canals?

[Komoda]

Its a good idea, though I believe the Suez canal was cut through the desert. As for the jungle, it was cut through jungle and lowlands, much of which was swamp, which meant alot workers were dieing from malaria because of the mosquitoes.

Still, though if canals are to be used military strategies, it could very well speed the game along.

With everything I have read in the forums so far, I am very displeased with how Civ4, may just become just another war game for all the wannabe warmongers.

 

[stormbind]

I don't like the idea of marine-canals like suez.

First, they are massive feets of engineering that kill thousands of workers - something Civilization already tends to take for granted.

Seconds, they are much smaller than they are made out to be. The Seuz canal does not link the Mediteranian to the Red Sea: It links some two large lakes to the coasts.

Third, I am not sure that those lakes were always salt-water! How was the environment changed by building a salt-water canal?

Finally, Civ3 already allows players to effectively build marine-canals linking oceans through the strategic placement of settlements: So adding a feature to build canals would have little or no effect on gameplay.

 

[Thyrwyn]

Strategic canals: require a worker (like a colony). May only be built on a land tile that is connected to other land tiles that are not connected to each other.

allows seafaring units to move onto the land square. this ends movement for that turn. Seafaring units may leave the land square to any adjacent water square on subsequent turns.

Optional: allow the canal square to be treated as a river for commerce/irrigation purposes [[i am not necessarily in favor of this, but thought I would toss it out there]]

Thoughts?

 

[Ramalhão]

I think canals can be used to link a square with water to another square with water - one lake to a sea, a sea to an ocean. This "strategic canal" is used for military transportation, not only economic purporses. Using a worker as Thyrwyn wrote above is also a good idea, because a canal must have people working to be operational, as airports and colonies.

AI can identify and use canals easily: just setting squares with canals as "land" and "water". So, both types of units can walk in these squares.

One way to avoid abusing of canals is:
- Set a maximum size for a canal (only one or two squares);
- One or two turns to pass each square, don't matter the speed of ship - it will make canals useful only in big island/continents, where you have to do a long travel to the other side, as Suez and Panama canals.

Of course, canals must have a big cost (including a worker) and several turns to be ready. Also, an advanced tech. Obviously, canals can be destroyed by bombards and cannot build farms/mines/anything-else-except-road-or-railroad in the same square that already has a canal.

 

[MrMahk]

i think canals would be good, but there would have to be a way to limit them....

maybe it should be one of those things where building it "consumes" the worker and he dies, or maybe you can only build it through certain terrain, and if you build it in a jungle or something (i.e. panama canal) your worker will die or it will make the building take a lot of extra turns

 

[MrMahk]

Obviously, canals can be destroyed by bombards

oh yeah and i disagree with that...because all an opponent would have to do is send a bomber in to destroy something that took you a long time to build...and maybe a worker(whatever the settings might be at...if they even allow canals)

i think that would be too cheap

 

[Slyk]

Hey Guys, first post but so appropriate as I was just crying over this the other day.

I think canals would be a huge aspect to the game. I often find myself rushing to build cities on those narrow one tile land areas to 1) hold it as a fortress to stop other civs passing that point, and/or 2) as an un-unatural canal to lop off a big circuit for my future warships to shortcut the land mass.

Canals in my opinion would:
1. be passable to all units. Workers/Military units would cross them at no penalty, you assume they are bridged like any river.
2. ships would use them at a huge movement penalty.
3. canals would cost an outrageous price in build time...could be sped by researching a small-wonder bonus.
4. excluded from mountain terrain only...2x the expense for hills/jungles.
5. be anchored on sea/ocean tiles only and usable to whatever end it is built.
6. be limited in some way like military units per city.... say one or two canal capacity per city 'empire wide'??
7. IF there were major/minor (normal) rivers, they would be navigatable and could anchor a canal tile.
8. be destructible to make them of military significance to protect/capture.
9. add one additional commerce bonus to bordering tiles...and perhaps one extra shield bonus.
10. on-going maintenance costs.

Just some random thoughts. I spend way too much time mapping and playing Call of Duty etc, but Civ is my alter-ego mania. It consumes me for days on end sometimes.

 

[MrMahk]

I think canals would be a huge aspect to the game. I often find myself rushing to build cities on those narrow one tile land areas to 1) hold it as a fortress to stop other civs passing that point, and/or 2) as an un-unatural canal to lop off a big circuit for my future warships to shortcut the land mass.

yes, i too build these cities on the 1 tile areas for a huge strategic location, and they serve well as a canal for me, but if i am in a big war somewhere, and my allies have shiips that would also need to go to these places, they wouldnt be able to use my city canal, and that is a big disadvantage...with a canal, maybe it would be part of a right of passage aggrement maybe?

 

[Ramalhão]

Hmm.. what do you think about canals being made like airfields and radar towers? Use one work to create this, only civ holder can use it and when another civ conquest that square, it is destroyed when this civ doesn't have the required tech. And obviously, only one square. Does it sound better?

 

[Voli]

I really like your idea. I believe there should be restrictions, such as only 1 tile from the coastline, and the coastline terrain should not be hills/mountains. It could be jungle, though, like in the Panama Canal. I disagree with the small wonder thing, and I don't believe that we will be able to build canals across continents, as the maximum distance would be 3 tiles (2 tiles and a city, in an area where different oceans have a distance of 3 land tiles).

 

[searcheagle]

The idea is to have the game impose these limits without strict automatic messages telling the player he cant do it. Just make it so large a porject that no play would enter into it frivilously.

 

[SenJarJar]

Canals, bridges, and ship-accessible natural rivers are all great ideas and it causes me great annoyance that these ideas were not implemented in Civ3.

But I would prefer that the user be allowed to manually edit the limit to the canals. For instance, say I was playing on a large map that featured just the north-eastern quarter of the US; it would be absurd to confine a canal to just one tile.

As much of the game as possible should be moddable; you never know what some clever kid will put together.

 

[mastertyguy]

Workers represent one pop point. One pop point can represent (in big cities) ~ 1 million poeple. One million poeple working on a canal? Not sure. But up to now, I think it is the best way to counter super canal construction.

 

[Hyronymus]

Workers represent one pop point. One pop point can represent (in big cities) ~ 1 million poeple. One million poeple working on a canal? Not sure. But up to now, I think it is the best way to counter super canal construction.

That's a strange comparison you make there because in the beginning of the game one pop point eguals 10.000 people. The value behind pop points is changing throughout the game and dependant on city size (as you said yourself). Perhaps it's time to look for a different way of having settlers and workers decrease city production than by ripping of city size. A temporary production decrease i.e.?