Terraforming sea tiles?

[Ilkuul]

I don't know whether this topic has been discussed before, but wouldn't it be great if your workers or engineers could transform sea tiles into land?

This isn't as wild as it sounds - ask any Dutch person! Around one third of the Netherlands has been reclaimed from the sea.

This could be implemented in Civ3 in a variety of ways, ranging from quite simple to quite complex:

The simplest would be to allow workers/engineers to turn a single fully landlocked sea tile (i.e., single-tile lake or lagoon) into land (maybe as an extension of the 'I' command - the reverse of irrigation!).

Extending it a bit further, you could maybe transform more than a single landlocked sea tile - say up to a maximum of 3 or 4 adjacent tiles. Any body of water larger than that would be regarded as an inland sea, and could not be terraformed.

The most complex setup would be to allow workers/engineers to build dikes across narrow stretches of sea (as in real life). A dike could probably not extend further than a single tile-width. Then the water enclosed by the dike could be terraformed into land (if not more than 3 or 4 adjacent tiles). The fun side to this would of course be that the dikes would be vulnerable to attack during war - resulting in inundation of the reclaimed land by the sea. They could also have a maintenance cost, which, if not met, would result in the collapse of the dike and flooding of the reclaimed land. If there were a city on that land, it would either be destroyed or suffer severe damage (destruction of improvements and population loss) - and the damage would continue to accumulate until the dike was repaired.

I don't know whether this level of complexity with dikes would be practicable, but it certainly should be possible to allow one or other of the simpler terraforming options I suggested above.

And if this is modelled on the Dutch historical example, it would not be an engineer transform, as engineers only appear later in the game - whereas the Dutch have been building dikes from very early times. That's why I suggested earlier that it might simply be treated as 'reverse irrigation', so it can be done by workers in the earlier stages of the game. Therefore a sea tile could go through 3 sets of 'irrigation': initial reclamation as land (becoming plains?), normal irrigation, then further irrigation to become farmland.

What do you think?

[Zardos]

I think its a great idea! It could really tie in to a lot of concepts being discussed on this board. If Civ III had natural disasters, then the code would be written on how to deal with floods.

Furthermore, some "city" improvements would only be accessible if the terrain around it supported that type of city improvement. For instance, a dam could be constructed to provide more energy to the city (providing more shields). That dam could be destroyed by either spies or military action, causing the resulting flood to wash out some of the cities down stream...

What about finding that rare plutonium in an underwater cavern? Or improving sea tiles with oil rigs, etc...

[Roman]

I support some terrain predetermination. I don't think we should be able to terraform everything.

[Ilkuul]

quote: Originally posted by Roman on 04-16-2001 03:25 PM I support some terrain predetermination. I don't think we should be able to terraform everything.

I think you're over-simplifying my original suggestion, Roman. I'm not saying we should be able to terraform all sea tiles - only those mostly surrounded by land, and only up to a certain maximum area (perhaps 3 or 4 tiles). It should definitely not be possible to start building your land out into the sea along a normal sea-coast! Dikes, if allowed, should only be able to bridge the narrowest of gaps, i.e. a single tile. To my mind, this would place acceptable limitations on how much sea you can turn into land. After all, you can already transform any existing type of land, including mountains - and how many mountains do we commonly see being transformed into hills? Yet reclamation of land from the sea has been going on for centuries...

[Gramphos]

I like it.
I also think that the workers should be able to build canals (for ships). If there is a lage continent and somewhere it is a very narrow part (one ore two tiles) you should be able to short your sea routes with many turns by digging a canal across the continent. Of course you need bridge building and construction to perform this as land units must be able to pass the canal.
And to the diplomacy you should be able to allow other civs to use you canal to a cost per ship that passes or a cost per turn or for free.

In Civ and Civ II I always build a City on a spot between to sees to be able to take that shortcut, but those places isn’t always very well suited for Cities.

