Terrain Improvement?

[lajzar]

So far, the only strong argument against PW is it stops you from developing land outside your borders. The obvious solution to this is to have the ability to build in any tile where you have a unit present.

Someone said that automated workers would require fewer clicks than a PW system where you click everywhere you want an improvement. A PW system where you can drag and paint (the way you'd place zoned areas in simcity) would require even fewer clicks than automated workers. So that too is a non-argument.

Any points I missed?

[Fosse]

snoopy369: Unit Basis, turn based, and multiple strategies: Agreed. Tile based: Sorry, man. No eye to eye here!

Lajzar:
There are lots more arguments against PW: an affinity for the worker unit, fewer interfaces to master (workers add no interface, PW or painting systems do), the more sudden, less step-by-step building (with PW you could build up a pool, then "suddenly" build a bunch of improvments at once. With workers that doesn't happen so easily (or at least not by accident)).

Workers feel more like you're controlling something concrete, as well.


As for the number of clicks... I don't know about that. Workers can be done all on the keyboard, true... but after moving them to the location and issuing the command on the keyboard, the number of commands is likely comprable.



Now... I am not in favor of workers. But all of those people have gone to the trouble of making all of those (and more) points for keeping them.

I cannot imagine a Simcity-esque system in which you draw - with the possible exception of roads.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Fosse
Lajzar:
There are lots more arguments against PW: an affinity for the worker unit, fewer interfaces to master (workers add no interface, PW or painting systems do), the more sudden, less step-by-step building (with PW you could build up a pool, then "suddenly" build a bunch of improvments at once. With workers that doesn't happen so easily (or at least not by accident)).

Workers feel more like you're controlling something concrete, as well.

That's a very good summary, especially from a PW supporter ^.^ I'm not sure I could have come up with that without a good hour of thinking ...

As for the number of clicks... I don't know about that. Workers can be done all on the keyboard, true... but after moving them to the location and issuing the command on the keyboard, the number of commands is likely comprable.

...

I cannot imagine a Simcity-esque system in which you draw - with the possible exception of roads.

I couldn't, either. And the point you summarized nicely above, about having fewer interfaces to master (and fewer interfaces also means a less 'busy' screen, which in Civ3 is already pretty darn busy) ... 'drawing' improvements implies doing a lot at the same time, or having quite an impressive queue of things to be done.

Would you (Laz) suggest having instantly done improvements (that are paid out of some sort of pool, either gold or built-up worker-shields), or having time-to-complete for each one being fixed, and having one worked on at a time (or one per citizen or one per citizen assigned to worker-status)?

[snoopy369]

I wanted to consider something. While I was thinking out that reply above, I realized that, although I prefer the worker system and would definitely like to see workers in civ4 (versus a PW system) ... I don't HATE PW, and would still play the game myself. As such, I'd like to have some input (well, to the extent that any of us here do) on what it looks like, ultimately, if PW is adopted; and have some (possibly) good ideas about how to do it in the least destructive fashion. As well, I suspect some people (like Fosse for example) who may not be worker supporters feel the same way about workers.

Any chance we could either have sub forums, "PW Subforum" and "Worker Subforum" - or at least posts within the Civ4-List forum - where we discuss these things?

For now i'll post the following two threads:

Terrain: Workers System - Ideas

Terrain: Public Works System - Ideas

Please post only constructive ideas in there, and constructive criticism - but start with ideas. This thread, and not these two new ones, is the appropriate place for the continuation of the debates -- in the threads above I would like ideas only. (Of course, this is the internet, and not a totalitarian state, and certainly not *my* totalitarian state in any case, so i'll just have to say that i'll be mighty peeved if they turn into arguments over which system is better

[lajzar]

The "painting" idea is just an option, and I wouldn't expect it to be used much, simply because you shouldn't ever have the kind of PW resource stockpile to make it practical.

Whe I said number of clicks to issue a command, I wasn't thinking specifically of mouse actions, but any kind of user input. For interface purposes, there is no real difference between clicking the mouse and pressing a button on the keyboard.

"workers add no interface" - beg to differ, but they do. The interface is in the moving workers (or automating them if you arent fussy about their actions), building workers, and the on-screen buttons to tell them to do the actions. To say there is no interface with workers is disingenious at best - you're implying you have no way of interacting with those units.

Of course, this interface is largely similar to military units, except for teh unique features of special commands to improve the land and automation options.

And you're right in saying that implementing a PW interface will be another new one for civ. But it isn't going to be complicated. The idea of click on your desired improvement from a palette then click where you want it is not hard for even casual computer users ot understand, and it is an interface (of sorts) that van Gogh used many years ago.

