Canals

[Pacifist]

First, about the problem of a canal being "international", it's obvious that those both land and see units should be able to go on that canal tile, as SmartJock told. The only thing you would need to do in order to control the canal would be to place a land unit on it

Defending a city would be much more effective as it has the option of building additional defensive structures vs land, sea and air raids. Cities also allow defending units to heal (faster with improvements). Unless a canal also gives you additional defensive benefits (not including terrain defensive bonus), the only way I can see it being effectively controlled and defended is either by having best available defenders on it, defend in numbers (unit stacks) and/or create fortresses/barricades (if it even allows it on an already improved tile , canal being a tile improvement)

Second, the canal would be good for many things. As I imagine it, why making it necessarily only one tile ? Maybe that canal could be 2-tile long (not more of course in order to not be able to make a canal crossing a whole continent). You cannot place two cities right next to each other

If that's the case, that would prove beneficial. If canals were an option, in a situation that requires 2-tile canals, I would still prefer to build a CITY-CANAL combo. Those who are suggesting for 3-max-tile canals, I would use a CITY-CANAL-CITY combo or CANAL-CITY-CANAL combo

Third, often you capute ennemy cities which are placed right next to the location of a "canal city". You have to destroy that city in order to build a new one right beside in order to make it a canal city. Such a useless waste doesn't sound realy accurate

In such a case, it certainly would not be possible to build a canal-city while the enemy city remained there.

If I'm in no position to wage war (i.e. weak military), I would not try to destroy that city. I would rather let it remain to keep the peace and let my ships go the long way around.

If I'm in a good position to wage war, I would opt to destroy that city located next to that land that I need to make the canal-city and raze it to the ground. If it would be more beneficial to keep that city rather than destroy it, then I would rather have that city within my empire rather than have a city-canal.

In this kind of situation, an option of building canals would certainly be of benefit. I would still build city-canals as my preference if the situation permitted it.

And finally, Fourth, the AI NEVER build canal cities. This is an obvious advantage of man over the AI. In case we are able to build canals, the AI could be able to exploit this

Ahh yes, the problems with the AI. I also have NEVER seen them build canal-cities. The only way I could see a canal-city under the AI's control without them building it themselves is if they flipped/invaded the player cities. And even then, I'm not sure if they would even use it as a canal.

There's nothing I can do about that. It could probably be added to the list of AI limitations that requiring fixing and hopefully get them addressed in future Civ games.

1. Canals may be built starting with Construction but may only cross one tile and only two boats may use the canal per turn

My canal-cities have no such limitations
In a game with canals, if such a formula existed, I would just use cities (no Contruction Tech required)

2. With Engineering, multiple boats may use the canal per turn

Again, city-canals have it over standard canals.

3. With Steam Power canals may cross 2 tiles

In a game with canals, I would just build a city with a canal next to it. Take all the benefits I can get with what cities provide. It also keeps that "canal" outside the city very close for defensive purposes. Once again, I would find myself ONLY using 2-canal tile improvements as temporary solutions (i.e. no Settlers) before I build my CITY-CANAL combo.

Unless you include some kind of limitation such as "canals cannot be built next to a city" (which would probably frustrate those who want canals next to cities), I will stick with city-canals

What do you think?

Apart from my preference to city-canals, I think your idea is great
If you can come up with a system that would detract me from my attachment to city-canals, I'll find your current suggestion even better

what about the size of ships that can cross a canal? for example a could an Aircraft Carrier pass?
Maybe there's no problem with modern canals but ancient canals have smaller width

While not entirely accurate from a historical perspective, I don't think it would hurt the game if we thought of ships and canals having a linear progression. By the time you are able to build bigger and better ships, the canal improvements would follow suit.

-Pacifist-
"There are no shortcuts to any place worth going" -Beverly Sills

 

[Nefelia]

Congrats, you've managed to lure me out of lurkerhood.

I very much like the idea of canals, and I think this concept can be expanded beyond a simple transportation issue.

First off, I disagree with the consensus on limiting the size of canals. While most people think of the Suez Canal or the Panama canal as the largest canal projects in the world, those canals are only notable for their strategic importance and convenient locations. China's Grand Canal is over 1801 kilometers long, and was built during the 6th century CE (how about making that a great wonder ). Other similarly impressive canals exist all over the world, they just don't make headlines due to their lacking geostrategic importance.

Basically, I see the construction of a canal as a strategic choice that comes at great cost. Given enough time and effort, there is no reason I should not be able to link two nearby coasts or connect a land-locked sea to the ocean via a canal. Of course, it shouldn't be an easy undertaking either. As such, I would recommend a monstrous building time of 96 turns for a single settler. This should be enough to prevent abuse of canal systems and ensure that the player considers the cost/benefit ration of any canal before undertaking the project.

