Re: [Freeciv-Dev] Feature suggestion

[Lalo Martins <lalo@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Jan 18, Jeff Mallatt decided to present us with:
> Well, you asked for feedback.  I hope this isn't too much...  ;-)

Let's see :-)

> I'm reminded: I haven't found the CivII concept of Engineer Transformation
> in Freeciv.  Is it missing, or am I blind?  I found Engineer Transformation
> very useful in CivII, and would like to see it in Freeciv.

What's this?

> I think they could, however, cause some problems if not properly constrained.

Of course. That's why I suggest a server option. Perhaps the
long-discussed "civstyle 3" for FreeCiv extensions.

> Looking around the real world, I see *lots* of channels -- even very
> large/long ones -- but I see very few trans-oceanic causeways (like, *none*).

Cross-oceanic? I really thought you meant something that goes
from one ocean to another (Panama). If you mean something that
goes from one continent to another across the ocean, then I
think it's cross-oceanic. No, there isn't such a thing :-)
But... well let's leave this for the last paragraph where you
adress it more deeply.

> I think channel building (at typical Freeciv map scales)
> should be limited to Engineers,

If it requires explosives, it's pretty much the same as
requiring enginners, no?

> and I would add that the Railroad should certainly be a
> requirement (or, possibly, upping the requirement all the way
> to Steel).

Why?

> It should also take lots of time: this could be implemented by not allowing
> channels to be built on Hills or Mountains -- you'd have to first use
> Engineer Transformation to convert from Mountains to Hills to Plains, then
> you could dig a channel.

Makes sense. Perhaps not forest/jungle too.

> Filling in oceans is even more problematic.  I think (again, at typical
> Freeciv map scales) that the "landfill" concept is more like converting
> Swamps to Grassland, while ocean filling is like trying to fill in a large
> area of the continental shelf.  Thus, I believe that limiting ocean filling
> to the single square adjacent to "real" land would be appropriate.

Agreed. We don't want people to turn the world into 100% land
:-) or even make a road from one continent to another...

> And, it should require some fairly sophisticated technology
> (Automobile?), and, again, take a fair amount of time.

Disagreed. In real world these landfills have been made since a
long time - look at Holland for a large-scale example.

> Perhaps, as an added twist, you'd have to designate which
> Mountain you want to tear down (into Plains) to get the
> material with which to fill the ocean square (maybe a "source"
> Engineer at the Mountain, and a "sink" Engineer at the ocean).

Someone can research the real-world knowledge of how much would
be needed?

> Also, how do you get the Engineer onto the ocean square so
> that he can start building? Does he need to be in a boat? Or,
> would you allow an Engineer to "project" an action into a
> neighboring square? Hummm....

Yes, this is one thing that bothered me in the proposal. I guess
it would be kind of like "goto" - you order it to landfill and
it asks "please give the direction", which can be done by
clicking or pressing an arrow key. I don't know if the best
thing would be to have the engineer stay where he is or move to
the ocean square. Surely a boat is not needed (too much
unrealistic).

> This all reminds me of a new technology that I've often thought would be
> useful: The Chunnel (depends upon Robotics).  Once you've researched The
> Chunnel, you could drive tunnels under oceans (again, restricted to squares
> near land -- perhaps two away).

If it's an advanced technology then perhaps this limitation is
not needed. I believe it could be a real tunnel in the
first/second square and then a kind of "pipe" on the "deep"
ones. Perhaps the "pipe" segments need an even further tech?

And there are no tunnels in FreeCiv! Are there tunnels in
Civ/CivII?

> Tunnels have an advantage over causeways, in that they don't
> interfere with ship traffic.

There are no causeways either :-)

> This, however, opens up a real can of worms: there's currently
> no notion of "underground". For example, can ships or aircraft
> attack a unit when it is in the middle of an undersea tunnel?

Oh boy rulesets :-)

No they can't. It's not realistic. Hmm let's leave tunnels and
chunnels and "pipes" for after the rulesets :-) (Of course
perhaps the "underground" concept is too powerful and deserves
to be supported outside the rulesets?)

[]s,
                                               |alo
                                               +----
--
      I am Lalo of deB-org. You will be freed.
                 Resistance is futile.

http://www.webcom.com/lalo      mailto:lalo@xxxxxxxxxx
                 pgp key in the web page

Debian GNU/Linux       --        http://www.debian.org