What about Suez and Panama?

Kramsib · July 30, 2002, 07:35

As you can see in the image, another difference between Civ II and Civ III is the inexistance of Canals. That is to say that you cannot move naval units between squares joined by one of their vertex.

If you remember, Civ II's world maps used this peculiarity to depict Suez and Panama Canals, but the problem was it was unrealistic because, they were built by man, in other words, they were not natural channels.

Ok, Civ III is more realistic now but it is a pitty that my modern boats cannot travel troughout these strategical points unless I own a city just in the middle.

So, I wonder if you consider a good idea the possibility of construct canals like airfields or fortresses are built, and if it should be worthwile including this new option in the new PTW.

Thank you.

Gangerolf · July 30, 2002, 07:43

you could just build a city there you know

Gangerolf · July 30, 2002, 07:44

but yes, it would be neat to be able to dig canals

Kramsib · July 30, 2002, 07:51

The problem of using cities as canals is that they can be only used by the owner of the city, so even with a right of passage only the owner of the city can sail throughout it.

Deathwalker · July 30, 2002, 08:57

I think this would be a jood idea. You sould either have a canal tytpoe improvemnt or allow other civs to pass though your city to get to the other side. But not stay in the city at a end of turn

dunk · July 30, 2002, 12:27

Well, I think the problem with not having player-built canals is the AI. The AI may not place a city in the proper position to allow the canal effect. But, if they were buildable, maybe the AI would do so.

statusperfect · July 30, 2002, 13:36

I don't think it's just the canals. As mentioned in other posts the whola naval system should be redone.

JtheJackal · July 30, 2002, 13:57

I've been a huge supporter of canals ever since I played Civ 2.

GhengisFarb™ · July 30, 2002, 14:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Deathwalker
I think this would be a jood idea. You sould either have a canal tytpoe improvemnt or allow other civs to pass though your city to get to the other side. But not stay in the city at a end of turn

Personally, I think it'd be cool if your allies COULD leave ships/units in your cities to heal up.

Then we wouldn't have to have the "Dig Canal" worker funtion.

Carver · July 30, 2002, 15:21

I'm sure sailing is very enjoyable but sometimes you just wanna get to where you're going. Yes, yes for canals.

jdd2007 · July 30, 2002, 16:14

it would be abused way too much, unless there were huge limits on the size and number of them. they should be very expensive, and take a long time to build...

Oerdin · July 30, 2002, 20:22

No question about it. We need canals.

The_Aussie_Lurker · July 30, 2002, 21:27

My opinion is that you should have to BUILD a "canal improvement" for EVERY land square you want your ships to move through, and there should be a maximum number of adjacent squares you can build the improvement in-say 3 squares for an average map! The improvement should be capturable by the enemy, and not be enterable by any other civ without an MPP! It should also not become available until the late industrial age! On a final note, though, ships which pass through a square containing a canal should also have to pay a higher movement cost than if it were moving through coastal waters (Say 2mp instead of 1mp). I think that, combined, these things should limit the extent to which they could be abused by players!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

Coracle · July 30, 2002, 22:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Gangerolf
you could just build a city there you know

Wrong.

First of all, Canals, as Wonders, were asked for repeatedly after Civ 2 came out. Firaxis ignored those requests.

Second, both Suez, and especially the Panama Canal, were Great Woinders of the World that gave immediate benefits to the building civ - prestige, power, naval strength, and a real nice boost in trade and commerce, plus a continuing source of additional income through usage fees.

None of that can be reflected merely by building a town.

Coracle · July 30, 2002, 22:32

Quote:

Originally posted by statusperfect
I don't think it's just the canals. As mentioned in other posts the whola naval system should be redone.

I have said it for many months, pathetic and lame naval warfare is one of the three most disappointing parts of Civ 3. It is more simplistic than even Civ 2, and now we can't even deliver caravans and spies by sea - which was fun and dramatic.

Privateers and subs should be able to attack enemy merchant shipping on his trade routes. But Firaxis was too busy dreaming up crazy stuff such as disappearing garrisons when a city "flips" than to do something realistIc.

ixnay · July 30, 2002, 23:33

Canals (or the Grand Canal, at least) were originally in civ3, but were taken out for gameplay reasons. You would have been able to put a canal on the map linking two bodies of water. Similarly, the Great Wall appeared as a wall on the map that would slow attackers.

Kramerman · July 30, 2002, 23:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Gangerolf
you could just build a city there you know

Thats what i do. But after descovering a tech, like modern enginnering or something, you should be able to build canals over several squares, where cities cant be built in order to allow passing. The same thing for building bridges. A certain sea vessel should be allowed to road over coastal squares, allowing for bridging to close continents and stuff.

kman

sorry if somebody has already said this stuff - i havnt read all the posts

Kramerman · July 30, 2002, 23:48

Quote:

Originally posted by ixnay37
Canals (or the Grand Canal, at least) were originally in civ3, but were taken out for gameplay reasons. You would have been able to put a canal on the map linking two bodies of water. Similarly, the Great Wall appeared as a wall on the map that would slow attackers.

That sucks. I dont see why they should of taken that out - sheesh. I guees they have their reasons...

