POLL 20: Settlers vs Public Works

[raingoon]

I'm confused why this is even a debate.

PW takes away the choices settlers force you to make. Can somebody tell me what PW adds to the Sid model of decision-based gameplay? If auto-worker was the only option you had to build a road, then I would understand the complaint about auto-worker. But it's not. Many players never even use the auto function and that makes it a game STYLE issue, not a game PLAY issue. If you want PW for your game style, I certainly understand. And if the auto-settlers in Civ 3 are as poorly functioning as they were in the past, you have my sympathy.

But why adcovate a style improvment at the cost of game play? You are taking away the basic mechanics and economics of the game -- such as having to choose which city will spend the resources to support the unit who builds the road to get to another city that spends the resources, and so on. If that is silly to you, than we have nothing to discuss. But these ARE the economics of the game, status quo. And having to choose between building swords or plows are extremely important economics of city production as well. Their absense from CTP is one reason why that game is nothing near the game that Civ is. Because the bottom line is each of these concepts that I mention here are represented on every Civ game map, where they can be directly opposed and defeated by an oponent.

By contrast, the PW system is abstracted at the highest level of game play, and its only contribution as far as I can tell is the afore-mentioned improvement in gaming style, a boon to those players who prefer not to micro-manage settlers.

Can somebody explain to me how PW would improve Civ for a player who neither uses auto-workers nor chooses so unwisely as to build "300 settlers" to cover the map with improvements? (This latter complaint isn't really valid because it implies a player who would remedy their own wisdom deficiency by simply taking away any choice that required it).



[This message has been edited by raingoon (edited April 14, 2001).]

[dognheat]

What I want to know is why not a combination of the two ? You could lay down prefab packs of the improvement you want to build and then any available settler/worker that you have set to terraforming would auto-develope the tiles that had packs on them. It would still take time for the improvements to be built, but you wouldn't have to micro-manage your settler/workers in making sure they arent building farms on mountains. You could also prioritize defense improvements, roads, farms, etc..

------------------
*PLOP*

quote: Originally posted by raingoon on 04-14-2001 05:21 PM Can somebody explain to me how PW would improve Civ for a player who neither uses auto-workers nor chooses so unwisely as to build "300 settlers" to cover the map with improvements

the problem my friend as that

- there are very few people that never use auto-workers(eitherwise PW would not have almost half of the votes in the current poll )
- there are lots of lots people who end up being forced to use auto-workers in the last stages of the game and having to face their deficiency since eitherwise they would spend an incredible amount of time


now, do you want to add more choices in the PW system? fine. dont have one nation-wide PW resource. have one for each city, or for a group of cities. or take the choice of the percentage of production that goes to PW from the nation level to city level. but remember to add 1-2 screens to manage the above easily...

[raingoon]

Doesn't make any difference if it's abstracted at the city or national level, either way it's still an abstraction. You haven't answered my question.

And since PW is actually NOT winning this poll, the majority would presumably like to know -- What does PW add to actual gameplay to make up for what it takes away?

[raingoon]

Neither is your " " enough to prevent you from sounding rather bitter, frankly. I am genuinely sympathetic if this is a case of a good thing being overlooked by Firaxis, I hope you can appreciate that.

You are still talking about the time spent playing, etc., and with the possible exception of changing the game's time scale, I don't see any game-PLAY enhancements to this at all. But even though I believe the results in this poll are more accurate than the last (in favor of Settlers -- so far at least) it's very curious to me that so many DO seem to prefer the PW system. In fact, PW might even win this poll over time.

So if I understand you now, this is all based on a general lack of faith in Firaxis' ability to implement a well-programmed auto-worker. And if so, then maybe this thread and others will serve to remind Firaxis how important the issue is to so many players like yourself.
[This message has been edited by raingoon (edited April 15, 2001).]

[raingoon]

Btw, dognheat, that was a very good suggestion. You could lay down "pre-fab packs" of the improvements you want, then build the settlers who will auto-work the tiles you basically told them to. That's PW in the concrete, not abstract. I wonder if that would please the PW folks.

[Cyclotron]

I for one have NEVER auto-managed my settlers (and I mean never!) and I don't see how managing settlers takes away your "fun time." I consider managing settlers to be just as fun as managing armies. I like being able to manage them... Heck, if you don't like to micromanage, there are tons of other things we can cut out, too...

It seems to me that PW is like inventing rubber gloves to deal with a leaky pen. You don't like and don't appreciate the settler system, so instead of trying to improve upon it you just decide it would be "easier" to scrap it and make some arbitrary slider for it. Heck, anything can be made into a slider, right? In the meantime, for all of us that do want to improve the settler system and see its possibilities, we get your simplistic slider. Its not very fair, is it?


