[Freeciv] Re: RFE: terrain improvement: canal

[Fishpark <fishpark77@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

--- Sam Steingold <sds@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> > * Peter Schaefer
>
<crgre.fpunrsre-Er5WDRrDdr8NikgvhZjk3j@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> [2006-01-18 22:38:25 +0100]:
> >
> > On 1/17/06, Sam Steingold <sds@xxxxxxx> 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?
> 
> a _canal_ can be started from any point that has
> access to water:
> next to ocean or a river (at least one the the 4
> tiles).
> 
> > 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.
> 
> I don't understand.  Sorry.
>

I think what was meant is that the auto-generated maps
already have rivers in places where you'd
realistically find rivers, leaving no logical
locations for new ones.

I don't think this is a valid argument, since
landmasses shift, rivers change course, etc. etc. over
time in the real world and there are plenty of places
where a river could run (and might have run in the
distant past).

> > 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"?
> 
> you can end up with all mountains converted to
> plains too -
> so where does all the ground go?
> canal digging should not be too cheap - it should be
> more expensive than
> mining but cheaper than terraforming.

Perhaps only the extending of rivers should be
allowed? This would not really be a 'canal' feature,
though.

I still think you should be able to dig a river
anywhere, and the operation would have to be
sufficiently expensive not to disrupt gameplay and to
give the iplayer the mpression of immense technical
difficulties being solved by the Engineers.

I suppose that Worker units have limited power when it
comes to digging rivers? Perhaps they should be only
be allowed to dig rivers on plains, or to extend
rivers?

The 'where does the water come from' question is
indeed as irrelevant as the before-mentioned 'where do
mountains go after being levelled?' or 'why can a
stealth bomber stay in the air for 10 years and yet
not fly from England to Denmark in that time?' :-)

> > 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.
> 
> and engineers should be able to expand 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.
> 
> if a city can be attacked by a sea vessel, such a
> city should be able to
> build a harbor.
> 
> finally, as I mentioned in
>
<http://article.gmane.org/gmane.games.freeciv.general:4035>,
> 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. I am not
convinced why that would work for Naval attacks in
Freeciv.

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


 > -- 
> Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running
> w2k
> http://www.dhimmi.com http://www.savegushkatif.org
> http://truepeace.org http://www.iris.org.il
> http://www.mideasttruth.com
> Even Windows doesn't suck, when you use Common Lisp
> 
> 
> 
> 


                
___________________________________________________________ 
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! 
Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com