Dear god, the auto workers are coming!

[Zardos]

I don't like this auto-worker business one bit!

First, the greatest cost in creating a road is NOT population, rather money. The materials and the machines to build the roads are the costly things. As for having my road-working population "stolen" from me -- HA -- let them have them because generally the population that I would have working on the roads in my empire are criminals (properly supervised of course )!

While its probably too late to change to the PW system, I still believe that it is a better solution than auto-workers. This is one of the few improvements that CTP had over CIV. While CIV II is a vastly superior game than either of the CTP games, PW is one of the features that should be implemented in CIV III (along with stacking units and improving the sea terrain).

[airdrik]

No one can really say that one is better than the other. PW eliminates the micromanagement of needing workers to improove the tiles, but you are stuck with how the computer improoves it. You also still need other units with the abilities to transform terrain, build roads/RR between cities, and build fortifications and military bases.

The Settler/worker system has the hassles of micromanaging the workers, and the problems of putting them in auto-mode, but allows you the privilage of building your civ exactly how you want it. Most, if not all people in favor of the settler/worker system are OK with dealing with the micromanagement problems, and there are many ideas as to how to improove the auto-mode of workers including a build-queue for the workers, blueprints of your future civ, and more options for the AI to follow for workers in auto-mode.

Both have their ups and downs that will never be smoothed out no matter how many times you go over them. But this is Civilization 3 by Sid Meier. It will follow the pattern of it's predicesors Civ's 1 and 2 and have a settler/worker system. If you want PW play ctp 2 (or 3) by activision.

quote: Originally posted by airdrik on 04-11-2001 04:59 PM but you are stuck with how the computer improoves it.

huh? yes, in ctp2 you have the option to leave tile improvements to your city mayors, but you CAN do everything yourself as well!!

quote: You also still need other units with the abilities to transform terrain, build roads/RR between cities, and build fortifications and military bases

with PW? certainly not(that's the whole idea)

quote: But this is Civilization 3 by Sid Meier. It will follow the pattern of it's predicesors Civ's 1 and 2 and have a settler/worker system. If you want PW play ctp 2 (or 3) by activision.

i'd personally like to think that civ3 is the next step in the evolution of civ games, including the best ideas that there are out there, even from unrelated games. not sid's civ or activision's civ.....

[TechWins]

Airdrik I agree with you completely. Both sytems have their problems that will always be there unless Firaxis can come up with an AI that is completely flawless, so there will always be problems. Also I just don't think you get the whole effect of creating a civilization by having the computer doing most of the work for you too. You don't like the settler/worker system in Civ don't play just play CtP2 maybe they might make a Ctp3 for you PW followers.

[SerapisIV]

If we're lucky CTP will be put to rest by Activision. Maybe if a third-party developer took over the license it'll be created with an eye for quality, not half-finished games.

[Nemo]

i dont want a building cue for the settlers - making the freakin cue takes up too much time.
however, what i have always thought should be implimented was the SHIFT-clickNdrag concept. if you have worker/engineer at point X and want to build every road between X and Y you should be able to hold the shift key down and drag the cursor to the new location.
e.g. to build a train track:

Y‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡ ‡‡‡‡X
# (click+SHIFT on X hold shift and drag to Y then release)
#
#
#
Z

and if you want to make a turn, after you release key/button when you reach Y, the unit would stay selected, then you could click+SHIFT on Y and drag to Z, and so on. you would double click the last point you want the unit to stop at to signify the end of the worker's turn. so in this case you would double click Z to end the unit's turn.

while this would only allow you to build one improvement at a time (i.e. only road, or only irrigation, etc.) it would still cut down on micromanagemnt WITHOUT having to waste time on stupid build cues.

just my 2¢

[This message has been edited by Nemo (edited April 12, 2001).]

[Father Beast]

quote: Originally posted by raingoon on 04-10-2001 06:20 PM Put it another way, would the poll have been different if instead you had asked CTP's Public Works, bad? We'll never know. But let's just say your position on PW was hinted at in the way you phrased the question.

HMMnnn...
let's see, what would be skewed the other way?

POLL # BLEEP
PUBLIC WORKS. BAD?

Yes.

Yes, but is useful sometimes.

"I want my settlers back!"

No.

Not Sure.

just a thought. BTW, I think the new poll is great!

[jglidewell]

quote: however, what i have always thought should be implimented was the SHIFT-clickNdrag concept [This message has been edited by Nemo (edited April 12, 2001).]

Isn't this a queue?

Here is what I would like.

