Diagonal Movement

[MattII]

When I played Civ 3 I was quite annoyed that I could not move my ships between two squares of land that only touch at the corner. I have never tried placing a river on the join to see what it does, but I suspect ships still can't cross. I therefore propose that on a diagonal join between two squares, units can move between the squares if nothing is there and ships can move if there is a river on the corner.

 

[TheBB]

I disagree. If you have land to the north and south, and water to the east and west, then either the land or the water will be connected. No such place exists where ships can cross on water and units on land. It'll have to be one or the other.

(Though canals as an improvement may work.)

 

[mastertyguy]

I agree with theBB, but I think small canals like that can be built early, while larger canals can't be built until late in the game (or with cities).

 

[Lockesdonkey]

In SMAC, they had a solution for this problem; essentially, when this situation occured, the corner was called an Archipelago: spaces between islands were large enough to put the ship through, but small enough that troops could cross with makeshift boats, if that.

 

[mastertyguy]

In civ2, I remember boats and field units could cross over Suez (on worldmap). I remember it because I always attacked Egypt with foot units from Europe, then attacked India with boats.

 

[MattII]

You got the idea in one, TheBB. I meant that if the join was clear a unit could cross over but a ship couldn't pass through and if there was a river a ship could pass through but a unhit couldn't cross over until the invention of bridges.