[Ilkuul]

quote: Originally posted by vgriph on 04-16-2001 04:10 PM I also think that the workers should be able to build canals (for ships)... In Civ and Civ II I always build a City on a spot between to sees to be able to take that shortcut, but those places isn’t always very well suited for Cities.

Yes, I do the same, and have the same problem! I like the idea of canals as well, and your suggestions about prerequisites and charges for use.

This might mean having an additional command for workers, maybe 'c' (for 'canal' or '[re]claim'), that could be used either for turning land into sea (canal) or sea into land (reclamation).

[airdrik]

I like the idea, and here are some thoughts I've had while reading this: Dikes would be more like ocean tile imps that have a certain amount of hp's, allow the reclamation of land behind it (up to 4 tiles worth), act as land squares, and can be destroyed by enemy units. Canals work generally the same way, except that you can't reclaim land behind them, and they act as both land and sea squares (both land units and sea units can cross them, like if you put two land squares cornerwise from each other).

[Roman]

Sorry Ilkuul, I have only skimmed through your thread before replying, as I look through too many threads to read them all completely. Yes, I also agree with the idea as you put it.

[Ilkuul]

quote: Originally posted by airdrik on 04-16-2001 04:36 PM Dikes would be more like ocean tile imps that have a certain amount of hp's, allow the reclamation of land behind it (up to 4 tiles worth), act as land squares, and can be destroyed by enemy units. Canals work generally the same way, except that you can't reclaim land behind them, and they act as both land and sea squares...

Yes, I like that way of looking at it. My only disagreement would be about dikes "allowing" reclamation of land behind them, if by this you mean that you can't reclaim land without a dike. There I would disagree - I would rather say you can reclaim any inland body of water up to 4 tiles in extent; but dikes, being land tiles, would "allow" that to happen simply by cutting off the inland water tiles from the rest of the ocean. But maybe that's what you meant...

(Allowing enemy units to destroy a dike - which would simply be an 'improved' terrain tile - raises implications about other 'improved' terrain, e.g. forts: they should then also have HP and be able to be destroyed... but that's a different topic!)

quote: Originally posted by Roman: Sorry Ilkuul...

Apology accepted! There's so much stuff here we all have to skim sometimes...

[SerapisIV]

Nice idea Ikuul. I especially like the limiting capability. Sid has come out saying that this game is only going up to 2020 or so, which means current technology and fusion energy (feel free to debate that one) I think the filling in of the one square ponds is very realistic while eliminating filling in something like the Great Lakes, or Caspian Sea. I think that technology for this should be available with steel technology, not explosives (if following CivII model) as steam shovels would then be available technologically.

About your canal idea. I'm all for it. And it appears to be an idea that Firaxis will include in some form as the Great Canal is being considered for Wonder status. I'd definitely like that kind of wonder. However, it shouldn't create a canal itself per se, (just as a landlocked city can build Magellan's Voyage), it should be a trade-boosting wonder (faster and more efficient transportation) that also opens up the capability of building canals in places like Suez and Panana specifically, that is once advanced technology (steel+explosives) has been achieved.
[This message has been edited by SerapisIV (edited April 16, 2001).]

[airdrik]

Another way of putting is that a dike acts as a land square when calculating if you can reclaim a certain area of land.

quote: pology accepted! There's so much stuff here we all have to skim sometimes...

This is one of the reasons I hate weekends (when I go to my parents house and play civ 2 all weekend and don't even look at these forums).

[This message has been edited by airdrik (edited April 16, 2001).]

[Ilkuul]

quote: airdrik: Another way of putting is that a dike acts as a land square when calculating if you can reclaim a certain area of land.

Right, then we agree!

quote: SerapisIV: I think that technology for this should be available with steel technology, not explosives (if following CivII model) as steam shovels would then be available technologically.