1. right click (slect queue)

Repeat 2 and 3 as many times as you would like
2. enter single key f,m,i,r (normal acceleration keys)
3. left click on desired square you want improved(added entry to queue)goto 2

4. press space bar back to normal or next unit.

[Nemo]

quote: quote: however, what i have always thought should be implimented was the SHIFT-clickNdrag concept [This message has been edited by Nemo (edited April 12, 2001).] Isn't this a queue?

i guess technically it is, you might be right. but when i think of a queue, i was thinking more of how the queue was implemented in CTP with the city build queue, and the input list, build list, insert buttons and all that unfriendly interface type of jaz.

so i guess i should say: i dont want a list queue, but i want to be able to command my unit build more than one piece of road,irrigation, etc. in one turn, with the mouse, even if that is a queue.
[This message has been edited by Nemo (edited April 12, 2001).]

[Vrank Prins]

Here's a comment I gave in poll PW vs Workers.

In COLONIZATION there is this possibility to automate the tranport of resources and tradegoods by wagontrails. Each term you can see these wagontrailunits you've build and programmed by yourself riding around out of themselves from one place to another. A bit like the camel in CIV-I&II, but also significantly different and more sofisticated.
The transportprogram, a kind of a small game"macro"program, takes away a lot of micromanagement.
When you open this program a matrix appears on your screen. You'll have to fill in the next things, from left to right in a line:[list=1][*]choose the city, from a rolldownlist, from where goods are to be taken away[*]choose the kind of goods (iron ore, timber, cotton, weapons etc.) from a rolldownlist, [*]choose the city, from a rolldownlist, where goods are to be brought[*]choose the kind of goods from a rolldownlist, which are to be left in this city[/list=a]
You can let the wagon run to another city to do the same again by just repeating this kind of order in a line under the upperone. Thus you can make a list to have the wagon make a "loading- and unloadingtour" in a route which hits up to six cities. The wagon automatically chooses the fastest way, I've never been really annoyed by "buggish" behaviour of a wagon.
Quite handy.

I can see something similar for the "programming" of workers or settlers, and, why not, other units. A list of things to be done for a unit could look like: "Go to xx" (and you would just have to point that out with your mouse(like in CTP, I love that feature !!)) "Then fortify, pillage, stack with, build road/irrigation/fort, etc." (from a rolldownlist of functions).

If "tileproccessing"units don't get that automatated functioning I choose for the Public Works like I know it from CTP. After having used this feature in CTP I was really fed up with having to do all the micromanagement in CIV-II.

Besides terraforming (changing mountains into hills, deserts into plains or grasslands etc., tileimprovements in CIV-II) takes way to long in CIV-II compared with CTP. Firaxis ought to do something about that too.

[jglidewell]

quote: Originally posted by Nemo on 04-12-2001 11:20 AM so i guess i should say: i dont want a list queue, but i want to be able to command my unit build more than one piece of road,irrigation, etc. in one turn, even if that is a queue. [This message has been edited by Nemo (edited April 12, 2001).]

That is exactly how I think too.

So,
CIV III cost without worker quere $39.50 + carpel tunnel syndrome
CIV III cost with worker queue $50.00 and goes gold.

[SerapisIV]

quote: Originally posted by jglidewell on 04-12-2001 11:30 AM So, CIV III cost without worker quere $39.50 + carpel tunnel syndrome CIV III cost with worker queue $50.00 and goes gold.

I've never heard of carpal tunnel from using one-finger, giving commands ain't exactly typing.

Sounds funny though. Maybe Firaxis will support that Strategic Commander thing I heard about for RTS that lets you map functions to a seperate throttle-like control in your left hand

[This message has been edited by SerapisIV (edited April 12, 2001).]

[airdrik]

My idea on the queue:
you hit 'q' (for queue)

all units and cities dissappear (options to leave on?)

all terrain imps that have been queued by previous workers appear as a translucent overlay (so you can still see what's behind them)
the current worker's queue is transparent over that (so that it can be seen over everything else, but still see behind it)

you move the cursor to the position as if moving the worker and hit the keys to improove the land (which will appear translucently over everything else)

if you want to dequeue something, you go to the tile and hit 'u' for undo, and a pop up list appears with the improovments that can be dequeued.

you hit the spacebar or enter when done to activate it, or escape to cancel.

[Father Beast]

Someone pointed out that the AI in civ2 already uses sort of a PW system. for every improvement the city builds, a tile in the city radius is improved. this leads to the interesting events of farmland growing in cities without supermarkets, and roads and irrigation appearing across the channel from a coastal AI city, on a continent the AI civ has no units or other presence.

now if we implement this for us, I can forsee an AI opening a hut on a city square with rodas and irrigation. (Dang! I meant to get to that one...)