"Worker unit afinity" - I don't buy sentimentality as a valid reason to keep a particular game item when a (arguably) better solution exists. I'll agree that it does feel like you are ordering real people about when you have workers though. Perhaps the "under construction" icon I mention below could be an animated working building the improvement.

My ideal PW system:

You can build anywhere in your territory, and anywhere that you have a military presence. If your soldiers move/die during construction, any partly finished improvement is lost.

PW are paid for out of a pool, similar to CTP. I'm not overly fussy about whether this pool comes from gold or shields, but I suspect shields gives the more interesting opportunity cost.

Once you place the order for an improvement to be build, an "under construction" icon appears on the screen. The improvement appears a few turns later, depending on the improvemnt/terrain (rails take longer than roads, mountain mines take longer than hill mines, undersea tunnels take ages and ages).

To prevent the idea of building a ridiculous stockpile of PW resources then splurging, I'd suggest one or more of the following:

- A negative interest on stockpiled PW. Say, it depreciates at 1% each turn.
- You can only start a maximum of 1 PW action per city you control each turn.
- Each improvement started on the same turn has a cumulative cost. So the first one costs 100, the second 110, the third 120, etc.

[lajzar]

Just occurred to me... one of the big advantages of PW over workers is that it opens up the possibility for marine improvements, such as the fisheries and oil rigs from ctp.

[Kuciwalker]

... or you can just have sea-workers or something.

Or allow a worker next to a sea tile work on that tile.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
... or you can just have sea-workers or something.

Or allow a worker next to a sea tile work on that tile.

Just like in SMAC, which is a unit-worker-based game that allows sea improvements, and unlimited terraformability (even sea to land and vice versa) (which I realize you're against, but some aren't)... not to mention being the highest review score of any game in any genre ever in PC Gamer history (98%, and that was BEFORE the era of the "ratings inflation" of about a year ago) ... not that PC Gamer ratings are that meaningful, but it should say something ^^

[lajzar]

ok, sea workers would work. But allowing a land worker to improve an adjacent sea tile is just wrong. Theres no justification for it without allowing him to improve adjacent land tiles too, and it adds an extra layer of complexity when issuing the build order.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by lajzar
Whe I said number of clicks to issue a command, I wasn't thinking specifically of mouse actions, but any kind of user input. For interface purposes, there is no real difference between clicking the mouse and pressing a button on the keyboard.

Actually, there is. It takes significantly (as much as 50% less) time to press a key than to move the mouse to a button and select it. Particularly with a palette-based system: you have to move the mouse over to the palette, select the button, move it back to the tile (or in the opposite order, whichever you prefer) -- all that mouse moving takes time, much more than a simple keystroke. For example, pressing R on a square that's already been automatically selected (by the worker coming up in the unit queue), particularly by someone with working knowledge of touch-typing (but even by a hunt-peck user) takes probably a half second -- it takes longer to decide to road the square than it does to press it, even if you'd decided in advance to road that particular square. On the other hand, it takes several seconds to move the mouse to the square, select it, move the mouse presumably halfway across the screen on average, and click on a button (or vice versa).

"workers add no interface" - beg to differ, but they do. The interface is in the moving workers (or automating them if you arent fussy about their actions), building workers, and the on-screen buttons to tell them to do the actions. To say there is no interface with workers is disingenious at best - you're implying you have no way of interacting with those units.

See next.

Of course, this interface is largely similar to military units, except for teh unique features of special commands to improve the land and automation options.

Exactly the point. Workers add no interface to the game that's not already there. Simpler is better, if it can be done without significant loss of power, because it's easier for a casual user to learn, and it looks cleaner. If it's too complex, or requires too many steps to learn, fewer people will play it. (Think of Axis and Allies. Probably the single most accurate and interesting military sim ever, certainly up to a few years ago ... and how many people have really played it, more than once or twice. Sadly, not very many -- because it's way too complex.

And you're right in saying that implementing a PW interface will be another new one for civ. But it isn't going to be complicated. The idea of click on your desired improvement from a palette then click where you want it is not hard for even casual computer users ot understand, and it is an interface (of sorts) that van Gogh used many years ago.

Um ... what (at least I) am saying is that, it's not that it's a new interface to the world, but that it's
1) a new interface to civ, and for a reason it's been left out in the past: it busies up the screen in a manner inconsistent to the rest of the game. Consistency is very key in game design (Consistency of appearance in this case), and a palette like you suggest looks ... out of place, at least in the current civ design.
2) an additional level of complexity in an already somewhat complex game, even if not horribly complex in and of itself. An unnecessary level, since you can maintain a look and feel just like the rest of the game, without significant loss of functionality, by keeping worker units.

