I haven't heard anyone else complain about this but...

jinif · January 28, 2002, 18:28

It has kind of pissed me off that you can't build boats in lakes. This really bothered on the world map, when I like to build boat in the Great Lakes, and then move them out into the ocean using a city that connacts them both. Does anyone know if this was put there on purpose, or just some kind of mistakes, any comments and opinions would be welcome.

Gramphos · January 28, 2002, 18:32

I think it is supposed to be so. They have one routine to check if the city is next to the ocean, and it allows you to build ships and some improvements. Now, maybe it could be an editor option for some ships to be able to sail in lakes (for later patches), as I don't think it would be hard to use the if next to lake function for another check.

cephyn · January 28, 2002, 19:15

Not sure what the problem is here...could you attach a save game or something?

I played a game on a pangaea continent that was shaped like a giant "O" -- a ring. Navies in the inner lake was worthless, given the speed of RR's around the continent, but that didnt prevent me and the computer from building navies in there anyway. It was a large lake, but we could put ships in there -- so i don't know why you couldn't build ships in a lake. I've done it.

Daveraver · January 28, 2002, 19:36

I know this problem... and it has to do with how the game decides what is actually a lake and what is an ocean.

In Cephyn's case, the lake was big enough to be considered an ocean... so its different sometimes... you can tell because cephyn would be allowed to build harbors, offshore platforms etc...

My thoughts on why this happens: I think it has something to do with the trade network thingy more than the reality of having ships sail in inland water... also the freshwater/saltwater deal with irrigation. Cephyn would not have been able to irrigate from that water source, but Jinif would have been able to.

Oerdin · January 28, 2002, 19:41

I don't know if not being able to build ships on lakes is a big problem or not but I would like to see a canal till improvement being added in the expansion pack. That would allow Empires to transfer navel units from one side of their empire to another. As an added bonus it would greatly add to the historical realism of the game since canals played such an important part in the pre-industrial and early industrial world (not to meantion the Suez and Panama canals of the modern era).

TinCow · January 28, 2002, 19:51

I've been able to build ships on landlocked 'lakes' (seas?) before as well. I think the defining factor is whether the body of water in question has the second level of water depth in it (can't remember the name). If it's all the shallow coastal type, you won't be able to build boats, harbors, coastal fortresses, mining platforms, or the naval Wonders. One square of deeper water seems to be enough, but I haven't checked this to be sure.

Please let me know if you've experienced something that disproves this.

Quokka · January 28, 2002, 20:09

I have had the same experiences as Tin Cow. If the water was all coastal squares it was all fresh water and no harbor or ships could be built. If it was big enough to have sea squares then a harbor and ships could be built.

Encomium · January 28, 2002, 22:49

The REAL problem is the inability to build CANALS.

I have seen thin strips of land separate large lakes from the ocean. A canal there would be of great value, both for the military and trade. I guess Sid doesn't think the Panama Canal was a Great Wonder.

With canals there would be more use for "boats", even though the navies are handled very poorly in Civ III.

OneInTen · January 28, 2002, 23:23

That "thin" strip of land is dozens of kms across!

Lets use the example of a 200x200 map (ie quite a large one):

The distance round the equator is 40,000 kms, more or less. Divide 40,000 by 200 and you're still left with each tile being 200km square. Even towards the poles, where each tile must represent less land, you're still talking around 100kms. And that's on a big map ... think how huge it'd be on a standard sized map!

That's a huge canal, something that has never been done or Earth, as far as I'm aware.

jinif · January 29, 2002, 02:21

Thanks for everybodies advice, I bet that it has something to do with the size of the "lake" or weather or not there is any of the "second level" ocean squares.