Bridges?

[BadChemist]

In Civ V I had a pet peeve where you couldn't make bridges to make land units go over lakes or oceans in boats, I feel this will be a great addition, what do you think?

[gimmethegepgun]

Well, they've all but confirmed that canals will exist in some fashion, so it could happen.

[Darkwing]

Originally posted by gimmethegepgun:

Well, they've all but confirmed that canals will exist in some fashion, so it could happen.

Where do people keep getting this from? I need a source. Please.
And dont say "its in one of the videos". I checked. Cant find it.

[gimmethegepgun]

Originally posted by Thunder:

Originally posted by gimmethegepgun:

Well, they've all but confirmed that canals will exist in some fashion, so it could happen.

Where do people keep getting this from? I need a source. Please.
And dont say "its in one of the videos". I checked. Cant find it.

https://youtu.be/YBdl8YVFK4o?t=1m51s

[Darkwing]

To the OP: I really dont know if that would make too much sense. I would like it, but...the only such thing that remotely exists on that scale is the Channel Tunnel from Britain to France. A bridge on that exact stead would be impossible right now. It would be a world wonder as far as I'm concerned and a future tech one at that..

[Darkwing]

Originally posted by gimmethegepgun:

Originally posted by Thunder:

Where do people keep getting this from? I need a source. Please.
And dont say "its in one of the videos". I checked. Cant find it.

https://youtu.be/YBdl8YVFK4o?t=1m51s

!
Thank you.
Canals confirmed as far as I'm concerned.

[mmmcheesywaffles]

That's teh link I mentioned yesterday .... then couldn't find :) Canals confirmed, though nothing said about WHEN theywould be added.

I don't see a need for bridges. I think the scale of the maps makes bridges unrealistically huge. Apart from maybe allowing units to travel across rivers on roadways.

[BadChemist]

Originally posted by Thunder:

To the OP: I really dont know if that would make too much sense. I would like it, but...the only such thing that remotely exists on that scale is the Channel Tunnel from Britain to France. A bridge on that exact stead would be impossible right now. It would be a world wonder as far as I'm concerned and a future tech one at that..

Thanks for the response! I feel it should only extend a few tiles (ex 3) to get to other landmasses. Not over huge oceans.
Thanks!

[Darkwing]

Originally posted by Dr. Virus:

Originally posted by Thunder:

To the OP: I really dont know if that would make too much sense. I would like it, but...the only such thing that remotely exists on that scale is the Channel Tunnel from Britain to France. A bridge on that exact stead would be impossible right now. It would be a world wonder as far as I'm concerned and a future tech one at that..

Thanks for the response! I feel it should only extend a few tiles (ex 3) to get to other landmasses. Not over huge oceans.
Thanks!

♥♥♥♥ man i was saying just 1 tile of brigde was too much. tiles represent miles and miles of land and i think it would just get too silly to have a bridge that assumes to extend that far. i know a lot has to be sized up for a game like this but i think stuff like bridges would just completely kill the sense of scale.
I mean, that farm you see on hte map represents square miles of farmland, the mine represents areas like west kentucky which are littered with coal mines in every direction, and so on and so on. So what about the bridge? Does it represent miles and miles of bridge? Or several brindges linked together? or one insane 30 mile bridge? As representations, everything else makes sense but bridges kind of dont. That would scale the map into the entire game world just looking like a small village or something. Not coll bro.

[mmmcheesywaffles]

Originally posted by Thunder:

♥♥♥♥ man i was saying just 1 tile of brigde was too much. tiles represent miles and miles of land and i think it would just get too silly to have a bridge that assumes to extend that far. i know a lot has to be sized up for a game like this but i think stuff like bridges would just completely kill the sense of scale.

For once we agree :)

The Panama canal is a good example. In Civ V it would be one tile. But a bridge crossing parts of it would be a modern world wonder.

[Mike]

if the english channel is one hex wide.

how long are these ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ bridges.

[Darkwing]

edit:
I mean, that farm you see on the map represents square miles of farmland, the mine represents areas like west kentucky which are littered with coal mines in every direction, and so on and so on. So what about the bridge? Does it represent miles and miles of bridge? Or several bridges linked together? or one insane 30 mile bridge? As representations, everything else makes sense but bridges kind of dont. That would scale the map to the entire game world just looking like a small village or something. Not cool bro.

[gimmethegepgun]

Originally posted by Thunder:

Originally posted by Dr. Virus:

Thanks for the response! I feel it should only extend a few tiles (ex 3) to get to other landmasses. Not over huge oceans.
Thanks!

♥♥♥♥ man i was saying just 1 tile of brigde was too much. tiles represent miles and miles of land and i think it would just get too silly to have a bridge that assumes to extend that far. i know a lot has to be sized up for a game like this but i think stuff like bridges would just completely kill the sense of scale.
I mean, that farm you see on hte map represents square miles of farmland, the mine represents areas like west kentucky which are littered with coal mines in every direction, and so on and so on. So what about the bridge? Does it represent miles and miles of bridge? Or several brindges linked together? or one insane 30 mile bridge? As representations, everything else makes sense but bridges kind of dont. That would scale the map into the entire game world just looking like a small village or something. Not coll bro.

The problem with this sort of comparison arises when you look at archers. Archers have 2 range, capable of firing over these miles-long tiles, across the English Channel.

[recon64bit]

Why are people talking about scale when archers can shoot across 2 hexes, over oceans and channels? 1upt already ruined any attempts at keeping any scale that makes sense.

[mmmcheesywaffles]

Originally posted by recon64bit:

Why are people talking about scale when archers can shoot across 2 hexes, over oceans and channels? 1upt already ruined any attempts at keeping any scale that makes sense.

1UPT is one unit representing an army. That's why some stacking makes good sense.

[Darkwing]

Because there just isn't any other way for combat to work in civ without ditching ranged combat altogether. So, where it's unavoidable, they've had to do something that, when you think about it, is scaled ridiculously. But that's part of the core concept of combat in this game. Again, there was no other way other than to have archers appear to be shooting insane distances. Bridges over tiles is not part of any other mechanic. Nothing else in the game depends on breaking the scale for the sake of building abnormally long bridges. With archers we can say that combat simply won't work the way it's intended unless we give them the ability to shoot over one tile. Simple as that. With bridges we can say....why the hell are we even doing this?