Re: RFE: terrain improvement: canal

On 1/17/06, Sam Steingold <sds-mXXj517/[email protected]> wrote:
> > * Michael Kaufman

> > I think the answer is: too bad. If you really want this, change the
> > ruleset. In terms of plausibility, a forest w/o a river _is_ weaker
> > than ocean w/ platform. You can't just make a river flow where you
> > want it. Ask the Army Corps of Engineers.
>
> you cannot irrigate an arbitrary square either.
> (I enumerated limitations in the original message)

Yea ok, but what would be the rule where to start a river? For
realism, all decent squares for a river would already have one, and
usually engineers need to move a lot of land to make it flow
elsewhere.

Now if freeciv maps always had a height map, this would be
interesting, but this way it will just end up with complete continents
being converted to rivers, which begs the question "Where does all the
water come from"?

Now for ships navigating rivers, this is not possible unless someone
creates a system, including graphics, for having big, small and maybe
even medium rivers. Example, AFAIK, the Missisippi was navigated by
ironclads in the US Civil War, so for a map with lots of land between
the navigable rivers(think scale map=3DUSA), it would be interesting to
have this feature.

I think it would be wise to separate the issue of ironclads being too
strong vs cities, since that could be handled by different game
mechanics (like bombardment and an attack bonus depending on target
terrain). Again complicated, a also a ruleset question.

There should be a "popular rulesets" poll on the forum.