Canal building

[loleod]

When you build a city on a thin strip of land all of YOUR sea units can pss through it. I think a new worker action would be cool. Build Canal. If the strip of land is less then 3 squares you can build a canal. To make life more difficult/more realistic you might have to wait for one of two things. Enginering ( hey it lets you build forests and bridges why not canals) or for a small wonder called Panama Canal ( Which would be avaiable after you learned enginering. Just like roads the AI wouldnt be able to use the canal unless they had a ROP with me. Right now I just gain control of all the 1 square blocks I can find , and I build cities on them ( Like in Marlas World Map I always take control of Panama). Thats unfair to the rest of the civs. Also I think if I have a ROP I should be able to go through the AI cities instead of around. You would never be in it , your unit would gain a speed bonus in the city and always end up outside it after the turn is over.

[Jawa Jocky]

I like the canal idea. They should also allow one water space Tunnels (Like the English Channel, and the one between the islands in Japan). Also 2 types of rivers 1) normal river 2) larger rivers that can handle ships.

I can live without these but they would make nice additions

[Grrr]

I have always liked the canal idea, and brought it forth from a year before Civ III was even released. It would be difficult to implement, but it is possible.

As for Panama Canal, engineering is a little early, it wasn't built in the middle ages, you know.

[Zoid]

Canals is a damn good idea

No more of those build-crap-city-just-to-get-acess-to-ocean-thingies...

But then I always play islands, so I don´t really have a problem with this

[Gelvan]

Yeah this idea is exactly ten years old (AD 1992 )and it's a good question, why those firaxiens weren't able to implement it.

but then: this question could be asked for every little byte of this game, so it's not worth the wind.

And you can be 100% sure: it won't be in any civ game unless you program your own civ game. Which maybe would be the best idea anyway...

If the people of apolyton or any other fansite had made civ3, wow, that would have been the most impressing game ever released.

well, dreams...

[Jethro83]

Lets just hope Firaxis add the canal option to their XP.

You should also be able to build a bridge over coast and sea squares (kinda like a bridge between tightly packed islands on an archipelago only 1-3 spaces apart). Your workers stand on a square of land next to the coast, you hit the "Build Bridge" key (or click its button) and select the direction you want your bridge to go. Within a number of turns, the first part of a suspension bridge is done. It will go one space onto a coast tile. You could then move your worker onto it, and then build the next square, then the next, until you reach the opposite side of the water body. You'd need to discover Steel to allow it, and ships could travel underneath it.

I may be drifting, but the option to build suspension bridges like this would sort of be an equivalent to the canals option. You'd use a lot of canals to get your navy through a small space of land on continents or Pangaea, and your suspension bridges to get ground forces (and workers) from island to island on an archipelago map.

[star mouse]

My thoughts on canals

Canals would actually be fairly easy to do. Here's how I would do them:

They would be built by Workers, and take a long time to build.

They require a fairly advanced tech to construct, something in the Industrial Age (say Industrialisation).

Canal building is restricted as follows:
* Must be on a coastal tile, thus they initially have a maximum length of 2 tiles.
* Cannot be built on hills or mountains.
* Requires Iron and Saltpeter to build (iron for the structures, saltpeter for the explosives).
* Destroys irrigation/mining, and irrigation/mining in that square is no longer possible.

Other notes:
* A later tech advance would remove the restriction of coastal tiles only, enabling the construction of longer canals.
* Counts as coastal tiles for movement
* Moving through a Canal square uses 2 movement points
* Civs with ROP can use canals
* Ships cannot be loaded while they are in a canal

Problems:
* What happens if a canal is destroyed while a ship is in it?
* What happens if a land unit finishes its movement in a canal square?
* If you pillage your own canal square while an AI ship is in that square, is the AI ship destroyed, and is that an act of war?

[Dom Pedro II]

I think that there should have been a number of new improvements in civilization that were not implemented... in fact, they actually REMOVED good tile improvements. What happened to the Airbase? Useless in Civ2, vital in Civ3 on island maps.