 

[Nefelia]

The addition of worker-built canals would add much to the game. Indulge me while I brainstorm on the possibilities.


Advanced Canal Suggestions (ie, pipe dreams):

Man-made rivers, a la Grand Canal:

- A city connected to a fresh water source via canal would get the health bonus and other benefits associated with fresh water.

- A canal would provide the transportation and trade bonuses that rivers will provide in Civ4.

Inland Ports ( a little iffy, I admit):

- A city connected to a sea/ocean would get all the benefits associated to coastal cities (can build coastal improvements, can build coastal units (this is assuming ocean ships can travel along rivers in Civ4

- Assuming inland ports are even feasible or realistic, a city connected to both fresh water and the sea will enjoy the benefits of both fresh water and coastal city status.* After all, even ancient China was able to implement a basic locke system on its Grand Canal.

This would provide an avenue of play for those who prefer to stay small geographically while focusing on the quality of their small empires. And the benefits of an extensive canal system would be well balanced by the sheer amount of worker hours needed to build such a system.


* I don't know how rive cities will be handled in Civ 4. Rivers can be dredged, and canals built large enough to bear ocean-going ships, so there is no reason that River cities cannot share the (perhaps limited) characteristics that coastal cities do. Maybe dredging rivers to support ocean-sized ships can be a worker action in Civ4, or maybe ocean-going ships travelling along rivers and canals should not be implemented. Whatever, I'm just brainstorming here.

 

[Ghafhi]

I have to agree that this is one of the signifcant things that civ left out. Without Canals we would have to sail around africa to get to India and sail around South America instead of just using the Panama canal.

 

[mitsho]

@Pacifist, Well, so let's introduce the harbor-feature. Whenever you settle a city on a tile that has two, three or fourborders/sides to water, you'd need to chose which one is your harbour site. Then, only the three adjacent tiles to that side (the harbour) are open to ships, thus ships can only enter a city from one side. Now, canal cities don't work, unless you build a canal into them!

This is just an example, anyfeature that hinders canal cities would work.

mitsho

 

[Japanrocks12]

This would be nice, especially in light of Firaxian claims that navies are more important now. There would need to be a system stopping mass-canalling but i dont see why its not possible

Simple: canal squares lose all food and shields. Also, canals should connect seas to rivers, and ships should be able to traverse rivers.

 

[Nefelia]

Simple: canal squares lose all food and shields.

Eh...

Frankly, I disagree with the direction in which this discussion is heading. My biggest gripe with the suggestions being posted here is the limitations being imposed on the length of canals.

After a bit of thought, I see two uses for canals.

1) Allowing passage of ocean-going ships.
2) Carrying sources of fresh water to thirsty cities (boosting health as a strategic concern).

And yet, everyone here prefers to limit this strategic option to its most basic potential. Given the heavy cost associated with constructing canals (to counter the possibility of abuse and reflect upon reality), why should canals be arbitrarily limited?

 

[Pacifist]

@Pacifist, Well, so let's introduce the harbor-feature. Whenever you settle a city on a tile that has two, three or fourborders/sides to water, you'd need to chose which one is your harbour site. Then, only the three adjacent tiles to that side (the harbour) are open to ships, thus ships can only enter a city from one side. Now, canal cities don't work, unless you build a canal into them!

This is just an example, anyfeature that hinders canal cities would work.

mitsho

Hmm, that's a good suggestion. Single cities would no longer function as a canal city. But ... a loophole

Look at the simple text illustration

Diagram 1: terrain layout
~~~~~.....~~~~~~
~~~~~~~.~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~...~~~~~~~

