Briges/Canals

[Addled Platypus]

so I guess any ship unit currently in the game will fit through the canal...right?

How would one mod the cost of passing through the canal ?

or would it just be a ROP thing

[Illuminatiscott]

I would say, that to deterr potential making of the entire continent into a canal, the cost of upkeep for a canal should grow exponentially with its length, thusly
Tile...upkeep
1.........1
2.........2
3.........4
4.........8
5.........16
6.........32
ETC...
You could make the cost higher in later ages, so that the increased economy wont allow you to build more canals

[Provost Harrison]

They should be pretty expensive to maintain/construct and only constructable for 1 (maybe 2) tile(s) and be within your territory, perhaps only have one square and only allow connecting water to cities...

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by MrFun


The ancient Chinese built several canals to link different river systems. Canal technology is not as advanced as some people think it is.

Further. Many industrial revolution technologies were not very advanced, they just didn't previously have the socio-economic impetus to be developed further. The workable concept of the steam engine has been around for millennia, but without any use for it it was not developed properly until the late 18th Century.

[Illuminatiscott]

By the way, the grand canal of china is nearly 600 miles long (ca. 800 km). It was constructed in the 500-600 CE range, i think.

[Illuminatiscott]

and lets maybe go back to the gameplay implications of canals; we're slipping into real-world coversation

[DerSchwarzfalke]

If ships cannot navigate rivers, I do not see the point of canals. Most historical canals were used to link rivers to other rivers or rivers to the sea. If there were at least minimal river navigation in the game -- which, judging by the screenshots, there will not be -- canals would make more sense, imo.

[Addled Platypus]

Originally posted by Illuminatiscott
and lets maybe go back to the gameplay implications of canals; we're slipping into real-world coversation

I cant tell the difference

that is why there is CivAnon

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Platypus Rex
that is why there is CivAnon

I'd almost forgotten about that.

[sophist]

Originally posted by DerSchwarzfalke
If ships cannot navigate rivers, I do not see the point of canals. Most historical canals were used to link rivers to other rivers or rivers to the sea. If there were at least minimal river navigation in the game -- which, judging by the screenshots, there will not be -- canals would make more sense, imo.

I agree. If you have one, you should have the other. One way I was thinking that navigable rivers could work is that they just reduce the area and productivity of a tile by 1/2. No benefit should be without its cost, after all.

[Straybow]

No, tiles are huge. The mouth of the Amazon is nearly 20 miles wide, but that would only be a small fraction of a tile on almost any map.

As shown in the other thread, China's Grand Canal is what is properly termed a goods canal. Seagoing ships can't use it, goods must be loaded onto dedicated canal vessels. Likewise the Erie Canal, the canal network in England, etc. This is really no different from roads since they can't handle the huge loads that rail can move.

Shipping canals are very difficult to construct and maintain. The Panama Canal requires about the same amount of maintainance excavation and dredging every year as the original construction. (Of course, the Ditch has been expanded and widened a couple times since then, and now handles far more traffic than the original design.)

So, perhaps if someone wants a through canal they should have to permanantly station Engineers sufficient to build the canal over x number of turns.

[Edit: spelling... what, was I asleep at the keyboard or somethin'?]

[sophist]

Originally posted by Straybow
No, tiles are huge. The mouth of the Amazon is nearly 20 miles wide, but that would only be a small fraction of a tile on almost any map.

I know it's unrealistic; I suggested that as a way to attach a cost that was less intrusive than others I have seen.

Originally posted by Straybow
So, perhaps if someone wants a through canal they should have to permanantly station Engineers sufficient to build the canal over x number of turns.

I think that's a little inelegant. Your point about maintenance is an important one, though. On the other hand, irrigation systems and mines and roads and railroads all require maintenance as well, but civ doesn't model that.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Dauphin


Further. Many industrial revolution technologies were not very advanced, they just didn't previously have the socio-economic impetus to be developed further. The workable concept of the steam engine has been around for millennia, but without any use for it it was not developed properly until the late 18th Century.

. . . . . . . and doesn't change the simple fact that canals have been technologically possible and accomplished for thousands of years.


Didn't the Romans have an ancient canal connecting the Mediterranean and Red Sea centuries before the British/French canal?? Not sure on this one -- can someone verify?

[Straybow]

I think that's a little inelegant. Your point about maintenance is an important one, though. On the other hand, irrigation systems and mines and roads and railroads all require maintenance as well, but civ doesn't model that.

A modern road typically gets resurfaced once every 5-7 years; no comparison. Ancient roads were typically ditched and filled after the spring thaw with impressed local labor. Mines take a trivial amount of maintenance compared to the rest of operating costs. Irrigation has a high initial cost and minimal maintenance (by design they prevent erosion).

The Suez is a sea level canal through a desert. Maintenance is very low given mechanized labor. With only manual labor it would be an immense challenge. Note also, the distance crossed for both the Suez and the Panama is far less than the full width of a tile on a typical world map. Longer canals would require that much more maintenance.

[sophist]

Originally posted by Straybow

I think that's a little inelegant. Your point about maintenance is an important one, though. On the other hand, irrigation systems and mines and roads and railroads all require maintenance as well, but civ doesn't model that.

A modern road typically gets resurfaced once every 5-7 years; no comparison. Ancient roads were typically ditched and filled after the spring thaw with impressed local labor. Mines take a trivial amount of maintenance compared to the rest of operating costs. Irrigation has a high initial cost and minimal maintenance (by design they prevent erosion).

I haven't worked in any coal mines or irrigation systems, so I won't disagree. Roads, though, need more than a once-over every 5-7 years. Patching, sweeping, sealing, etc. happen far more frequently, especially in more northern areas. I mean, look at the massive highway spending in any nation with a well-developed infrastructure. Some of that is new roads, but most of it is keeping up the old ones. Regardless, the degree of maintenance was less germane to my point. Improvements that require maintenance in the real world don't get in Civ games, and I think it would not be good to have one thing that broke the pattern.