"Worker unit afinity" - I don't buy sentimentality as a valid reason to keep a particular game item when a (arguably) better solution exists. I'll agree that it does feel like you are ordering real people about when you have workers though. Perhaps the "under construction" icon I mention below could be an animated working building the improvement.

Worker unit affinity means that we like moving workers around, rather than clicking on squares. Civ has always been a unit-based game, and some of us like that. It feels more ... right, to move a worker to a square and ask it to road it, rather than to click on the square and have a road pop up a few turns later. Say, it feels more consistent with the rest of the game. It's not just that I like them because they're cute. Leaving the "unit movement phase" for a "terrain improvement phase" feels like an extra part of the game, both incongruous and like extra work -- "i'm done moving all fifty units, now I have to do this?"

And besides ... I really have yet to see why a PW system is *significantly* better in terms of functionality than a worker system. Arguments for it are generally arguments that the worker system is flawed -- too hard to move workers around, too slow, etc. -- or that the GUI of PW feels better (which I disagree with, but beside that point, it doesn't add functionality)... I may be overgeneralizing here, but I'd like to see a concise answer to how a PW system adds functionality to the game, or if it is simply the perceived flaws in the current worker system that leads people to go PW.

If so ... I'd suggest perhaps a workover of workers might be a better solution, that would maintain a better look and feel to the game, a more consistent look as well as a more consistent sense of gameplay.

My ideal PW system:

(This I replied to already in the Terrain: PW ideas thread)

[okblacke]

I'm a casual gamer, I'll admit that.

I came here to be less casual, but even so, I've played a lot more hours "casually" than "seriously".

In fact, I was learning a few tricks here and just stopped playing for a while because I really haven't decided whether I like being a "serious" player.

So, I'm going to assume the mantle of all casual players.

I like the workers. To a point. And at the point I stop liking them, I automate them. I like watching them run around when they're automated for that matter.

The only annoyance is when they do stoopid stuff, which is much less in Civ 3 than in previous Civs.

Having said that, the discussions are damned interesting. And probably too late to influence Civ IV.

The devil's in the details, but I haven't heard anything here that's so horrible I wouldn't play it. Hell, workers are pretty bad and I play with them.

[snoopy369]

In response to your statement in the other thread, Lajzar (sorry, i misread that before, leading me to call you laz ), that "rushing improvements in PW would be hard to do" (summarized) ... that's one major vote for workers, in my book. I can't speak for everyone, but I doubt that many people take your extreme view that rushing *at all* is a bad thing; dogpiling perhaps, but that can be fixed just like science was in civ3 (with a min. turn count per improvement). Simply put, workers are an easier interface to work with when you consider that the player should have some degree of control as to the focus on which improvements are more important (and thus need to be finished first). This just isn't as easy in PW, no matter how I think about it. Workers mean you have the essential units of work (the currency, so to speak) at your direct control, and can apply that (reusable) currency in any fashion you deem fit ... instead of having to go with whatever turn length is set for that improvement, and not being able to focus on more important improvements over less important ones.

[Addled Platypus]

Why cant one worker icon represent more than one type of terrain altering capability?

Its just another icon to clutter the build list.

I do like ctp version of que's thou, apply that idea to workers
now you are cooking ...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by lajzar
ok, sea workers would work. But allowing a land worker to improve an adjacent sea tile is just wrong. Theres no justification for it without allowing him to improve adjacent land tiles too, and it adds an extra layer of complexity when issuing the build order.

Uh, no, since the fisheries and stuff are right on the coast, it makes sense. The improvements are at the edge of his tile. Improvements in another tile are all over the other tile.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Uh, no, since the fisheries and stuff are right on the coast, it makes sense. The improvements are at the edge of his tile. Improvements in another tile are all over the other tile.

IE, you'd actually be 'improving' the square you're on -- but only coast squares can be improved in this manner, just like only grassland/plains/floodplains/desert can be irrigated, or for that matter only a square touching fresh water can be irrigated. Any square on an ocean or sea square could be "fisheried", which would presumably add food to the square it's on. (That's where the sticking point is for me, and why i'd suggest sea workers are a better idea.)

[Tall_Walt]

Originally posted by wrylachlan
...I think that the total number of units in Civ3 gets to be a problem, and workers are no exception. ...

Give that man a cigar!