This would not agree with historical precedent, e.g. the Netherlands: they were building dikes long before steam shovels were available! (See my earlier post.) I'd rather have dike building / land reclamation available from a much earlier stage, maybe Masonry, or at the latest Construction.

[SerapisIV]

I'm not arguing about the Netherlands, but when zooming out at a large scale to see the world map as shown in a Civ game, the Netherlands, would really just be marsh originally then a full lake. I'm not degrading that accomplishment at all, heck a lot of Boston wasn't around during the Revolution, its only been created since. I'm talking mainly for very large scale systems. The Netherlands land expansion also wouldn't be allowed under your surrounded mini-pond/one-square ocean limitation, it is just part of the European coast. You couldn't fill in Lake Huron with only masonry though its completely feasible today (if it wasn't for the whole environmental thing)
[This message has been edited by SerapisIV (edited April 16, 2001).]

[Ilkuul]

quote: Originally posted by SerapisIV on 04-16-2001 07:21 PM The Netherlands land expansion also wouldn't be allowed under your surrounded mini-pond/one-square ocean limitation, it is just part of the European coast.

Well, we seem to be a little at cross-purposes here. My point in referring to the Netherlands was not as an example of what might actually happen on a civ real-world map: I agree it would be far too small an area. The point was just that they provide a historical example of actual land reclamation that has been going on for 100's of years.

Also, you speak of my "one-square ocean limitation", but in my original post that was just the first and simplest option I envisaged; the second option, which a number of posters have referred to, was to allow a maximum area of 3 or 4 adjacent inland ocean tiles to be reclaimed. This, I think, would make reclamation more attractive in the game; but not being any kind of engineer, I would have to bow to superior knowledge if experts tell me that kind of area could not be reclaimed without sophisticated modern machinery.

How about a compromise? Single landlocked ocean tiles can be reclaimed after the discovery of Masonry (or Construction) - with the possibility of a dike being built to enclose a single ocean tile, as per previous discussion. Then after the discovery of Steel, larger areas can be reclaimed (with the possibility of increased unhappiness in neighbouring cities due to environmental concerns!).

[Wittlich]

I like the idea. Many times duriing CIVNET, CIVII, CTP and CTP2, I've often wished my land was able to be extended "just one more square" in a given direction!

[SerapisIV]

The biggest problem in draining large areas is getting rid of the water and if its below sea level/aquifer, keeping it dry. A large area, 3-4 squares would require too much land to be moved to be done with ancient tech. Even today, imagine filling in the Caspian Sea (in CivII it was about 4 squares) imagine the effort that would be required to do that? It's probably technically feasible, but the cost would most likely sum to a couple years of the entire US GNP.
[This message has been edited by SerapisIV (edited April 16, 2001).]

[Roman]

quote: Originally posted by SerapisIV on 04-16-2001 08:56 PM Even today, imagine filling in the Caspian Sea (in CivII it was about 4 squares) imagine the effort that would be required to do that? It's probably technically feasible, but the cost would most likely sum to a couple years of the entire US GNP. [This message has been edited by SerapisIV (edited April 16, 2001).]

This is a very bad example, as the Caspian Sea is shrinking very fast due to daming of the Volga and other water supplying rivers during the Soviet era. The problem is not how to drain it, but how to refill it with water.

[Zanzin]

This idea has my vote!!

[SerapisIV]

quote: Originally posted by Roman on 04-16-2001 09:00 PM This is a very bad example, as the Caspian Sea is shrinking very fast due to daming of the Volga and other water supplying rivers during the Soviet era. The problem is not how to drain it, but how to refill it with water.

Okay, try the Great Lakes then, wanna fill in Lake Ontario (and thats only 2-3 tiles)? Filling in 4 tiles of land on a Civ-sized map is too much a stretch of near-future technology to be feasible. It's fine for SMAC, not for CivIII

[joseph1944]

It is a very good idea because right now this day the Chinese are filling in the Pacific/South China Sea to build a new Hong Kong Intl. Airport.