------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

quote: Originally posted by raingoon on 04-15-2001 03:57 PM Neither is your " " enough to prevent you from sounding rather bitter, frankly. I am genuinely sympathetic if this is a case of a good thing being overlooked by Firaxis, I hope you can appreciate that.

i didnt mean to offend you in any way.

quote: You are still talking about the time spent playing, etc., and with the possible exception of changing the game's time scale, I don't see any game-PLAY enhancements to this at all.

being able to spent time on more fun things is a change in the gameplay, no?

quote: So if I understand you now, this is all based on a general lack of faith in Firaxis' ability to implement a well-programmed auto-worker.

it's not so much lack of faith, as being realistic(i'd like to think). making a well-functioning auto-worker will probably not be on the top of list of priorities. if you add that the problems with auto-workers will show up late in the game when they will have little stuff to do and that a common game will take lots of time, when beta testing time comes, it is more logical that testers will be looking for crashes rather than the efficiancy of the auto-workers...

quote: Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 04-15-2001 04:17 PM It seems to me that PW is like inventing rubber gloves to deal with a leaky pen. You don't like and don't appreciate the settler system, so instead of trying to improve upon it you just decide it would be "easier" to scrap it and make some arbitrary slider for it.

PW is not "some arbitrary slider". you can micromanage all you want with PW. you actually place each improvement one by one by hand. it is just that it takes less time to place many improvements at one time and you can choose when you are going to place them

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by MarkG on 04-15-2001 12:53 PM btw, yes, settlers are winning with 51% but there is a 45% out there that wants to know: how smart are the auto-workers going to be? and your sympathy is not enough

Auto-workers are not likely to be noticeably smarter then the terraformers in SMAC. So dont use them! Adapt and change your playingstyle instead. Go for quality before quantity. Go for space-race, with max 20-25 founded cities, and perhaps max 20-25 conquered ones. Never, or seldomly above 50 cities.
The days there (some) civers enjoyed to "expand their way to success", by founding/conquering literally hundreds of cities is numbered. And thats a damn good thing. I want a "tighter" game then Civ-2 ever was: a slightly "overpressured" game, instead of an "underpressured" one. I think Firaxis actually have expressed the same thing.

As for AI-civ controlled "automated" workers & settlers:

Well thats an entirely different cup of tea. I really hope that they have made the correct game-develop decision here, and consequently choosen to bypass the whole damn "visible AI-civ controlled worker/settler" idea all together. Both "AI-city area management" and "AI-city placements" is far to important (seen from a longterm logistical viewpoint) to be left in the hands of erratically moving AI-workers & settlers. There are other, much more effective ways to deal with these problems...

As for the PW-system. Well, I never liked the idea of being forced to move around that damn map anyway, in order to click-and-paste all those terrain-improvements. The map should autocenter automatically, with flashing units, and possibly also cities!! I want to have the option to be automatically guided. I dont want to be forced to manually drag around the whole damn map back and forth, each and every turn, just to check and doublecheck if I havent missed anything.
Anyway, since a majority (although a small one) actually have voted for the settler-modell - why not just give the thing a rest, heh? The choice between "PW" and "Settler" is a pretty fundamental one - something they most probably already have decided, perhaps 8-10 months ago. So any ideas of pursuade them to make such drastic reversal changes is pretty futile.

Besides; 51% is still 51%! If they instead would have chosen the PW-modell, then only 45% would be happy with it. Would that be a more vise decision, from Firaxis point of view? Theres an old saying...

"If you try to please everybody, you might end up with pleasing nobody".

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited April 16, 2001).]

quote: Originally posted by raingoon on 04-15-2001 05:36 AM What does PW add to actual gameplay to make up for what it takes away?

TIME not spent on micromanaging settlers or seeing silly automated settlers running around. TIME better spent on fun things...

thanks to PW and other features, in CTP2 you can have more turns in the same (real playing) time, which means more realistic turn time(not 50 years for each turn), more time for spent on the early periods, etc...

btw, yes, settlers are winning with 51% but there is a 45% out there that wants to know: how smart are the auto-workers going to be?
and your sympathy is not enough

hey raingoon!

Settlers vs Public Works
* Settlers-type model 97 / 50%
* Public Works-type model 90 / 47%
* Dont know/Dont care 4 / 2%
Total Votes: 191

quote: Originally posted by Ralf on 04-15-2001 06:04 PM Auto-workers are not likely to be noticeably smarter then the terraformers in SMAC. So dont use them! Adapt and change your playingstyle instead.

i'm sorry, but i would like to choose how i play and not have the deficiencies of the game change how i play the game...

so the fact that auto-settlers run around like... lemmings doing nothing is a game rule??????

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by MarkG on 04-16-2001 01:33 PM so the fact that auto-settlers run around like... lemmings doing nothing is a game rule??????