Remember how slow Civ3 when it first came out? Someone forgot to do the math.

Here's the deal: IIRC, you have a 256 x 256 map for 65,536 tiles. Say 30,000 are land. The idea is to develop as much land as possible and conquer the world, so let's imagine a point where you've got 20,000 tiles conquered. You might have 200 workers repairing battle damage, building rails, cleaning pollution etc. What Civ3 originally did was look at each worker going dig, dig, dig for about a second. Ok, 200/60 = over 3 minutes PER TURN of dig, dig, dig. Mind numbingly boring! Later patches spent less time looking at workers going dig, dig, dig; but it still really slows the game down. And if you want still bigger maps....

So:
1. Big maps
2. Reasonable turn times
3. Workers

Pick TWO.

I'll take 1 and 2, and shed no tears for stupid workers that are often doing the wrong thing, very, very slowly. In my opinion, of course.

[Tall_Walt]

Originally posted by snoopy369
... (how exactly are you going to build a road to conquer your neighbor without a worker?) ...

They're called combat engineers, and I think they'd be a good addition to Civ.

[Addled Platypus]

Combat Engineers doing regular engineering?


Should that be the Army corp of engineers?

[Colonel Kraken]

I really don't visit Apolyton anymore, but this Civ IV thing just has me looking all over for answers and discussion.

This is one of the topics that really tends to get me fired up. I'm not sure why. I know that I simply will never understand the die-hard "If it doesn't have workers, it's not Civ" fans.

So you know where I'm coming from, I'm going to start out saying I've been playing Civ since Civ I on Mac. I've played all of 'em, including CtP series, except SMAC. I'm a "casual" player in the sense that I like to sit back on Regent and just have a fun, relaxing game, with a little bit of challenge, without having to worry that I didn't make THE most optimal worker moves and terrain improvements and THE most optimal trades, etc.

With all this in mind:

I hate workers.

I hate moving workers. I hate messing with 'em. To me, workers are like a bunch of annoying flies I can't seem to get rid of. And before you say anything, workers on automate are too stupid for even me to tolerate! Later in the game I do automate them, simply because I would go insane otherwise.

I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE FACINATION WITH WORKERS!

Unbelievable. Simply unbelievable.

NOW, having said all of that, I DO understand people who don't like a total PW system. What else is there? There have been some very nice hybrid proposals made that I really would have no problem using, if this type of model must remain in Civ.

What do I mean by that?

Simply this: the player decides everything for their empire. There is total control. You're not an emperor; you're a god. One person here alluded to what I am thinking. Why does the player get to decide where farms spring up? Why don't citizens automatically farm the best tiles? As population expands, why don't the citizens automatically increase food production through more farms. As technology increases, why don't the citizens automatically take advantage of the new techniques to improve food production?

To get even more radical: the whole system of everyone lives in the cities and everything is done in and through the cities should be at least modified.

Does everyone live in the city (especially in Ancient and Medieval times!)? Why do people live in cities? Jobs. Lifestyle. Government. Etc. Why do people live outside of cities? They need food to live! That's the only way the know how to make a living (namely farmers).

Why do we have to keep this idea that I plunk down a city and can only work a set number of tiles surrounding a city? Why can't I have cities but also farm and mining towns all over my territory and not have to worry about perfect city placement to take advantage of every possible resource? Why can't I take advantage of all the resources in my territory without having to have that tile in one of my city's radius?

I know this is simply too radical for most of you to fathom. And, if not that, it simply wouldn't be the same old 15+ year old game with out the good ol' same city model.

I envision cities as government and cultural centers with population increasing and decreasing with how attractive the city is, what it has to offer, jobs, technology, etc. I envision immigration and emmigration. I envision citizens populating tiles to take advantage of resources, rich soil, and other economic and livelihood reasons. I envision you actually having a reason to have a military presence outside your cities: to protect these farming and mining communities and to expand your borders! I envision you having to build roads to connect to these communities if you want to have provision for your cities (granted, cities will be able to provide some of their own food). I envision cities expanding to more than one tile and swallowing these rural communities. I envision these rural communities growing into cities!

Sure, there can still be sponsored colonies, forced relocations (depending on government type and social "technology"), etc. But these are rare and/or expensive. Colonies would become MUCH more worthwhile, fun, and realistic. You sponsor citizens to move to a certain tile to take advantage of a resource (or simply to expand your borders!). These colonies may increase with population over time and even become cities! Or they might be economic failures!

The possibilities seem so cool and immersive.

