intended for a conquest victory) because of the setbacks I had early on.

I appreciate many would find bridges and land re-claiming unrealistic, but I don't see why underground tunnels couldn't be used. And I really would like to have them treat two joined land-masses as one. Wonders aren't only for culture, and some of them have some pretty useful effects but only limited to the one land-mass (e.g Pyramids).
 
Units on bridges should have a negative bonus, since thy're more exposed and vulnerable. Units on squares adjacent to the bridge (on land, not in the sea) should receive a positive bonus, as the enemy has nowhere to go but stay on the bridge, exposed. Holding bridges has been the key of many battles, so I think that would reflect historical fact better.
 
i would say yes... a naval unit can pass under a bridge... they have a huge super long bridge (called 7 mile bridge i think? or maybe 9 mile?) that connects some of the keys heading to key west together... it's quite an awesome view... but it's also militarily strategic... there is a naval air station in key west that would have been pretty important had the cold war ever turned hot...

it would be neat to be able to connect some of the smaller islands to the mainland... i especially hate when you have a small island off the coast of a city but you can't "improve" that island cause there is no connecting city... if the bridges were possible you could build a bridge to that and then improve it...

i would love to see it where you could connect a bunch of smaller islands all together to have a naval base built on a far island (like key west) that could be easily reached through land means as well as sea...

and i would definately say that the bridges could be destroyed from both land attacks and sea attacks... that would provide for an interesting situation :-)
 
The Vikings pulling down London Bridge comes to my mind.....that's where you get that bloody rhyme from.
 
When I read the answers to this thread I had an idea, mayby someone has posted it before but here it comes anyway. The rivers in the map have the only purpose to improve the land and alow irrigation. How about that you would make the rivers impassable untill you research sertain type of technology. rivers have been a major factor in history, the danube and rhine rivers for example marked the northen borders in the roman empire. Then we could have the possibility to build bridges over rivers and mayby tunnels under ocen squers. :cool:
 
i don't know about this one... i like the way they are now with crossing them, cause people have always been able to ford a river...
 
I just had a brain blast. Can bridges go over all kinds of salt water terrain? Or just coast? Or just coast and sea? I think bridges are also a good idea for large fresh water lakes. That way your unit can go across without having to take the long way around. What are improvements in terms of shields and gold and food will bridges bring? What improvements are available on a bridge?
 
Bridges in civ is not realistic. A tile represents at least 100 miles of land. How can any bridge be as long as 100 miles? Remember civ is a strategy game that plays on strategic level
 
Back
Top Bottom