[Ilkuul]

quote: Originally posted by SerapisIV on 04-16-2001 11:01 PM Okay, try the Great Lakes then, wanna fill in Lake Ontario (and thats only 2-3 tiles)? Filling in 4 tiles of land on a Civ-sized map is too much a stretch of near-future technology to be feasible. It's fine for SMAC, not for CivIII.

Sounds like people don't want too much realism here, Serapis! After all, think about it, from the discovery of Explosives in Civ2 you're able to transform mountains into hills - and how often do we see that happen in real life? Technically possible, but prohibitively expensive. Yet I've done it several times in civ games. Maybe land-reclamation would be another area where we'd be happy to accept a little 'unrealism' in exchange for more fun playing...

[airdrik]

quote: Okay, try the Great Lakes then, wanna fill in Lake Ontario (and thats only 2-3 tiles)? Filling in 4 tiles of land on a Civ-sized map is too much a stretch of near-future technology to be feasible. It's fine for SMAC, not for CivIII

Actually it all depends on how big your map is.

quote: think about it, from the discovery of Explosives in Civ2 you're able to transform mountains into hills - and how often do we see that happen in real life? Technically possible, but prohibitively expensive.

Exactly. If you say no to reclaiming land from the ocean, then you have to say no to terraforming because there has been just as much (if not more) reclaiming of land from the ocean than there ever has been terraforming of land (which amounts to about none).

Besides, all reclamation of land is is terraforming of ocean tiles, we're just putting restrictions on it so that you can't terraform the entire world into land (if you had the time and enough engineers).

[SerapisIV]

I forgot about the whole mountain leveling thing in Civ, nice point Ikuul. Well, maybe I speak for myself alone, but I'd rather not have the terraforming free-for-all of SMAC, I say this because once land is reclaimed, how do you define that as expanded land versus regular land? Lakes are one thing, ocean is another, at least in my eyes. Maybe if Civ actually allows differences between ocean shelf and deep ocean (did CTP do this?) I definitely don't want the chance to fill in the Marianas trench.

If you're gonna simulate an earth history (even as abstracted as Civ) there must be some immovable object in the way of expansion, The ocean has always been that. It is either a barrier (the Atlantic, pre-1492, that is by frequent visit, ignoring Vikings, etc) or its your livelihood, the Vikings, Phoenicians, British.

With that said, I'm all for eliminating (or limiting) mountain destruction. I don't see many people cutting down the Himilayas, Andes, or Rockys and rolling plains. I forgot all about that bit of surreal technology. (with the note to WV, the Appalachians are rolling hills in comparison to the Rockys)

[Ilkuul]

quote: Originally posted by SerapisIV on 04-17-2001 01:57 PM I definitely don't want the chance to fill in the Marianas trench... If you're gonna simulate an earth history (even as abstracted as Civ) there must be some immovable object in the way of expansion, The ocean has always been that.

Like Roman, I think you've maybe not read my original proposal carefully enough, Serapis. To quote my reply to him: "I'm not saying we should be able to terraform all sea tiles - only those mostly surrounded by land, and only up to a certain maximum area (perhaps 3 or 4 tiles). It should definitely not be possible to start building your land out into the sea along a normal sea-coast! Dikes, if allowed, should only be able to bridge the narrowest of gaps, i.e. a single tile. To my mind, this would place acceptable limitations on how much sea you can turn into land." So, to answer your objection, the ocean would still very much be an "immovable object in the way of expansion". It would only be a few landlocked tiles that could be reclaimed - which IMO models nicely what is possible in real life.

quote: ...how do you define expanded land versus regular land?