[airdrik]

Actually, right now if you work a square with a hut on it, the hut dissappears (I don't know if that is true for the AI, though)

[jglidewell]

quote: Originally posted by Cannes on 04-13-2001 12:33 PM I don't understand why some of you take an almost fanatic stance in the keeping everything like it was in civII. CivIII will be a new game build on the same concept of CivII. Expect changes! If you are so fanatic about keeping everything as it was in CivII Then why develop CivIII at all? What if Sid Meyer desides that he likes the idea of public works over settler/engineers/terraformers/whatever. What are you fanatics going to do? Lynch him? For prostituting himself with activision concepts? I personally prefer public works because it's easier to manage, it's more realistic and more intuitive. If you want to keep settlers/etc. then come up with some arguments why you think they work better instead of grabbing a torch and a coil of rope, screaming: "we want everything as it used to be!"

I'm not that much of a fanactic about workers VS PW, but there is one restriction that PW gives that workers solve.

IF there is no unit on the board then PW must have a restriction on where you can do inprovements. Say there are no retrictions, than I could place a fortification right next to my enemies city and attack from there. PW does have some restrictions which is how it was used in CTP.

[airdrik]

quote: Originally posted by Cannes on 04-13-2001 12:33 PM I don't understand why some of you take an almost fanatic stance in the keeping everything like it was in civII. CivIII will be a new game build on the same concept of CivII. Expect changes! If you are so fanatic about keeping everything as it was in CivII Then why develop CivIII at all?

We do expect changes, and I could easily argue that no person on these forums wants civ 3 to be exactly like civ 2. Each person has some things that they would like improoved, some things which they don't really care about, and some things that they liked the way it was. Everyone can agree that there is at least one thing in all the previous civs that can be improoved upon in civ 3

quote: What if Sid Meyer desides that he likes the idea of public works over settler/engineers/terraformers/whatever.

The problem with this statement is that if Sid had wanted PW, then PW would be in civ 3, but he and the rest of the firaxis staff agreed that they would use a settler/worker system. I am mearly supporting this statement to the best of my ability. If they had said PW I would go with PW, but they said settler/engineer, so why can't you PW fanatics just live with it.

quote: What are you fanatics going to do? Lynch him? For prostituting himself with activision concepts? . . . then come up with some arguments why you think they work better instead of grabbing a torch and a coil of rope, screaming: "we want everything as it used to be!"

I reflect this statement back to you. You already have my answer.

[raingoon]

quote: ...CivIII will be a new game build on the same concept of CivII. Expect changes!

Of course everyone wants a "Civ 3" and not the same old "Civ 2" ideas. But settlers are not included in the "2" in "Civ 2," the "3" in "Civ 3," or even in the "1" in "Civ 1." Settlers are a basic part of the Civ in each of these three names. That's why PW will remain an idea in CTP, where it rightly should be.


[This message has been edited by raingoon (edited April 13, 2001).]

[Cannes]

I don't understand why some of you take an almost fanatic stance in the keeping everything like it was in civII. CivIII will be a new game build on the same concept of CivII. Expect changes! If you are so fanatic about keeping everything as it was in CivII Then why develop CivIII at all? What if Sid Meyer desides that he likes the idea of public works over settler/engineers/terraformers/whatever. What are you fanatics going to do? Lynch him? For prostituting himself with activision concepts? I personally prefer public works because it's easier to manage, it's more realistic and more intuitive. If you want to keep settlers/etc. then come up with some arguments why you think they work better instead of grabbing a torch and a coil of rope, screaming: "we want everything as it used to be!"

[E_T]

Settlers/Engineers are good in the early game. I'll head to a new site and build road on a few select tiles while on the way. This does delay the date of the Founding of a new city, but it helps to connect everything and to give the new city some improved tiles to work off of until it's ready to spawn another settler to finish the improvements.

I do like the Idea of using two pop to build a settler/engineer, but I'm not sure of the Public Works concept. If they have a seperate unit for building from the settler, I'd still like to see the settler still be able to build something, at 1/3 of the worker rate though. This will still allow some faster improvement thoughput while my Civ is in it's early stages.

As for trade and using settlers to move pop from one city to another, I'd like to see the ability to set up some sort of colinization "trade" where you can migrate some of your excess pops to a new city. Just make sure that they don't contribute to ANYTHING while they are in transit.