Re: RFE: terrain improvement: canal

> * Fishpark <svfucnex77-/[email protected]> [2006-01-19 08:11:56 +0000]:
>
> Perhaps only the extending of rivers should be allowed? This would not
> really be a 'canal' feature, though.

yes, _canals_ should be adjacent to rivers or oceans

>> a naval attack against an undefended city should
>> work like this:
>> 
>> 1. <virtually> create a settler out of the city;
>> population is reduced by 1
>> 
>> 2. the virtual settler fights the ship
>>    - if the ship wins, the virtual settler
>> disappears (together with the
>>      buildings lost in the attack &c), population
>> remains reduced
>>    - if the ship loses to the virtual settler, the
>> virtual settler also
>>      disappears but the city population is restored
>> to its original
>>      value (i.e., increased by 1); optionally:
>> reduce food reserves
>>      (granary) in proportion to the damage sustained
>> by the virtual settler
>> 
>
> Hmmm this is similar to Colonization's 'colonists take up arms and
> defend the colony!' feature.

this is intended to work for both naval units and bombers and this is
NOT colonists taking up arms but a way to simulate carpet
bombing/battleship shelling a defenseless city into oblivion.


> I will have read the arguments again (I seem to remember bits and
> pieces) but why did you propose this for naval units only?

because land units conquer cities outright.

-- 
Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running w2k
http://www.camera.org http://ffii.org http://www.dhimmi.com
http://www.honestreporting.com http://www.savegushkatif.org
Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward.