Dear god, the auto workers are coming! - Page 2

MrFun · April 7, 2001, 14:59

Wow - here is to Markos -- the master of logic!

All your counter-points in your latest post here were very good. Meanwhile, I am eagerly waiting for Civilization III while fixing some problems with my modified Call to Power II.

Par4 · April 7, 2001, 15:09

The micromanagement, please someone think of the micromanagement!!!

I hope there's a unit that comes around later that doesn't use 1 population, in 20th century level countries tens of thousands are people aren't used to create roads...

PWorkers

Vs

Micromanagers

Jon Miller · April 7, 2001, 15:22

Workers are fun in the beginning. They just can get tedious later on. I would use the AI if it was good enough (more effeicient times wise if not more effienctc game wise).

Woekers are a lot of the fun in the early game.

Jon Miller

ChrisShaffer · April 7, 2001, 15:25

I'm thrilled to hear that there are worker units. Managing terrain improvements is one of my favorite things about Civ. I can't imagine ever letting the computer control my settlers/formers/workers.

I, for one, am willing to believe that Firaxis is capable of improving the AI's ability to control colonists and workers.

Lancer · April 7, 2001, 15:48

-what Roman said

Markos, actually I haven't complained about lack of realism in resources, I started a whole thread on it, now in its second edition. Recourses are well covered in my thread, "Making Trade Essential..." Regarding building tanks without factories, I'm on my way to "complain" about that now. Watch for my newest thread, "Manufacturing Capability Should Come Before End Product" which I'm about to manufacture in my threadmill...

As far as factory workers being represented, I have no problem w/ that. I play Colonization now and again and enjoy the hunt for professional workers.

Mr Pleasant,
The "scientist" that designs roads is represented in the game, in your city population. Like most office workers, he doesn't get out much.

If there is to be a change, I think it should be in setting larger tasks for the new worker units. As connerkimbro said, be able tp program the worker to do more than one thing. Lay out the whole road, not just square by square. Perhaps being able to plan on the map every farm, road and mine to be build for the next 10 or 20 turns, and what order they are to be built in would resolve the micromanagement issues while still maintaining unit representation for the guys that get the job done, for the reasons mentioned earlier. Besides Mr Pleasant and his 'workers shouldn't be on the board because scientists aren't', I haven't seen anyone even try to debate my reasoning on why the should be there.
[This message has been edited by Lancer (edited April 08, 2001).]

April 7, 2001, 16:40

100% Pathfinding? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Even human players aren't perfect at this. Lancer, my point was that the role of workers can be represented by a unit or a PW fund, much as scientists can be represented as specialists or a unit.

Ilkuul · April 7, 2001, 17:45

quote:

Originally posted by Par4 on 04-07-2001 03:09 PM
I hope there's a unit that comes around later that doesn't use 1 population, in 20th century level countries tens of thousands are people aren't used to create roads...

A good point. Maybe, for greater realism, the worker unit could cost 1 pop up to a certain city size (12?), after which there would be no pop cost.

Not having played CTP, I'm not familiar with the PW setup; but I do like the idea of being able to automate workers to, for instance, connect cities with roads/railroads, rather than just building them within one city's radius (IF it works better than the automate function in Civ2!).

It would also be very good if workers could be instructed to irrigate/build farmland on a particular type of terrain, e.g. plains or grassland - to avoid the ridiculous situation you have in Civ2 where you can find an automated engineer irrigating a perfectly good and productive forest while there are un-irrigated grassland tiles all around it!

Zeevico · April 8, 2001, 00:06

What would stop you from building millions and millions of the in one city then? Why not have it that every three workers would take 1 pop point?

Chronus · April 8, 2001, 01:21

Hi Trachmir,

Well now I see where our thinking is different. I picture a service road leading up to the farm as well, but it's just a dirt (or badly paved) road. Creating a road in the tiles, to me, represents upgrading them to cobblestone (or whatever best reflects the time period), etc., not to mention more of them. Not only that, but as someone mentioned above, it represents a connection to other services WITHIN the city. The key idea here is that "trade" within a city does exist without the need for another city. Example: the lack of a good transportation system could very well affect my decision to see a movie that's on the other side of town. Consequently, the entertainment industry (when looking at this on a wider scale) would be affected. "Ugly" you say. You betcha! But that's how it is in real life, no? The big, wealthy cities have tons of ugly roads stretching out for miles on end, connnecting many miniature sources of trade within (as well as outside) that very city.

This all sidesteps the real issue IMOHO. Simply put, I enjoy aspects of the game that deal with economy and infrastructure. Taking the time to build roads in all my tiles results in a reward: more trade. Shouldn't I reap the benefits for such a task? Removing this bonus eliminates another aspect of infrastructure. One may say, "But it could be replaced with a better idea!" I suppose, but why not just add the idea instead of replacing?

Anyway, enough with my rambling! Happy gaming . . .

April 8, 2001, 01:48

Then perhaps it would be better to have "roads" and "highways", one to interconect your city (that would appear as a fine network of roads), and the other to connect cities (which would be much more noticable, like roads in civ2). I'll settle for that compromise...

...but with out PW, my enthusiasm for the game has taken a sharp decline!

Imran Siddiqui · April 8, 2001, 03:56

Why? Did you like SMAC? That didn't have PW.

I'd rather not have PW, and with this new update, my interest has gone up (I didn't think it could either

).

Zanzin · April 8, 2001, 09:03

But the micromangament!!! Think of the micromanagement!!!!!

connorkimbro · April 8, 2001, 15:37

I hope my comments about queueing orders to the worker units didn't go unnoticed. That was a good idea. . .

ChrisShaffer · April 8, 2001, 17:38

quote:

But the micromangament!!! Think of the micromanagement!!!!!

Yup. Thinking of it. Looking forward to it. Drooling over it. Bring it on. You can keep your CTP public works. I'm perfectly happy to build my empire with my own workers.

April 8, 2001, 18:29

Yeah, but terraformers didn't cost one population!

Besides, SMAC was about taming (or being tamed) by an alien planet... terraformers fit, but why must we have an actual unit to represent workers! The thought of moving dozens upon dozens of workers every turn does NOT make me happy.

Lancer · April 8, 2001, 19:05

conner, that was such a good idea that I incorporated it into my own post, sorry, failed to give credit where it is due. Will do so now.

Par4 · April 8, 2001, 19:20

Pardon muwah, but I suggested queues before connor did, give credit where credit is due pulllleezzz

Chronus · April 8, 2001, 19:29

CHRISSHAFFER QUOTE: "I'm perfectly happy to build my empire with my own workers."

Me too (I presume you mean your own units). Units give that "attention to logistics and planning" feel that PW didn't have. I don't care for the "roads falling out of the sky" syndrome either.

connorkimbro · April 8, 2001, 19:35

quote:

Pardon muwah, but I suggested queues before connor did, give credit where credit is due pulllleezzz

Sorry then Par4, i hadn't ever seen that suggestion before. If that idea is put into the game, you can have the credit

Father Beast · April 8, 2001, 21:44

Civnet had a feature where you could command a settler to connect 2 cities with a highway, but it didn't work. If it was there back then, I don't see why it couldn't be made to work now.

When I first started playing AC (I refuse to call it smac), I felt like sending a thank you note to Firaxis on the spot when I saw the city build queue. (if there's one AC feature that HAS to make it...) I would also love there to be a settler, xcuse me, a worker improvement queue. I almost always know what I want my engineers to be doing next, and next, and next.

I'm not worried about the worker hordes. I LOVE worker hordes.

I wonder if I can get them to build a great inland waterway like the one to Tol Honeth, or the St Lawrence seaway.

Father Beast · April 8, 2001, 21:45

Oh, and MarkG, it looks like you have a topic for your next poll.

Lancer · April 8, 2001, 21:53

Well, here's an idea nobody will like. How about both workers and PW? A worker represents the labor and PW represents the materials, you guessed it, resources.

Basicly, when you instruct a worker to build a mine, road, or railroad, PW's are expended.
[This message has been edited by Lancer (edited April 09, 2001).]

Zanzin · April 9, 2001, 07:05

I don't get it. Firaxis announce no public works, worker unit system instead, and everybody rejoices like it's the greatest idea under the sun!! After CTP, I thought there was a general agreement that Public Works were the to go to implement that part of the game!! Obviously not. Either that, or everyone is just kissing Firaxis' butt!

Good idea for the next poll Father. Should be an interesting result!

April 9, 2001, 07:13

we already had a pw poll in the past...

CTP's Public Works, good?
Yes 171 / 35%
Yes, but could be better 140 / 28%
No 92 / 18%
For certain tasks... 67 / 13%
No opinion 16 / 3%

shuttleswo · April 9, 2001, 13:08

Personally I feel that the reason that PW can be superior is because it is much simpler to write an effective AI for distributing PW than it is to write one that directs units to do tile improvements. I see this as an issue that is important whether the player wants to micro-manage his tile improvements with settlers or not, since in either case the strength and effectiveness of your AI opponents is partially dependant on THEM having the ability to effectively build tile improvements.
My bottom line is if the former/worker units in CIV3 are going to be only a small step up from the AI that ran them in SMAC it means inferior opponents and a less satisfying game. (I hate playing a game against civs that are no challenge, this isn't sim city afterall) and if you think this isn't the case, how often in SMAC or even civ2 did you have to move in a herd of settlers/formers to clean up the tile improvements around a recently conquered civ just to get the cities up to their full potential?

SerapisIV · April 9, 2001, 14:03

Isn't the debate over public works been put to rest yet by the announced Firaxis decisions? Any reworking of the terrain upgrade system from settler/workers to public works would require a total reworking of code by firaxis as it would have to be a very early decision in forming the AI and playbalancing. Such a reworking would take months, pushing CivIII back till at least Christmas 2002 at the earliest, not 2001 (if we're lucky). I'd rather have a new Civ game with the tried and true mechanics of worker units (its what SMAC had without the worker pop cost) that might not be the most efficient, but at least it'll get me a Civ game before I have to file another tax return.

shuttleswo · April 9, 2001, 14:45

sorry, repost.

[This message has been edited by shuttleswo (edited April 09, 2001).]

April 9, 2001, 17:13

quote:

Originally posted by Chronus on 04-09-2001 12:03 PM
Hi MarkG,

I find that poll rather skewed.

First, I presume it was conducted in the CTP/CTP2 forums (but please forgive me if I'm wrong)

http://www.apolyton.net/cgi-bin/poll/civ3e/results.pl

i forgive you

quote:

Consequently, you have only one sure-fire vote option against PW.

what does this have to do with the results? if the people voting in the poll were anti-pw they would vote for "no"

in the very end, when a 35% clearly says "yes", is that because it was fooled by the poll options??????

April 9, 2001, 17:18

quote:

Originally posted by SerapisIV on 04-09-2001 02:03 PM
Isn't the debate over public works been put to rest yet by the announced Firaxis decisions

the fact that a decision has been made and announced doesnt mean that we cant discuss about it

consider such a discussion to be in the "general" part of the forum and not on the "suggestions" one

ChrisShaffer · April 9, 2001, 17:40

35% "yes" isn't exactly a stunning majority.

Also, a vote for "CtP Public Works are good" doesn't equal a vote for "SMAC Terraformers are bad."

And, finally, Firaxis is developing the game (fortunately). Popularity contests don't determine everything. If they did, Civ3 would be one big warmongers fest with very little to appeal to those of us that are builders.