Re: RFE: terrain improvement: canal

> * Per Inge Mathisen <cre-0/[email protected]> [2006-01-17 11:46:49 +0000]:
>
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Fishpark wrote:
>> --- Jason Dorje Short <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > There would have to be good justification for a change like this. What
>> > gameplay benefit would having canals provide?
> ...
>> I think the point that Sam Steingold makes is this:
>> FreeCiv allows you to change one type of terrain into
>> another (provided you have the required tech.), so why
>> noy allow the creation / removal of rivers?
>
> We want a _gameplay_ reason for adding something like this. As in "what
> does this add to the game" in terms of plausibility, fun or game balance.

the "ultimate state" of an ocean square is 2/1/3 (democracy+platform).
the "ultimate state" of a forest with a river is 1/3/2 (w/ RR) - same
total of 6.
without a river it is 1/3/0 which is significantly weaker.
I want to be able to make my forest a good as an ocean.

> There are lots of problems with adding artificial rivers, riverboats
> and canals. It exposes more cities and tiles to attacks from ships,
> and the plausibility of being able to add rivers whereever you wish is
> quite questionable (adding a western outlet for the Amazon?
> hah!). Rivers are also quite powerful, both in terms of terrain bonus
> and defense bonus - this also needs to be considered.

riverboats are useless because they are not seaworthy and thus are good
only for continental warfare where they would lose to any land unit.

ocean navies cannot navigate rivers or canals to fight (because they lose
maneuverability).

-- 
Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running w2k
http://ffii.org http://www.mideasttruth.com http://truepeace.org
http://www.honestreporting.com http://www.dhimmi.com
Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard disk?