Diagram 2: terrain layout with cities and harbor placement (mitsho's concept)
~~~~~2....~~~~~~
~~~~~~h1h~~~~~~~
~~~~~~...~~~~~~~

where:
1 = City 1
2 = City 2
h = Harbor
~ = Water terrain
. = Land terrain

As you can see, I can use a 2nd city to create a harbor next to the 1st city, thus allowing the 1st city 2-way passage for travelling ships. I now have a city canal once again You just gave me more work to do but the final result still exists hehe

Don't give up yet, I'm sure there is a solution out there
I too am trying to find a solution because I find this canal idea very promising

Also, from the ideas of having 1, 2 or 3 tile canals (dependant on Tech), I found a new way to extend it even longer

Picture this ...

CcCcCcC ;or
CccCccC ;or
CcccCcccC

where:
C = City
c = Canal

Creating a chain of city-canal could potentially be used to make a very long passageway for passing ships

-Pacifist-
"Row, row, row your boat through the civ-canals ..."


EDIT:

And yet, everyone here prefers to limit this strategic option to its most basic potential. Given the heavy cost associated with constructing canals (to counter the possibility of abuse and reflect upon reality), why should canals be arbitrarily limited?

Quite right.

Canals are big projects. It should be high cost/high benefit. If you can maintain the cost of carrying out such a project in-game, I don't see why it should have a limit. A game of Civilization gives us the ability to do great feats of engineering/construction that is "near impossible" to achieve in reality for various reasons. We should not limit ourselves to what reality has achieved but use the possibility of what can be achieved if given enough time using the technology that we know how to use already. In other words, "What if I did this, what if I did that" kind of situations. If in-game, a player could manage everything required to carry out such things, it should be possible to do so.

-Pacifist-
"Stop thinking in terms of limitations and start thinking in terms of possibilities" -Terry Josephson

 

[frekk]

Yep, I like canals and I quite agree, you should get large benefits for building them - a big commerce bonus, for instance. They should also be really difficult to build - I would say that no amount of worker turns would be enough, there should be other costs too, like requiring a city within the radius to produce some improvement before the canal can be used (locks systems, perhaps).

 

[Deep_Blue]

The Canal can be made as a small wonder , that is only allowed to be built once. This way you have to chose one perfect place for your canal and you will not be able to put canals verywhere.

 

[The End Is Nigh]

The construction of canals should not be exploited to create artificial borders impassable to other units.

Canals should be allowed to be build only where ONE (and only one) land tile separates two seas. An argument could be made to be able to build a canal over TWO land tiles separating two seas but that should come at a more advanced stage in the game and should be the absolute limit.

Regarding its use by other civs, a right of passage agreement should suffice.

 

[frekk]

Why would canals be impassable? It's no harder to cross a canal than it is to cross a river - much easier, in fact, if there are locks. I should imagine that canals would have no more effect on unit movement than a river would.

 

[mitsho]

@pacifist, hmm, you got me,
I don't know but maybe it would be possible to link the "3 harbour tiles" to the city tile, thus disallowing ships to reach any other land tile than the city tile from these harbour tiles, but I have no idea wether this is possible.
A less magnificious solution would be to only give one 'harbour tile', the one directly in front of the city, but this has a loophole too:
~~~~~.....~~~~~~~
~~~....~.~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~...~~~~~~~

~~~~~....~~~~~~
~~~...2h1h~~~~~~~
~~~~~~...~~~~~~~

But, well how often do such cases happen? Can't we just ignore them?

m

 

[Pacifist]

@mitsho
Linking the harbor tiles to the city would certainly stop the 2-way passage of city canals. Maybe an "arrow icon" could be placed on the harbor tiles pointing to the city which it is linked to (for visual feedback). As to whether it is possible, you never know, it could be.

As for your "less magnificious solution" - LOL - good thinking though. It may have taken me a while to find that loophole hehe

@everyone
I think everyone is too focused on how canals could be abused (including me ) hence we automatically set up limits on its length and quantity per game to control it.

I agree with those ideas given here that length should be based on the level of advancement in Technology but ...
... once a Civilization reaches the modern age, the length should NOT have any limits. As for how many canals should be present per game, that should have NO limits too.

We need to find a way to balance a game and find a way to protect against exploits without putting limits on those two.

Remember, a game of Civilization gives us the possibility of what "could" have been achieved, not what has been done. In this particular case, we model our canals with what we know in reality and expand on that knowledge of what "could" be achieved given the right circumstances. The circumstances being the events that shape a game of Civilization.

A few ways to balance out canals:

1. Canals may be built starting with Construction but may only cross one tile and only two boats may use the canal per turn

2. With Engineering, multiple boats may use the canal per turn

3. With Steam Power canals may cross 2 tiles

I think jwijn's idea looks like a good starting point
Maybe we can work around these ideas as some of you have done already

-Pacifist-
"Let's collaborate, then bug the h*** out of Firaxis to put it in the game or at least in some future expansion hehe"

 

[Markus6]

Would canals offer the same defensive bonuses as rivers? It would raise an interesting use as a moat, but be very open to abuse.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Please people be aware that canals such as the Grand Canal in China or canals such as those we can see in Amsterdam, Bruges or Venice, or Canals such as Panama, Suez or Corynth have really few in common.

