@Sostratus This has been an entertaining thread. Thanks. And I like your posts.
Quibbles aside, I actually think there's something very solid in the current IZ and Canal mechanics. I had a long essay-post a million years ago about how Civ doesn't really capture the feel of an Industrial Revolution. I think it does moreso now. It's not just the more hammers, it's also the way you build those hammers makes you feel like you're building little Industrial Hubs.
I mean, I don't think Civ's mechanics actually align with what really happened in the Industrial Revolution and the impact and societal changes that happened. It's not like the Industrial Revolution resulted in humans moving to Canal based economies. But so long as you don't think too hard about it, it does sort of capture the feel more now; and the Industrial Zone Tetris game that is created is genuinely fun, particularly because you are putting your puzzle together over multiple eras.
One other thought. At the moment, Civ 6 basically gives up on doing anything about global trade. You get Trade Routes (which is a sort of Wide mechanic, i.e. more cities = more trade routes). But then Trade Routes really only give you yields, and those yields are always based on things that have nothing to do with trade itself - they're based on Districts, Alliance, Policy cards etc. Real Canals and Railways just don't have much they can logically do within those sort of mechanics. Canals and Railways do have the potential to tie more into the "play the map" mechanics, and change how you interact with the map. But it doesn't really pan out that way because the game just doesn't get to that level of complexity that cutting through distances really makes that much sense.
I hope that makes sense. Maybe an example. I mean, Civ would never let you have a situation like the Suez Canal crisis. Losing access to a particular canal just wouldn't have that much impact on your economy - your Traders don't need to use any particular routes to get from A to B, you can't actually block traders (only pillage them), and the only thing trade routes are providing is yields - you're not going to lose access to some key resource because a trade route is disrupted.
I'm unsure whether Civ should really ever go down the route of having more mechanics around trade and commerce, and trying to capture more the nuance of that area. It's not EU IV. And even if FXS wanted to do that, maybe it's too hard. I mean, FXS's track record here is poor - silly Corporations (Sids Sushi) and "Executive" units. Just rubbish if you ask me. To make Trade be more, er, real, I guess, you'd really need to tie Trade to particular routes or nodes, it would need have more to do with resources, and you'd need to look more seriously at how trade creates efficiencies, supply, demand etc. to create value. That all just sounds too hard to me, and maybe just too much micro. I'd much rather FXS concentrate on more Governors and Trebuchets.
Sorry. Someone put the ramble slider to max. Anyway. Love the chat on this thread. I'm happy with Canals.