• We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days. For more updates please see here.

[GS] Do you use canals?

Sostratus

Deity
Joined
Jul 31, 2017
Messages
2,383
Location
Minnesota, USA
I was rolling through a Germany game this evening just for kicks. Had some interesting lakes that I was able to develop into a semi scenic industrial region with several cities contributing to the canal life.
Spoiler Et Tu, CO2? :

upload_2020-2-17_1-58-22.png


Spoiler Empire Lens View :

upload_2020-2-17_1-56-41.png


I realized that except for really critical circumstances, like connecting two large zones on 7 Seas, I pretty much exclusively use canals to boost IZs. It's also pretty much the only time I use the Panama Canal, as well. I mean, it creates two free canals in otherwise impossible spots, which means more +15 IZs like the one in the middle.
Spoiler A man, a plan, production :

upload_2020-2-17_2-0-7.png


Don't get me wrong - I love that canals exist now, even before they got the IZ interaction. It's been a long time waiting for the civ series. But given that they don't even give housing like an aqueduct or dam - they are just set pieces, mostly - do you fanatics even use them?
 
Don't get me wrong - I love that canals exist now, even before they got the IZ interaction. It's been a long time waiting for the civ series. But given that they don't even give housing like an aqueduct or dam - they are just set pieces, mostly - do you fanatics even use them?

I wish canals were more like digging rivers, using the edges of tiles instead of tiles themselves.
 
I wish canals were more like digging rivers, using the edges of tiles instead of tiles themselves.
Totally agree. If the canal were just a feature of the tile that we could place districts/etc on top of, they’d be great. (Look how many European cities had canal networks dug into them).

perhaps if naval trade and combat mattered more, and these things didn’t come so late, then connecting up bodies of water would make more sense.

(It would also be nice if barbarians couldn’t sail through your canals!)
 
Yes...on naval Victoria games I take along a couple of ME or chop them in, in a captured city. A canal to a lake allows range 4 battleship Amanda’s to go a bit crazy.
It’s rare and rather gamey IMO but has been fun a couple of times.
 
I use them, if only rarely. They are not gamedefining, but they are a nice addition to the game. I wouldn't mind if placement restrictions were slightly less severe - for instance, allowed water-canal-canal-water - but the point is, in those rare circumstances where they actually HAVE an important role to play, they are great to have.
 
in those rare circumstances where they actually HAVE an important role to play, they are great to have.

Agreed. What I would like to see though are basic bridges like the Golden Gate bridge but without all the bonuses. Think I would use them more than canals.
 
Very occasionally, as I rarely have suitable geography. Aqueducts and dams are much more frequent in my games for IZ adjacency purposes. And, for me, cases when a canal could be built not only for adjacency, but for ship movement benefits as well, were rather isolated. I mostly played continents+islands lately.

By the way, I see you're running CO2 recapture. On Deity, I can't remember of a game where I could reach that tech in time to stop GW, usually the world is already under water, sometimes making more natural canals than necessary :)
 
I don't think you're meant to be spamming them everywhere you can, and instead focus on building them like the the real life Panama Canal or Suez Canal* (in that it reduces the time needed to traverse certain areas.

Additionally, Trade Routes traversing through a Canal gets a boost in trade route yield so they have that benefit as well.
 
As IZ bonus only. Otherwise they are useless adds to the game. Never understood the hype about them.
They were basically always just fan service. The developers didn't add them in as part of some plan or as a genuine improvement to the game, but because people just wouldn't shut up about them.
 
Canals need to come earlier and have more benefits as mentioned earlier. If we could place them like rivers and build them outside of borders that would make them far more useful. As it stands, canals are too little too late for me.
 
No. I kind of think they were a waste to bring into the game - seems like they got force-meme'd into existence like Tamar, and, like Tamar, they are pretty lackluster.
 
Pretty rarely. They just don't do enough.
Personally I think they should have some kind of major adjacency with harbors in addition to the current features, and even with that it'd still be pretty rare.
 
No. I kind of think they were a waste to bring into the game - seems like they got force-meme'd into existence like Tamar, and, like Tamar, they are pretty lackluster.
I guess you could say they both had one thing in common - they rose and fell in popularity.
 
I often use them, but usually only when the map calls for it. Being able to have transcontinental canals is always great for naval traffic management. Sometimes they’re useful for trade, but I don’t really notice their effect. And occasionally I will use them to boost IZ bonus if I can create a thin strategic justification for myself.

They’re not a hammer for every nail, but for the right nail, they’re a godsend.
 
The fact that a city 3 tiles from the coast can build a harbor and build ships I think definitely makes them less relevant. Also obviously that I often don't need a ton of boats, so there's not a lot of other uses for them. Still cool to have, and every now and then you do get a nice spot where a canal can really open up an exit from an inland lake, or a path around the ice, but still pretty rare to find a spot for them otherwise.
 
It's often the case that a canal would be very handy if I could build one 2 or 3 hexes long, but the allowed placement seems very restrictive.
 
Back
Top Bottom