This is a good point. In some way the game would have to retain the information that the reclaimed land was originally ocean, so that when dikes are destroyed or collapse through lack of maintenance, it knows which tiles must now become sea again. (That's assuming dikes: if there are no dikes, the problem wouldn't arise - once land is reclaimed from the sea it remains land for the rest of the game...) Perhaps land reclamation could be encoded as a sea-tile improvement, so that destruction of an adjacent dike - or just simply finding itself next to a sea tile - would trigger destruction of that improvement, causing the tile to revert to sea.

[Jer8m8]

I'm pretty sure I've read a similar idea before. Have you ever read "The List"?

[airdrik]

Here is the way it would work: dikes can only be built on ocean squares with two flat-side-adjacent squares (ie. two of the four squares that share an edge with the tile have to be land). These squares cannot be dikes. An ocean square can only be reclaimed if all 8 touching squares are land squares (or dikes), or if (after a certain advance like Steel) all touching ocean squares are also reclaimed (up to 4 squares per reclamation).

One settler (worker) can reclaim land at a rate of 1 square every 30 turns, one engineer can reclaim at a rate of 1 every 20 turns, and with steel 1 every 10 turns. If you stop the reclamation process after finishing at least 1 tile, but before completing the reclamation, then tiles are changed back to ocean squares at a rate of 1/turn, likewise if a dike touching a reclaimed square is destroyed.

[Ilkuul]

quote: Originally posted by airdrik on 04-17-2001 05:28 PM If you stop the reclamation process after finishing at least 1 tile, but before completing the reclamation, then tiles are changed back to ocean squares at a rate of 1/turn, likewise if a dike touching a reclaimed square is destroyed.

Yes, that seems a good way of formalising it. I like your gradation between workers, engineers, and engineers + steel. I also like the idea of reclaimed tiles reverting to ocean at 1/turn if adjacent ocean tiles are not also reclaimed (up to the maximum) - I assume that's what you meant.

Where I would disagree, tho', is that there would also be this gradual change when a dike is destroyed. If, as in most cases, the dike separates the reclaimed land from the open sea, then inundation would be virtually instantaneous! So destruction of a dike, IMO, should be a special case causing all adjacent and linked reclaimed tiles to revert immediately to ocean (with catastrophic effects on any city built on the reclaimed land).

[SerapisIV]

The dike idea sounds like more trouble then its worth to me. But if people like it and want it, I'm not gonna argue. I do feel that in any game there must be limitations that must be dealt with and used to you advantage or at least the negatives minimized. The inability to make land is one of them in my opinion. Single-tile lakes to me are fine. But when given the choice of all or nothing, I pick nothing.

Along the lines of mountains. I'd like to see a bit more differentiation between mountain types. Obviously the Appalachians are not hills as in CivII, but the aren't the Rockys. There should be some middle ground. More differentiation between terrain tiles would be a very good addition good. Also the removal of Himilayan-type mountains shouldn't be possible. They should be another of the immovable objects. Also for such a terrain type, I'd like to see movement severely limited in them as it should be easier to go from India into Indochina into China into Tibet then straight across the Himilayas. I don't know the history, but aside from the Burma Hump in WWII, has there ever been a border war "through" the Himilayas? or just at their periphery were they become somewhat navigable.

[jglidewell]

quote: Originally posted by Ilkuul on 04-17-2001 03:41 AM Sounds like people don't want too much realism here, Serapis! After all, think about it, from the discovery of Explosives in Civ2 you're able to transform mountains into hills - and how often do we see that happen in real life? Technically possible, but prohibitively expensive. Yet I've done it several times in civ games. Maybe land-reclamation would be another area where we'd be happy to accept a little 'unrealism' in exchange for more fun playing...

They do it all the time in West Virginia, even the state gov is happy about it. There are more hills there than people.

[airdrik]

I agree, perhaps terrains can have another flag which says 'this square cannot be transformed' which is set when the game is started. The terrain affects this flag the most, like it is more likely that any given mountain square has this flag than any given forest square. All(?) inland ocean squares less than 5 squares will have this set to 'transformable', but all other ocean squares have this set to 'non-transformable'.