Re: [Freeciv-Dev] Feature suggestion

[Jeff Mallatt <jjm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>> 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?

In addition to Mining, Irrigation and Road building, Engineers (not
Settlers) can Transform squares as follows:
  Desert    --> Plains
  Forest    --> Grassland
  Glacier   --> Tundra
  Grassland --> Hills
  Hills     --> Plains
  Jungle    --> Plains
  Mountains --> Hills
  Ocean     (can't transform)
  Plains    --> Grassland
  Swamp     --> Plains
  Tundra    --> Desert
It takes a lot of time, but can be very useful.

>> 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 :-)

Yes, cross-oceanic.

>> 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?

Yes.

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

My perception is that a channel of even the smallest size in Freeciv is of
the scale of the Panama canal.  I believe that projects of such scale
require at least Steam Engine / Railroad.  If my scale assumption is wrong,
then Railroad wouldn't be required (smaller canals were built long before
the steam engine was invented).

>> 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.
>
>> 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.

Again, it depends upon your scale assumption.  I'm thinking in terms of
filling the English Channel, not just some coastal swamps or shallow lakes.
 And, again, if my scale assumption is too large, the required technology
changes.

In fact, if the scale is sufficiently small, then there's little technology
required: the earliest recorded dam is believed to have been built in Egypt
in 2900 B.C..

>> 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).

Yes, a "direction" would work fine, I think.  He can stay where he is while
he's working, otherwise he's sitting on an ocean square, and if I decide to
terminate the filling before he's done... he might sink! ;-)

>> 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?

If "pipe" required an even further tech, they might be reasonable.

Would tunnels/pipes be treated as roads or railroads automatically?  If
not, could they be railroaded?  Once you can build a tunnel from any
continent to any other continent (with railroad) you can ship anything
anywhere in an instant!  Boats may become useless.

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

No.  I just thought they'd be neat.

>> 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.

Agree.

>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?)

Yes, it could be very powerful: a place to park units that can't be
attacked from air or sea, and can only be attacked from one other
neighboring square!  (That make me think: would it be impossible to attack
with Artillery in a tunnel?  It has to lob shells too high -- they'd hit
the ceiling overhead!)

jjm