I see an obvious interests in building canals as in the XIXth century because military ships can go through them, but I hardly see the interests of building in-land canals which aren't more practicable than rivers at best. There's no better reason to make navigate ships on canals such as the Grand canal than to make them navigating on rivers. Well, that's only my opinion, you're free to not share it... but as I see it, gameplay wise, interesting canals have been created only at the XIXth century (Panama, Suez, Corynth) or they have been enlarged in order to late military ships get through it only at that period (canal of Kiel).

All this to say that I personally see interesting canals as being an option we can build only at the industrial era and which shouldn't be too long (3 tiles at best). Afterwards, we can think about the ability to build river boats in order to move units faster in the Ancient and the Medieval ages. But that's another topic.

 

[ACR]

A few ways to balance out canals:

1. Canals may be built starting with Construction but may only cross one tile and only two boats may use the canal per turn

2. With Engineering, multiple boats may use the canal per turn

3. With Steam Power canals may cross 2 tiles

What do you think?

I lke the idea, the number of ships... not sure. I do not think that they should offer a defensive bonus. While in real life, yes a canal will offer some defensive bonusI think it would unduely complicate matters. Combat in Civ is all simplified other wise it would bog down the game, and Civ is not all about the battles. I think that the sea units should not be able to stop on the canal, they should have enough MPs to transit the canal and make it to the next water square. I say water square because like the St. Lawerance Seaway, canals should be able to bridge lakes and seas, not just seas. There should also be two different levels of canal, the earlier one handling only wooden sailing craft and with the advent of steam power a great canal that can handle other ships too. The great canal would be much like the transforamtion of roads to railroads, you would have to build one to get the other.

 

[Nefelia]

Pacifist, while I agree that we need to discuss how to make canals proof against exploits, I believe we are focussing way too much on placing limitations, and not enough on thinking about how canals can be used reasonably within the game.

The problem with the suggestion of limiting the lenght of canals is that it is overly simplistic, inflexible, and does not reflect history (and this is somewhat of a historical game, no?).

Why should canals be larger in modern times than they were in ancient times? Ancient canals catered to ancient ships, while modern canals must be made much wider and deeper, and with greater technological involvement.

There should also be two different levels of canal, the earlier one handling only wooden sailing craft and with the advent of steam power a great canal that can handle other ships too.

This is the best idea I've heard so far to incorporate technology with the progression of canals.

Inflexible limitations

Regarding the calls to limit the size of canals to hard figures.

The decision to build a canal should be based on strategic deliberation, and not simply convenient geography. A player (or AI) should take a look at his territory, assess the cost of making his ships go along the long way, and assess the cost of building a canal to shorten the journey. If a player decides that it is worth the cost, then he should not be limited by arbitrary limitations.

I see the construction of a canal as a long term investment, as it usually is in real life. I wasn't joking when I suggested a base of 96 worker turns for canals. Someone faced with the decision of whether or not to build a canal over a 2-square barrier will likely not hesitate to do so. Someone contemplating joining two of his coasts over a 10-square barrier would have to think long and hard about the time and effort required to do so. 96 * 10 = 960 worker turns...48 turns if you choose to devote 20 workers to the task, forcing you to either weaken your cities by building extra workers or neglect your basic infrastructure for a while.

An additional solution could also be to halve the worker turns on coastal squares, thereby making coastal canals more sensible than longer inland ones.

There's no better reason to make navigate ships on canals such as the Grand canal than to make them navigating on rivers.

China's great rivers run from west to east. The grand canal was the first major waterway in China to run from north to south. As such, it contributed heavily to ensuring China's unity, as China's South and North are culturally distinct. Who knows, without the Grand Canal, we may have two large states now where currently there is only one.

Besides, great canals are more common than you think. However, modern canals tend to get more attention than historical ones, which have sometimes ceased to serve their primary purpose (ie, the Grand Canal's vitality as a mode of transportation has ebbed with the builing of highways and railroads in China).

Anyway, interesting discussion...carry on. ^^

 

[wooga]

The Canal can be made as a small wonder , that is only allowed to be built once. This way you have to chose one perfect place for your canal and you will not be able to put canals verywhere.

I like this! If someone really wants a two tile canal, they can use the smal wonder canal adjacent to a city-canal. (or small wonder canal between two city-canals for a maximum three tile span).

Really, how many canals should one civ be allowed to build? I think one is enough, and this prevents "abusive canaling".

 

[frekk]

Would canals offer the same defensive bonuses as rivers? It would raise an interesting use as a moat, but be very open to abuse.

Why? Forests give a defensive bonus, you can plant them (much faster than the time most suggestions have given for canals).