I think rivers are the great unappreciated terrain element... One, I think there should be bridge tile improvements that are roads constructed on rivers, and these improvements can be destroyed. Now, the trick will be as said before that there should be two varieties of rivers. "Fordable" rivers, inaccessable to ships, and big rivers uncrossable by troops but allowing ships. Bombing a "big" river bridge can bring troop movements to a hault.

Secondly, I think rivers should be another medium for trading, so two cities without roads between them can use rivers to connect them. Good for the early game for the expansionist civilizations who don't have time to lay down the infrastructure.

[kimmygibler]

I would say a two tile maximum for the entire game would be good. Without this, you could cover the whole map in canals and just use ships.

Another problem would be, what if you build a canal 1 square inland in order attach a coast to your city? What if the canal is destroyed while you are building boats, coastal fortress, etc? Also, what about attaching a canal to build a wonder that requires sea access and then destroying the canal?

Also, you could build mutiple canals on adjacent squares? If so, then can you cross from canal to canal? And how would land units cross canals? Could bombardment destroy a canal? If so then what if a unit is in the canal? How would the ai use canals? 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?

[Coracle]

The canal idea has been discussed since Civ 2 came out!!

Firaxis ignored all the discussions lasting over five years.

I don't think discussiing it any more will get Firaxis to add this needed task, and there should have also been a Panama (or GREAT) Canal Wonder.

[Lucilla]

Two answers:

Originally posted by kimmygibler
Another problem would be, what if you build a canal 1 square inland in order attach a coast to your city? What if the canal is destroyed while you are building boats, coastal fortress, etc? Also, what about attaching a canal to build a wonder that requires sea access and then destroying the canal?

You could solve that problem, if you don't allow destroying a canal. I would also limit the building of a canal to a coastal square and only to connect a city to the sea or to cross a 1-tile land bridge. However you would need a bridge (see next quote) to cross the canal with a land unit.

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
I think rivers are the great unappreciated terrain element... One, I think there should be bridge tile improvements that are roads constructed on rivers, and these improvements can be destroyed. Now, the trick will be as said before that there should be two varieties of rivers. "Fordable" rivers, inaccessable to ships, and big rivers uncrossable by troops but allowing ships. Bombing a "big" river bridge can bring troop movements to a hault.

Secondly, I think rivers should be another medium for trading, so two cities without roads between them can use rivers to connect them. Good for the early game for the expansionist civilizations who don't have time to lay down the infrastructure.

I totally agree. Rivers should have much more influence on strategy than they have now. The bridge building and the "trading-along-rivers" idea reflects that perfectly.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Coracle
The canal idea has been discussed since Civ 2 came out!!

Firaxis ignored all the discussions lasting over five years.

I'm amazed that I agree with you that canals are a good idea...

But I'm even more amazed at your apparent psychic abilities to know that Firaxis ignored the fans when it's equally possible that they decided against the feature with a conscious choice.

[ixnay]

IIRC, the Grand Canal was originally in civ3, but they took it out (and modified the great wall, which was originally an actual wall on the map) for gameplay reasons.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by cyclotron7

But I'm even more amazed at your apparent psychic abilities to know that Firaxis ignored the fans when it's equally possible that they decided against the feature with a conscious choice.

What I find amusing about Coracle is that he claims that firaxis completely ignored the gaming community while at the same time constantly whines about Culture, which was one of the suggestions by the community, IIRC.

[asleepathewheel]

Oh, I agree that canal building would be a cool feature, I'm just not sure how it would be implemented. I like star mouse's worker suggestion, which would probably indicate more of a move towards SMAX's 3d terrain/ terraform options, which woudln't be that bad of a thing for me.

'Like in Marlas World Map I always take control of Panama). Thats unfair to the rest of the civs."

I think that is great, a race to control a key spot of land. If there was a way for allies to move through your city (there isn't, is there?) it would be even better.