Terraforming sea tiles?

[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'.