Have i said that? Artificial intelligence has its very specific built-in limitations in any large random-map multi-optional game like Civ, whether one understand this or not. If the public-works system where such a wonder-recipe for a strong AI, why wasnt the AI in the CTP-2 game that god then?

Seriously speaking; if the AI is good or bad has nothing to do with if the human player use the settler-system or the public works-system. I advocate the settler-system because I like it better seen from a human player point of view. But I sure as hell dont advocate it for the AI-civs.
Maybe they can use AI-settlers though, if best possible AI-city placement "beacons" (invisible for the human player) have already been pre-calculated in conjunction the the random map-generation. Infact, they can even have visible city-area AI-workers, as long as the real work is done by some kind of tweakable AI-owned terrain-tile maturing-process. I sure hope so - otherwise we can say goodby to any hope of a noticeably stronger strategical/logistical AI in Civ-3.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited April 16, 2001).]

1) when i spoke about deficiencies i was referring to badly fucntioning auto-workers. when you responded a "general level" talking about game rules, i replied to that...

2) i never connected PW with a strong AI. on the contrary, PW doesnt need any fuctions to move settlers around, it just needs the functions to figure out where to place improvements. therefore it needs LESS ai(which is good cause good ai is hard to program )...

3) given that the majority of the people use auto-settlers to a smaller or bigger amount(dont tell me to do a poll about it), a good AI for the settlers is in fact crucial...

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by MarkG on 04-16-2001 06:31 AM i'm sorry, but i would like to choose how i play and not have the deficiencies of the game change how i play the game...

There is a difference between "deficiencies" and deliberately designed game-rules, MarkQ. Every strategy-game must have RULES.

Compare with a game like "Europa Universalis". In that game its MUCH harder to ignore good ally-relations, and conquer other provinses - not to say whole countries. A famous swedish historian however wrote in a newspaper game-review, that the degree of realism was at least 10 to 1, compared with Civ-2.

Now Civ-3 isnt EU and it never vill be, I admitt. But game-rules isnt automatically "deficient" just because certain players cannot do exactly what they want, within that game-environment. Infact it shouldnt be possible - thats the whole point with having game-rules in the first place.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited April 16, 2001).]

[ChrisShaffer]

quote: 3) given that the majority of the people use auto-settlers to a smaller or bigger amount(dont tell me to do a poll about it), a good AI for the settlers is in fact crucial...

Harrumph. I think you're wrong. Most people I know do not use auto-settlers at all. We're all agreed they're horrible at the job (in Civ2 and SMAC at least, hopefully they'll be better in Civ3). I'm reasonably sure there's a pretty big contingent of people who never use auto-settlers.

So, I will _ask you_ (not tell you) do to a poll about it. Maybe you'd be as surprised about auto-settler poll results as you were about the settlers / pw poll, eh?

quote: Originally posted by ChrisShaffer on 04-17-2001 02:32 PM Harrumph. I think you're wrong. Most people I know do not use auto-settlers at all. We're all agreed they're horrible at the job

perhaps that's why they dont use them? perhaps there are lots of people who like pw for exactly that reason?

[raingoon]

In Mark G's defense, what is surprising is that this new poll in fact shows a statistical dead-heat between PW and Settlers. That said, Mark, you have to admit that the results of this poll vindicate those of us skeptics who believed the last one was skewed toward PW by a margin of about 2:1.

And I also think it's not true to say that most people use or require the auto-settler function when they play. I won't say they don't if you don't say they do, and then you won't have to do another poll.

Finally, I still think dognheat had the right idea by suggesting (even at this late hour for the design team) that PW be somehow combined with the settlers in Civ 3. I will echo that suggestion, providing the playtesting reveals that the auto-settler function is inadequate.

quote: Originally posted by airdrik on 04-17-2001 12:51 PM you can let the 'mayors' choose where to improove (set them to auto-mode)

but that's the whole issue, auto-mode is problematic!!

quote: And besides, firaxis has already said that they are using a settler/worker system, why can't you just accept this?

oh i have accepted it and dont expect firaxis to change the whole system to pw or anything else. i'm just debating their decision

[airdrik]

quote: Originally posted by MarkG on 04-17-2001 03:21 PM Originally posted by airdrik on 04-17-2001 12:51 PM you can let the 'mayors' choose where to improove (set them to auto-mode) but that's the whole issue, auto-mode is problematic!!