Inverse Icarus · July 31, 2002, 01:55

i made a huge stink about this while civ3 was still in development.

there would have to be soem immense strains, and we came up with a "3 connected tiles max" canal theory.

there'd also have to be some new rules about attackin in canals...

what if two ships meet in one?

what if a land unit attacks that square?

couldnt you stack a battleship with your tanks? a carrier?

it's all quite interesting.

Dimorier Maximus · July 31, 2002, 03:02

I think this along with Social Engineering government should be high on the list for things to put in Civ4. I just don't see them adding either one at this time, but I voted for it.

Gangerolf · July 31, 2002, 08:21

Perhaps canals could be in between tiles, like rivers. Thus land units can pass over them but not stay in them =>ie they can't attack ships in canals.

Kramsib · July 31, 2002, 08:27

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX
i made a huge stink about this while civ3 was still in development.

there would have to be soem immense strains, and we came up with a "3 connected tiles max" canal theory.

there'd also have to be some new rules about attackin in canals...

what if two ships meet in one?

what if a land unit attacks that square?

couldnt you stack a battleship with your tanks? a carrier?

it's all quite interesting.

Thank you guys for your answers, I am really surprised and amazed that this thread has kept a high position. This fact means that this is an interesting topic.

UberKrux has made very interesting questions.

"What if two ships meet in one?"

This fact usually happens in Civ II real World Scenarios, Suez Canal get blocked with ships very often. The good part is that you can block the canal (if this is your aim), the problem is how to sail through it when it is blocked. In this case, you should be able to ask for permission (or to sign the "permission of passage" treaty or similar), and to be able to cross the ocupied squares (like a ghost).

But perhaps your main question is: What about the canal if two ships start a battle?, Would the canal acts as a barrier?, Is the canal susceptible of bombardment? (if it is an square improvement like a fortress, of course, it is). I think it is difficult to answer.

I also have thought about the "dig canal option" to avoid the problem of those cities which are near sea (they have sea squares under their city radious but they aren't adjacent to any of them, like these ones in the image), so this cities could produce naval units as well.

Gangerolf · July 31, 2002, 08:47

should there be a limit as to how long a canal can be? a canal across a continent is perhaps a bit extreme...

Dimorier Maximus · July 31, 2002, 11:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Gangerolf
should there be a limit as to how long a canal can be? a canal across a continent is perhaps a bit extreme...

Not really, you can get ships all the way up to Minnesota using the Mississippi River and other canals. Likewise, Russia has joined the Caspian Sea to the Black Sea with canals. So I really don't think there should be a limit. It should just take a really long time to build a canal, and the tech to build them shouldn't become available until the Industrial Age.

Ijuin · August 1, 2002, 10:31

Well, the Grand Canal in China was built mostly during the Tang Dynasty, before the development of either gunpowder or powered excavation machinery. I would suggest that Engineering would allow the construction of canals on squares that are ADJACENT to water only, and that Replacable Parts would allow the extension of canals as follows:

1) New canals can ONLY be started adjacent to Coast squares--not on rivers.

2) Canal improvements can only be built on tiles ajacent to existing canals unless you are starting a new canal (see 1).

3) Canals can NOT be built over Mountains.

4) Canals take a base time of 12 turns to build (twice as long as mines).

5) Canals displace other tile improvements with the exception of irrigation and road/railroad--this means that you cannot have a Mine, Fort, Airfield, Outpost, etc. on one.

6) Since they improve sea access, canals grant +1 commerce to squares that they pass through.

And as for movement through canal squares:

7) A Land OR a Sea unit of one Civ located in a canal square will block both Land AND Sea units of any other Civ from entering that square--attempting to do so results in combat IF the units are of the same movement type (both Land or both Sea)--however, Land units trying to move onto a Sea unit will fail and vice versa. However, any number of both Land and Sea units of the SAME Civ may simultaneously occupy a Canal square.

8) Entering canals within another Civ's territory is bound by the same diplomatic restrictions as entering the Civ's territory elsewhere.

Dimorier Maximus · August 1, 2002, 13:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Ijuin
6) Since they improve sea access, canals grant +1 commerce to squares that they pass through.

I can see it now...cities completely surrounded by canals and roads...no thank you.

Kramsib · August 2, 2002, 10:32

Perhaps we should restrict the canal improvement only for those squares which are joined by their vertex.

In the case of "Ground Cities near sea" perhaps an "external harbor improvement" on one coast square (only one per city) would be the best option.

phunny_pharmer · August 2, 2002, 11:27

Canals were the most important invention in transportation prior to the railroad.

Surely, if we're going to allow railroads to move units all the way around a map, we've got to invent some way of getting the puny little ship through an isthmus...

Canal building should be a tech.

Beeblbrox · August 2, 2002, 12:03

to avoid canals all round a city the trade bonus becomes obsolete with steampower (railroads) naturally as it did in real life

GhengisFarb™ · August 2, 2002, 12:59

How about this:

The Panama (or Suez) Canal would be a great wonder.

It would allow a ship to transport from any water square in the city's (city that has the wonder) radius transport to any other water square in the city's radius.

That would end the naval unit's turn. The canal wouldn't be over 3 tiles long as both water tiles wouldn't be in the city's radius then would they? In order to capture the canal you would have to take the city, just like all wonders.

There would be only one (or two if you had both Panama and Suez) canal in the game.

And other civs could use it as they don't enter your city. It would be tied to ROP agreements like roads and railroads. Since it's a wonder you could set its upkeep cost to whatever you'd prefer.