Briges/Canals

[Straybow]

If properly constructed an asphalt road, even in the North, will last 5-7 years without significant repair. Patching is nothing in terms of expense. If properly constructed a portland cement road will need only resealing joints every 3-4 years, and surface treatment depending on climate. The problem in the Northeast US is that road construction is horribly corrupted and almost nothing gets built correctly.

Still, a full resurfacing costs about $100/foot-lane, whereas initial construction is about $500+/foot-lane, not including bridges at several times that cost. (I'm guessing costs have doubled since my schooling, I could be off a bit.)

So, if once every 5 years you resurface at ¼ the initial cost, your annualized cost is 5%, which is probably comparable to annual sealing and patching costs. Compare that to the Ditch at about 50%, and the enormously higher cost per length...

I kinda agree, though. I don't like tile improvements with maintenance, but I had proposed maintenance for airbases before (alongside the use of airbases for Airlifting). If they are improvements that are not used in bulk it can be acceptable.

[Addled Platypus]

entertaining info

so what do you know of RR maintenace Straybow?

[Yarco_TW]

Great China Canal Great Wonder

Originally posted by KyuuA4

Ability to make "engineers" take a land square and give it the ability for ships to go on it - to simulate the capability of a canal. In short, ability to Build a Canal.

Canal construction is OK.

My question is when it should arrive on a tech tree. Most canal-building technology is pretty recent (Erie canal, Suez, Panama), but Great Canal in China was built in 11th (?) century.

And, there can be Canal-related great wonder (Erie canal, of Great China Canal)

Yaroslav

[Yarco_TW]

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.

The point is the same as with rivers - you get river trade. Cheaper trade. No need for mules in ancient ages.

The cost of wheat transported from Buffalo from New York by mule costed 11 times the original cost. The cost of this wheat brought by Erie Canal drastically reduced the cost, and enhanced trade. The same is true of Great Canal of China, Pharaoh canal from Nile to Red Sea, etc. All were used to transport (trade) bulk commodities, which otherwise were uneconomic to trade.

And Great Canal of China is a nice trade-related Great Wonder (like Colossus, but surviving till today).

Yaroslav

[Addled Platypus]

what about a limiit to the number of canals built?

more canals more maintenance

and then
maybe a added costs for invading troops to move in/around ?

[MrFun]

I guess no one has an answer to my question.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by MrFun




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?

The Egyptians had one connecting the Nile and the Red Sea as far as I can recall.

[Yarco_TW]

Egypt canal

Originally posted by MrFun

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?

Answer from Wikipedia says there was canal, and it Joined Nile and Red Sea (Nile joins Mediterranean, so essentially it was a canal between oceans):

Perhaps as early as the 12th Dynasty, Pharaoh Senusret III may have had a west-east canal dug through the Wadi Tumilat, joining the Nile with the Red Sea, for direct trade with Punt. Evidence nevertheless indicates its existence at least by the 13th century BC during the time of Ramesses II. It later fell into disrepair, and according to the Histories of the Greek historian Herodotus, re-excavation was undertaken about 600 BCE by Necho II, though he never completed the project. The canal was finally completed about 500 BCE by King Darius I, the Persian conqueror of Egypt. Darius commemorated his achievement on a number of granite stelae that he set up on the Nile bank, including one near Kabret, 130 kilometres from Suez.

The canal was again restored by Ptolemy II about 250 BCE. Over the next thousand years it was successively modified, destroyed, and rebuilt, until finally being put out of commission in the eighth century by the Abbasid Caliph al-Mansur.

[Yarco_TW]

Originally posted by DerSchwarzfalke
If ships cannot navigate rivers, I do not see the point of canals. [ ... ] 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.

River navigation was in Civ 2 (rivers treated as roads), and was wrongly eliminated from Civ3 (remained only as trade bonus). Viking units in Russia, Spaniards on Orinoko, Parana and Amazon, all early states did use rivers for military units transportation. Why should I not have a movement bonus?

The same bonus should be for goods canals, and Chinese Grand Canal should be a wonder in economy sphere (e.g. increasing trade in all cities on the same river/canal system).

However, the main reason for canals was that untill railroad and automobile canal transportation was much cheaper, then by road, and brought more trade. Cost of transportation is not recognised in Civ, so we must eiter agree for a simple model with three modes of transportation

1) road (plus 1 trade)
2) river/canal (canal tough to build) plus 2 trade
3) railroad/road for automobile (easy to build) plus 2 trade

or go for a more complicated models with trade routes, etc. which are not now in Civ (even caravans were eliminated )

Originally posted by DerSchwarzfalke
Most historical canals were used to link rivers to other rivers or rivers to the sea.

Most, but some (Suez, Panama) were used to connect oceans. Ship canals are different from goods canals, and should be discussed separately. I would have them having cost, but also being sellable (other nations can use them for a fee), conquerable, and destroyable.

Yaroslav

[Addled Platypus]

Originally posted by Yarco_TW


1) road (plus 1 trade)
2) river/canal (canal tough to build) plus 2 trade
3) railroad/road for automobile (easy to build) plus 2 trade

Yaroslav

anyone here with coding expereince, to tell us if this is easy,hard,impoosible to do?

I agree on caravans, especially intercepting one

[sophist]

Originally posted by Platypus Rex

anyone here with coding expereince, to tell us if this is easy,hard,impoosible to do?

It's trivial. The issue is that these mechanisms distort and diminish the significance of trade and can be modelled in a more sensible and enjoyable way. Roads don't generate trade; they convey it. You shouldn't be able to generate trade on a road to nowhere, and a road between two metropolises should carry more trade than a road between two hamlets.

[Yarco_TW]

Originally posted by sophist

Roads don't generate trade; they convey it. You shouldn't be able to generate trade on a road to nowhere, and a road between two metropolises should carry more trade than a road between two hamlets.

Absolutely true. But then we should bring in the concept of trade routes, which can be taxed. Then trade income will then depend on many more factors, than it depends now. And Civ3 will cease to be "turn-based Warcraft".

It will require thinking, making choices in economic policy, and so on. And computer will have to be smarter in economic theory as well.

And that would be great. Because this would mean, that with development of your economic science you should get additional advisors, buttons and options, so that you would micromanage at start and macromanage at Modern Ages.

But this theory has no support with Civ developers :-(

Yaroslav

[sophist]

Originally posted by Yarco_TW

But this theory has no support with Civ developers :-(

Why do you say that? I thought it was all good.