Civ 4 ideas - Straits and Canals

[Drachasor]

I just hope Rivers go back to being on tiles as opposed to between them. There should be units (viking longboats for instance) that can travel along those rivers. In the modern age there should be a unit that does that (perhaps marines can go on land, attack from sea, and travel faster on rivers).

Canals would also be a great addition, I've been longing for them since Civ II, when I had to build a city to act as a Canal, and I could only have that one square long.

Still, Canals should be big projects, given the size of a square. It should take 30-40 turns for one worker to make a Canal. That way you have to devote a number of workers too it.

Then they could add in a new small wonder which you can make after building a Canal of 4 lengths or so.

-Drachasor

[Aramis]

After reading thread twice--Optimizer's original idea sounds best. I'm not getting the Wonder idea at all--just where would the canals be again?

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by RMS
After reading thread twice--Optimizer's original idea sounds best. I'm not getting the Wonder idea at all--just where would the canals be again?

I don't know what the wonder would do, as to where the Canals would be, somewhere in your territory. I just think of the Panama Canal and that is basically a Wonder of modern times (so much effort and life was spent building it). It would be nice if Civ gave that work a nod.

Perhaps the Canal Project small wonder would halve the build time of future Canals.

-Drachasor

[Drachasor]

Hmm, as for the original idea, I don't think Canals (or RR for that matter) should give commerce or trade bonuses to the square. Rather they should allow connections between cities and the more cities you have connected the more of a bonus you should get. Perhaps the type of connections should matter too, so a City with a port and road connection to other cities gets more than one that just has a road and must use another city's port.

-Drachasor

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Drachasor
Hmm, as for the original idea, I don't think Canals (or RR for that matter) should give commerce or trade bonuses to the square. Rather they should allow connections between cities and the more cities you have connected the more of a bonus you should get. Perhaps the type of connections should matter too, so a City with a port and road connection to other cities gets more than one that just has a road and must use another city's port.

-Drachasor

I gotta disagree

I think if one goes through the time and effort of a canal then most certainly they should get +bonus's+ from it!

U would have barges or riverboats bringing good and people in so thats why I would say a bonus!

But, thats just me talking about a scenrio i would have if it is ever possible!

Peace

Grandpa Troll

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Grandpa Troll I gotta disagree

I think if one goes through the time and effort of a canal then most certainly they should get +bonus's+ from it!

U would have barges or riverboats bringing good and people in so thats why I would say a bonus!

But, thats just me talking about a scenrio i would have if it is ever possible!

Peace

Grandpa Troll

Yeah, hence the cities connected to each other via roads, railroads, oceans, and sea bonus. If you bring a canal in to a city, then you have made another connection for it, which would give it a trade bonus (like a trade route in Civ 2). It wouldn't come from any tile, just from being able to trade directly with other places via the oceon.

Besides, you get a pretty big bonus just from having a canal into a city anyhow. Those big production cities you have can now all build ships for you. That's a pretty insane bonus, if you ask me. It doesn't need anything else.

-Drachasor

[Vince278]

Excellent idea. I voted yes. I'd also like to see navigatable rivers.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Drachasor
I just think of the Panama Canal and that is basically a Wonder of modern times (so much effort and life was spent building it).

The Panama Canal is 51 miles long. The one dug in China in 600-700CE is 2400 kilometers long.

No, definitely not a wonder.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


The Panama Canal is 51 miles long. The one dug in China in 600-700CE is 2400 kilometers long.

No, definitely not a wonder.

The one dug in China did not carry 50,000+ ton ships across

[Drachasor]

I guess you aren't aware of the massive death toll from the jungles, the digging through mountains, the use of steam powered digging machines that barely overame the constant mudslides, and the many, many other difficulties that faces the builders of the Panama Canal. I'd also note that it is 300 feet across.

I assume you are referring to the Grand Canal, which my information says is 1,794 kilometers long. This Canal perhaps has wonder status too, but it didn't have anything close to the terrain difficulties, or other difficulties.

-Drachasor

[Vince278]

I agree that it is a wonder of modern engineering (like the Hoover Dam). I guess the game can't include everything that is wonder-worthy.

[Silpy]

Workers shoud die easily while building canals. They allways do. Would give me another reason for keeping those captured foreign workers too.

[Arrian]

If canals are implemented, I think a 1 or 2 tile limit should be imposed (dependant upon map size - 1 tile for tiny/small maps, 2 tiles for standard/large/huge).

