|
Author
|
|
Topic: Canals |  |
|
Pangaea
Settler
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Dec 2000
|
 |
posted December 19, 2000 21:17
     | 
 |
 |  |
Why don't they add in Canals?that way you can send ships over land without having to have cities on a tile with water on both sides.... In Civ II, on the world map, if I didn't make a city where Panama is, I would loose any hold I would have on the Europe/Asia when I expanded.... (you know how hard it is to get ships from Japan to New York without going through the "Panama Canal" city that I own?) Until I built railroads, there was no point in trying to conquer anywhere that I couldn't go in a few turns... unless I had mega-cities that could pump out units every turn  |
Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto
Warlord
Salt Lake City, USA
Oct 2000
|
|
posted December 19, 2000 22:46
|
|
| |
we were just talking about this very thing on another thread, dang though, I cant remember the name. any way, I personally love the idea. |
Yog-Sothoth
Chieftain
Norway
Sep 2000
|
|
posted December 20, 2000 08:16
|
|
| |
Canals should be in, but they should be very expensive and take a long time to build.And the thing with cities being automatic canals, never understood that. This is totally unrealistic and should be fix. |
weird god
Warlord
EU, aut
Apr 2000
|
|
posted December 20, 2000 12:33
|
|
| |
good idea...but it should also be available to build longer channles (of course for a high price)......and PLEASE let small ships use riversystems |
Ralf
Prince
Sweden
Mar 2000
|
|
posted December 20, 2000 12:36
|
|
| |
The player should only be able to build canals max two squares, and only in the form of below two alternatives:- City-tile > canals > ocean (or sea/river)
- Ocean (or sea/river) > canals > ocean (or sea/river)
Otherwise, the whole idea gets both unrealistic and inflationary.
|
Grumbold
Warlord
London, UK
Mar 2000
|
|
posted December 20, 2000 13:15
|
|
| |
I think players should be able to terraform grassland, plain and desert tiles into river tiles provided they connect to existing rivers or coast. Small ships like coracles, triremes and longships could enter these automatically. A second level of terraforming could turn existing river tiles into canals and allow galleons and the like to sail through. If you want to go further and have battleships in rivers you really need to differentiate between river mouths (max 2 tiles inland) and smaller rivers. Normally the only time ships this size went into rivers its to reach a port so the city adjacent to a coast is probably good enough. |
Pangaea
Settler
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Dec 2000
|
 |
posted December 20, 2000 15:50
|
|
| |
Like the Mississippi River has had battleships and stuff on it, but by the CivII standards, it wouldn't do anything....if you think about it, most cities are founded on rivers, and they have major battleships go by them  I can only think of a few cities that are completely land-locked (can't get a ship from there to an ocean) So basically, you have Las Vegas' throughout the game, heh ------------------
-=Pangaea=-
31291353 |
orange
King
Moderator at the Civilization Gaming Network
Feb 2000
|
 |
posted December 21, 2000 19:35
|
|
| |
quote:
Originally posted by Ralf on 12-20-2000 12:36 PM
The player should only be able to build canals max two squares, and only in the form of below two alternatives:- City-tile > canals > ocean (or sea/river)
- Ocean (or sea/river) > canals > ocean (or sea/river) Otherwise, the whole idea gets both unrealistic and inflationary.
|
This is excellent, I think this idea will keep reasonable transportation of boats in the game, while not making it an abuse. However, with an increased map I would probably go more than one tile. Basically determine how many tiles a panama or erie canal would be...and make that the max Good idea Ralf!
------------------
Civilization Gaming Network Forums
~ The Apolyton Yearbook
~ The poster formerly known as "OrangeSfwr" |
Apolyton Civilization Site Forums