I want my Civ experience to be something new. I want it to be more than: build a settler, plunk a city, build improvement, build and move tedious worker geeks, make an army, build a settler, plunk a city, blah, blah, blah . . . .

I'm not the only one who thinks this way. There's a good following of us at that other Civ site.

But, I know. This is just too radical for most of you to accept.

[Tall_Walt]

Colonel Kraken,

I generally agree with all you say.

I think the idea of pulling things that affect the player out of his control is not going to happen after the MOO3 debacle. However, as you've seen, many options have been mentioned to either make that control far more efficient or largely unnecessary.

IMO, if Civ4 takes tens of hours to play, ithe series will die. Micromanagers may buy it, but it won't sell enough to finance Civ5.

May I ask which other Civ site?

[Epistax]

Realism does not especially matter in this sense. My only beef is end game, workers everywhere I have two choices: Manual control, or drunk AI. I just want a third option. Reading through all these pages there are some great ideas. Most other people I don't want to lose any control-- I just don't want it to take so long.

[Arrian]

So:
1. Big maps
2. Reasonable turn times
3. Workers

Pick TWO.

I pick #2 and #3.

I like workers. I'm not even sure I can adequately explain why, but I do.

-Arrian

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Epistax
Realism does not especially matter in this sense. My only beef is end game, workers everywhere I have two choices: Manual control, or drunk AI. I just want a third option.

Good AI?

[Colonel Kraken]

Originally posted by Tall_Walt
May I ask which other Civ site?

The Civ Fanatics Forums of course!

I think, in the end, I realize there is going to be no radical departure from the current general model. I would like to see one of the hybrid suggestions mentioned here, though. That would at least alleviate most of the headache.

[Arrian]

Hybrid is probably the way to go, albeit a conservative hybrid (heavy on workers, light on PW). Then, if PW really is the way to go, the Civ series can slowly be converted over. A drastic change would probably alienate quite a few hardcore fans, including me. I HATED PW when I tried CTP1 all those years ago (I fully admit I messed with it for 1 day, decided I hated it, and returned it).

-Arrian

[Tall_Walt]

Originally posted by Colonel Kraken


The Civ Fanatics Forums of course!

Thank you!

I think, in the end, I realize there is going to be no radical departure from the current general model. I would like to see one of the hybrid suggestions mentioned here, though. That would at least alleviate most of the headache.

If you mean "current general model" as what they have already decided on for Civ4, I agree.

However, I expect substantial changes from Civ3. Civ3 was nearly unplayable when released. Even at 1.29f it is very slow, and a game takes far, far, FAR too long for casual play. Yeah, you can probably get decent performance if you go to a minimum size map, but then where are you going to put enoug civs and terrain to keep things interesting? IOW, when you choose to reduce map size, you also choose to reduce diplomatic and tactical play. For one example of tactical play, you need large oceans to need aircraft carriers, and pretty large continents so the whole continent can't be covered by one air base.

[Quezacotl06]

Maybe you could assign people in the city to public works? It would work the same way you assign entertainers, tax collectors, and scientists, etc.

They could improve the rate of worker improvements in the city radius, which could be initialy slower.

As for automation, they should have automation features like "emphasize food/shields/commerce".

And "emphasize military" would be awsome. It could automate construction of bunkers, barricades, airbases, radio towers, outposts, and other military improvements.

[Addled Platypus]

Yoy mean like the Ho-Che-Min(spelling) Trial during Vietnam.

Several thousand workers toling hours on end. Maybe put a cap or more support to go over a set limit on how many workers can do a task.

I have been known to keep up to 10 workers just for pollution control, and about the same amount or more to get my empire conected by rail.

[wrylachlan]

IMHO, the reasons people hate workers are that there are just too damned many, each doing too much each turn, and it becomes tedious. Well, what I think is the obvious solution is simply to cut down on the amount of workers and works necessary.

a) Make workers progressively more efficient, so that it only takes 1 modern worker to do the work of 2 industrial/4middle ages/8ancient...

b)remove the tile bonuses from roads and RR and change it to a percentage bonus for "connectivity" to nearby cities. Essentially create an incentive to build roads connecting your cities to their neighbors, but a disincentive to build more roads and RR than necessary.

c)change the frequency/work required of pollution. Instead of a 1 in 10 chance of requiring 10 turns of work, a 1 in 50 chance of requiring 50 turns of work. So you're not cutting down on the dangers of pollution, just cutting down on the necessity for workers to run around from one site to the next.

4)Give workers an upkeep, which creates an incentive for you to disband unecessary workers.

[punkbass2000]

Workers have an upkeep, just like any other unit you build.