Bridges, other than over rivers = no. The scale is wrong, IMO.

Navicable rivers Yeah, that would be cool. Tying in with that, I river tiles that are navicable should require relatively advanced technology to build a bridge over (engineering at the very least. Perhaps steel?), as opposed to normal river tiles which could have roads over them early on.

Even with navicable rivers, though, I think certain ship types should still be barred - like Battleships & Carriers.

-Arrian

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Arrian
If canals are implemented, I think a 1 or 2 tile limit should be imposed (dependant upon map size - 1 tile for tiny/small maps, 2 tiles for standard/large/huge).

Bridges, other than over rivers = no. The scale is wrong, IMO.

Navicable rivers Yeah, that would be cool. Tying in with that, I river tiles that are navicable should require relatively advanced technology to build a bridge over (engineering at the very least. Perhaps steel?), as opposed to normal river tiles which could have roads over them early on.

Even with navicable rivers, though, I think certain ship types should still be barred - like Battleships & Carriers.

-Arrian

I agree!!

as for naval vesels maybe a rivereene craft, a shallow draft armed with machine guns and maybe a small rocket launcher of sorts?

Peace

[Aramis]

Ironclads. They could use rivers, a la the Mississippi and Ohio rvs during the US civil war.

[Arrian]

I was thinking all wooden ships, plus ironclads and maybe the smallest "modern" ships (frigate or destroyer). No cruisers, battleships, carriers, or subs (unless we're talking about minisubs, and I doubt there will be a whole unit type for such a specialized unit).

-Arrian

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Arrian
I was thinking all wooden ships, plus ironclads and maybe the smallest "modern" ships (frigate or destroyer). No cruisers, battleships, carriers, or subs (unless we're talking about minisubs, and I doubt there will be a whole unit type for such a specialized unit).

-Arrian

for the Japanese civilization..a k a da mini sub from Pearl Harbor

[Drachasor]

Well, I think you should be able to make canals as long as you want. This should be balanced by requiring a base of 50 turns or so to build one square of canal (modified by the terrain it is in). Naturally no one is going ot do this with just one worker, but even with 5 it would take 10 turns. With 10 it would still take 5 turns. This would mean it just wouldn't be worth it, except in extreme caes to build long canals. I think it makes it rather realistic.

And I am not entirely opposed to allowing any type of ship to enter a Canal, under certain provisions. First, there should be different levels of canals. If you build a Canal on top of a Canal it should become a level 2 Canal, and allow bigger ships. This should continue to another step which would allow Carriers. Secondly, any ship that is attacked while it is in a Canal should be treated as if it is docked in a City, which means it gets massive defense penalties. Ships in Canals can attack normally however (so you can bring your gunships up a Canal to attack a fort, but you better be careful about who can attack them).

Now, I would like to say that my second paragraph of thought is entirely dependent on the first. If it isn't prohibitive time-wise to build a lot of Canals and a lot of thick Canals, then I the second part might not be balanced. If it is prohibitively expensive to build a ton of Canals, then I think it would work pretty well.

-Drachasor

[Drachasor]

Oh, and a Canal (unlike a road or railroad, imho), shouldn't allow any foreigners to use it unless they have a RoP. This should be circumvented if the foreigners place troops on the Canal however, then it can move into any square with their troops in it. This ownership principle should only extent to Canals that are in someone's territory, of course.

-Drachasor

[Arrian]

I think the tile restriction makes sense, for a couple of reasons:

1) Canals should only be built across narrow strips of land, ala Panama and Suez. Beyond 2 or maybe 3 tiles (I'm thinking on a standard map 2, on huge 3), it starts getting ridiculous.

2) While I'm sure Soren will do his best to turn out an improved AI, I can assure you that it will still be dumb. Dumb AI that is allowed to do an absurd thing like build a canal all the way across Eurasia, devoting all of its workers to the task and thus screwing itself, might just do it!

A base of 50 turns sounds fine. The turn requirement doesn't *really* matter that much to the human player, since we are capable of massing workers and getting it done fast anyway.

-Arrian

[Drachasor]

Well, even with a mass of workers, it would still take a long time. Time that could be better spent doing on things, like improving all of your lands. If you choose to sacrfice the time and money (upkeep on workers) to build a big canal, then you should be able to. We could make a Canal from the Atlantic to Ohio, but we don't because it isn't worth it. Too many hills, mountains, etc to go through, with no real gain. This would be true in Civ too.