If auto-mode is problematic, then PW is too, because as I said, the computer can use the same functions to tell where a worker should improove next as PW uses to improove it. The only difference is that you have to wait for the worker to move to the spot and improove.

quote: Originally posted by airdrik on 04-17-2001 05:41 PM If auto-mode is problematic, then PW is too, because as I said, the computer can use the same functions to tell where a worker should improove next as PW uses to improove it. The only difference is that you have to wait for the worker to move to the spot and improove.

you're wrong
the problems in auto-settlers are two:
- settlers have to move to the next spot that needs to be worked and their paths are often not the best
- settlers must always have something to do

none of the above exists in PW

[airdrik]

quote: Originally posted by MarkG on 04-17-2001 05:54 PM you're wrong the problems in auto-settlers are two: - settlers have to move to the next spot that needs to be worked

That's what I've been saying, but that is the only difference.

quote: and their paths are often not the best

The go-to feature will be fixed up so that workers won't be going arround in circles trying to find where they are going.

quote: - settlers must always have something to do

Well if they don't have anything more to do then the computer will recognise this and reliquish control back to the player. I think it already does this though, doesn't it?

[ChrisShaffer]

Not having played CtP, I have to ask - was the computer better at developing terrain in CtP than it was in Civ2 or SMAC? Is this demonstrable? (i.e. can anyone give a concrete example of how the computer used Public Works better than it uses Settlers?)

If, as I suspect, the only concrete difference is that the computer has problems moving units around, we can hope that the goto function fixes will solve this problem...

[Cyclotron]

quote: Originally posted by MarkG on 04-17-2001 05:54 PM you're wrong the problems in auto-settlers are two: - settlers have to move to the next spot that needs to be worked and their paths are often not the best - settlers must always have something to do none of the above exists in PW

Well, I happen to think you're wrong. Yes, settlers do have to move. But isn't that good? It gives you more strategic lataitiude and gives you greater control. I for one like to maneuver my units. Also, settlers don't have to always have something to do. You can make them rejoin a city to add population.

Mark, I think our difference lies here:

- You dislike managing your own units (too much time, you say) so you would rather have the AI do it for you. If I were dependent on the AI, I too would support PW.

- I see managing units as fun, and I would rather have the multitudinous options and tactics you get from the settler system than the limited PW system.

Mark, you are evaluating the settler system purely by the auto workers. Many people (most people I've asked) don't even use auto workers. You say this is because the AI is bad... I for one knew about the feature but never even used it for the first few years I owned the game, because I thought "why would I ever want to give up managing my settlers?" When I tried it, yes, it did stink. So my solution for you is to actually use settlers as they are meant to be used: By the player!

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

[Chronus]

"... use settlers as they are meant to be used: By the player!"

YES! How in the world did the issue of auto-settlers creep into this discussion anyway? That takes all the fun out of it. I don't anyone (personally) that uses the auto-settler feature either. And all this talk about improving the automating features ... do you want to play the game or simply watch it?

Hmmmm, here's an idea:

Maybe Firaxis can PERFECT the automating features and then automate the military units instead of the settlers! By doing this, I can now happily move my settlers about, perfecting my infrastructure, while my military advisor automatically moves my military units and engages in war with utter PERFECTION! I won't even have to think about the war ... because my advisor knows what's best ... what fun! ;-)

I like havng to take a few seconds to study the map to determine the best route for my settler ... I like yelling out "DOH!" whenever I accidently move them off the road because I wasn't paying attention (and knowing I'll waste another turn putting them back on the road) ... I like having to rush out the military units because a hoard of barbarians suddenly show up, threatening my settlers ... I like building fortresses in key locations out in the middle of nowhere ... I like helping my allies clean up their pollution ... etc.

Aggrevating? Yes, at times. Fun? Yes! Yes! YES!! :-)

p.s. please pardon the sarcasm above ... I was having too much fun. ;-)

[airdrik]

quote: Originally posted by MarkG on 04-16-2001 05:41 PM 2) i never connected PW with a strong AI. on the contrary, PW doesnt need any fuctions to move settlers around, it just needs the functions to figure out where to place improvements. therefore it needs LESS ai(which is good cause good ai is hard to program )...

And why can't it use the same functions to get where to move the settlers to build next?

A worker on auto-mode is finished with what he is doing. The computer runs it's function to see what it will improove next. The unit is moved using the go-to command. When the unit gets there it starts working.

The only difference between this and the public works is that public works doesn't have to move the unit there, but they both get the job done, and in fact if you have more workers working in an area then they will actually work faster than the public works will.

Also, What if you don't want to improove the area around a city? If you want to restrict the growth of the city for some reason, work all the tiles but just not grow? Like if you know that improoving a certain tile will lead to unneeded pollution, or you are playing ICS and don't want to improove the surrounding tiles. With PW you have to let the computer improove the tiles, but with a settler/worker system you can improove exactly how you want.

quote: Originally posted by airdrik on 04-17-2001 12:04 PM With PW you have to let the computer improove the tiles, but with a settler/worker system you can improove exactly how you want.

i think it was you that i've said this before: with PW, the computer does NOT take over the job of doing the tile improvement. in ctp2 you have the CHOICE to leave the job to your mayors, but as i said, it's a CHOICE. got it?