Canal building

[loleod]

I would like to see the abilty to cross three tiles with a canal more then two , but I could live with two, heck I would be delighted with the abilty to do it to a one square piece of land.

I would say the canal could be rendered useless , but would not be destroyed. In real life it would take longer to fill a canal then to make one so this would make sense. You would in essence fill in enough to stop it from working. Ships already in the tile would be allowed to finish their route unharmed.

I would say that land units could not fight sea units in the canal. I like the bridge idea , so if bridges and canals were implemented then you would have to build a small bridge over the canal to get over it.

The canal would be just like roads , people with whom you have ROP with can use them , but people who you dont have ROPs with cant. If that land was taken from me it would be the property of the AI who took it. If they destroyed my city near it , then it would be available to all units ( Water units of course).

[dawidge]

Just use your formers to lower the terrain.

Oh, wait, terrain elevation wasn't included in *this* game...

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by dawidge
Just use your formers to lower the terrain.

Oh, wait, terrain elevation wasn't included in *this* game...

OK, lets not get into that. The SMAC forum is elsewhere on this site.

[simwiz2]

"And how would land units cross canals? Could bombardment destroy a canal? If so then what if a unit is in the canal? Could a land unit fight a sea unit in a canal? What if your borders changed as a result of expansion or city takeover while your unit was in a canal that is now controlled by the enemy?"

Yes, land units should be able to cross a canal. Canals should be very vulnerable to bombardment, destroying ships in them if they are destroyed. A sea unit should be helpless in the canal, with a defense of 0, so if it is attacked it should just be destroyed. Same for if you lose control, you ship should sink. Using canals should be risky, so you can choose whether you want to risk it or take longer to get there.

[dawidge]

Originally posted by simwiz2
A sea unit should be helpless in the canal, with a defense of 0, so if it is attacked it should just be destroyed. Same for if you lose control, you ship should sink.

And a ship sunk in a canal would destroy the canal until a worker could clean it up. Canals are narrow and shallow and easily plugged with a swamped vessel.

[Capt Dizle]

Thats right lets not focus on the fact that you could terraform in SMAC. We must not make the choir boys uncomfortable. We must pretend that Civ3 is something other than "one small step for Soren, one giant leap backward for civilization"

[The Rook]

Has anybody ever tried placing a "chain" of cities across a continent to act as a makeshift canal? I wonder if it will work? I don't see any real value in it, but maybe someone else would.

[Grrr]

I did it in Civ II, but Civ III doesn't have enough lakes.

[ACooper]

How about a new type of "road"? Workers could built this with a high time cost. On this "canal road" ships could pass as is it were a canal with one less than normal movement point. If part of the canal gets destroyed, the ship is stuck.

[ALPHA WOLF 64]

I agree with Dom Pedro about 2 classes of rivers. One would be the current type that would represent fairly narrow rivers. And a new type of water tile that was uncrossable except via bridge. (i used shallow water and bridges in CTP2).

Kinda off topic but heavy vehicles should only be able to cross existing rivers at roads. Assumption being no road, no bridge and even a 50 yard wide/10 foot deep river would flood out the typical tank (yes, I know that modern tanks have some "swim" capabilities)

[Dis]

didn't SMAC have canals? Or at least it allowed you to lower land, and voila! you have a canal.

[dunk]

Originally posted by The Rook
Has anybody ever tried placing a "chain" of cities across a continent to act as a makeshift canal? I wonder if it will work? I don't see any real value in it, but maybe someone else would.

You're not allowed to build cities in adjacent tiles. Anyhoo, I don't think think it would work anyhow. The inland cities are on non-coastal tiles, so the ship wouldn't be able to move there. I think.

[dunk]

I think canals would be a good addition.

I think limiting them to 3 tiles long and both ends must be in a coastal tile is the way to go. They should also have an upkeep of something like 3 gold / canaled tile and definately resource requirements to discourage willy-nilly placement. I can only imagine the AIs territory if they could be built anywhere.

Bridges would also be a welcome addition.

[Sean]

Yeah, canals have been regularly discussed in these forums; because they are such a good idea!

It would be great if they could be implemented intothe game.

[Coracle]

Canals would be especially useful in Civ 3 as there are often thin strips of land that would really be useful if a canal could be built there.