Seriously, are you really going to get 25 workers to drop what they are doing just to build one Canal that is 4 tiles long? That's 8 turns where they can do nothing else, assuming they are working on grassland/plains. If they aren't it could be 3 times as much or longer. That's enough time for them to improve many, many cities. When you are done, what do you have to show for it? Nothing except you can move small ships through it. Even with my idea it would take 2 to 3 times as long to make it good for much in the modern age. I don't mind making something that seems insane possible, just make it undesireable in almost all circumstances.

As for the AI, well, extremely stupid things can be handled by just making it so they never build Canals, or never make them longer than 1 square or 2. Anyone that tells me that can't be coded I will hit:


....

-Drachasor

[Arrian]

I don't mind making something that seems insane possible, just make it undesireable in almost all circumstances.

Fair enough. Fine by me.

But I remain worried about the AI - I know it seems like an easy thing to prevent, but there are a bunch of things in CivIII that I thought would be easy to get rid of, and yet remain.

-Arrian

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Arrian


Fair enough. Fine by me.

But I remain worried about the AI - I know it seems like an easy thing to prevent, but there are a bunch of things in CivIII that I thought would be easy to get rid of, and yet remain.

-Arrian

Well, I admit some other things like programming the AI to build up forces for a larger and quicker assault is harder than making sure it doesn't build more than one Canal next to each other.

With Canals it is easy, the AI could only ever consider cities within 1 square of the ocean and not connected to the Ocean already (and a previous Canal could count), then it would check all the possible spots to make sure a Canal wasn't being built already. That's after whatever mechanism you have to determine that it should build a Canal has been activated. (if the later is too hard to make, simply have it never build Canals).

Certainly having it never build Canals wouldn't be problematic. Since they are a nice bonus feature, but nothing you'd have everywhere, it wouldn't hinder the AI much. Certainly have it make use of existing Canals though.

-Drachasor

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Master Zen
The one dug in China did not carry 50,000+ ton ships across

You sure about that?

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Silpy
Workers shoud die easily while building canals. They allways do. Would give me another reason for keeping those captured foreign workers too.

How about sacrificing them for a square of canal (like we already do for colonies and towers)? The sacrificing neatly simulates the dying and will keep the number of canal squares down somewhat.

[Kuciwalker]

I just think it should be possible, when you have a square with the 2 land and 2 water opposite (in C2 this allows ships through, in C3 it doesn't), to say whether or not it lets ships through.

[zorbop]

I like the idea, but only if they can go through cities. I would not want to see it as a terrain improvement. Just imagine, you would ent up making every single coastal square a canal when you run out of things for your workers to do...

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by zorbop
I like the idea, but only if they can go through cities. I would not want to see it as a terrain improvement. Just imagine, you would ent up making every single coastal square a canal when you run out of things for your workers to do...

Here I differ..and this is why:

The "city" could represent the actual city + E T J (Extra Territorial Jurisdiction)

The terrain/tile improvement could represent areas just adjacent to the city..like in the city of Pittsburg PA whereas you have 3 Rivers converging..or even New Orleans whereas a series of levis and dykes are used..

I wouldnt mind the idea of a city having it through it but I just think around the adjacent tile would suffice..

Ok I am no engineer or civic buff but this surely should be possible?

Gramps

[Addled Platypus]

My .02 cents


Bridges:
1.Depending on the world map picked?
2.Upgradeable: carry more weight, the bridge I built in
the earlier era's could not support my legions of tanks rolling
across. support more commerce coming in too
3. Would have to be maintained (gold or shields)
4. Would be to easy to go around with said legions of tanks
5. Create a military bridge laying unit?

Anybody know the scale of a tile?

Straights:
1. Of course it needs maintenance
3. Depending on world map picked?

Canals:
1. Slower movement for invading legion of tanks
2. Did I say maintenance
3. Help spread disaese (mosquito breeding grounds). Could be
cured/reduced with a city improvement (pest control)

I realy dont see major bonuses to playability.
I am leaning towards no.
Would this create the swift boat unit? also for going up river

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Platypus Rex
Would this create the swift boat unit? also for going up river

If it did then it would be a real winner of a unit with like 10000 hit points..since my understanding is that when one serves on one you gets lots of medals quickly

and as for the up the river.. but without a paddle