Public Works Or settlers/engineers???

Dalai Lama · November 30, 2000, 11:48

Is there a decision yet on the public works system in civ3??? Is it going to be ctp style-public works or civ 2 style settlers/engineers??? I personally have a slight preference for the public works system as it exists in Ctp. For me the settlers system is also fine, but I think the PW system is more realistic.
Please some more opinions on this case!!!!!!!

airdrik · November 30, 2000, 12:26

How about both? Use the settlers(though probably not named that)/engineers be used to colonize, build roads(unless military units do this), bridges, airbases, forts, etc. and let the PW do the irrigation, farming, mining, etc.

Tical_2000 · November 30, 2000, 17:31

Good idea, Air!

Psion · December 1, 2000, 21:21

what about SMAC's system, where there is a seperate unit for settling and another for terraforming. Would this be a good idea?

DarkCloud · December 2, 2000, 00:15

The settlers should only found cities and make airbases. [Like Civ, but more limited]
A city money pool should be used to make roads/ etc.

The money pool would contract out small workers (engineers) that don't show up on the map [Like CTP]
It would also pay for farmers to irrigate their fields.

Evil Capitalist · December 2, 2000, 05:25

Personally I prefer the settler idea- I just find it more satisfying. However PW is a more realistic idea, so I think it should be implememnted. Perhaps this is the way:

Settler- can build roads and irrigation (think of colonists in the new world) and found cities.
Military engineer- Builds roads, rails, bridges, airbases, forts, naval bases etc. Does it much faster than PW.
Public works- Can build anything, and is the only thing capable of building advanced farms or any fisheries.

Dalai Lama · December 2, 2000, 09:42

I hink that last idea is a very nice solution, however I think the settler has to have a larger scale of skills: I think the "military engineer" should be tuned down to only make miltary improvements, like airbases, forts,... but not roads or railways. I should leave those "civil" skills to the settler/(normal) engineer.
Hey, I suddenly got an idea about the public works: why not use the public works percent as a speed indicator. So if you set PW to lets say 40% the settlers/engineers/military engineers will work twice as fast as when the PW setting is 20%. What do ya think about this??? Please reply!!

Evil Capitalist · December 2, 2000, 11:46

Dalai- The reason I say let them build roads/ rail is that it is historically accurate. I'm thinking especially of the Romans. Railways were built for supply in the Crimean war.

The PW/speed idea is a good one. My only concern is that Settler speed might not be such an incentive. Perhaps it could bhe done in 5% intervals, rather than 10, and the effect could be geometric (eg 5% 12 turns, 10% 9 turns, 15% 6 turns, 20% 4 turns, 25% 3 turns, etc).

Crustacian · December 6, 2000, 21:05

quote:

Originally posted by Dalai Lama on 12-02-2000 08:42 AM
why not use the public works percent as a speed indicator. So if you set PW to lets say 40% the settlers/engineers/military engineers will work twice as fast as when the PW setting is 20%. What do ya think about this??? Please reply!!

I like this idea. This still allows for settlers of other nations to get picked off as you sail by

Grumbold · December 7, 2000, 10:45

I prefer the settler approach to PW in the early game because I dislike the feel of saving up the income from your entire nation to build one farm outside one city. It just doesnt feel right. In the longer term though PW is a lot more convenient to manage than 2 engineers per city all needing regular attention.

jdlessl · December 7, 2000, 12:15

You're right, in CTP public works were far too expensive in the early game. In some respects, that's the way it should be: pre-industrial societies had a much harder time shaping the earth to their tastes. But I think they took it a bit too far. What I'd like to see would be maintenace costs for those PW. If you don't pay it, they start to deteriorate. For that it would be helpful if there were multiple levels of improvement (ie, roads: cleared path, gravel road, stone, and concrete) and improvements deteriorate through them over time.

Only problem is that it some of the improvements take an awful long time to deteriorate. Roman roads, for instance. Farms would probably go a lot faster.

--
Jared Lessl

Yeti · December 7, 2000, 18:09

I would like to see both

Thw public works is great, but i'd still like the flexibility to build roads and fortifications far from cities, (especially to build roads or railroads to attack instead of carting them 2 at a time in a boat). It can really be a big boost to the war effort

Yeti