POLL 20: Settlers vs Public Works

[airdrik]

Oh, I didn't see that, sorry. But you still have the same choice with the settler/worker system, you can let the 'mayors' choose where to improove (set them to auto-mode), or you can do it yourself (more people are used to this, and it is more gratifiing when you move the unit to the square and improove the tile yourself). Also, it can (or at least should) be very crippling to kill off the enemy's workers and pilliage their land. With PW you can only pilliage their land, there are no workers to kill, so it isn't nearly as crippling.

And besides, firaxis has already said that they are using a settler/worker system, why can't you just accept this? Let Civ have a Settler/Worker system, and let CTP have a Public works system. (firaxis keeps settler/worker system: it comes out when they estimate it. firaxis changes to public works, add 2-3 months to release date + $5/game).

quote: Originally posted by airdrik on 04-17-2001 06:16 PM 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?

i mostly recall settlers running around doing nothing rather than stoping and "admitting" that they have nothing to do

quote: Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 04-17-2001 08:07 PM It gives you more strategic lataitiude and gives you greater control.

more control than point-click-place?

quote: - You dislike managing your own units (too much time, you say) so you would rather have the AI do it for you.

i dont dislike managing settlers. it's just that at later stages and during wars i'm focused on battles and can not spent time on settlers. it gets tiresome especially as your empire gets larger

quote: Mark, you are evaluating the settler system purely by the auto workers.

i'm concetrating there, cause that where it's weakness is.
as i have said, if the civ3's workers have much much better automation features, i will be happy. i just doubt that it will happen

quote: 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.

well, as you describe yourself, lots of people dont use the auto-mode exactly because it doesnt work well!!

quote: So my solution for you is to actually use settlers as they are meant to be used: By the player!

yeah, and real men do it on keyboard only...

quote: Originally posted by Chronus on 04-17-2001 10:50 PM YES! How in the world did the issue of auto-settlers creep into this discussion anyway? That takes all the fun out of it

civ games are fun because traditionally they allow all kind of playing styles and give you varying situations to deal with. civ is and has always been about choices

therefore, if i want to focus on my war front at certain part of the game(while i enjoyed the building and the tile improving tile-by-tile with my settlers earlier) why should i have to still deal with settlers? should i pause them just for that? or should i have wait while the do silly dance routines? i would like the choice to be able to focus on more fun things(at that time). what's so wrong about that???

[ChrisShaffer]

quote: 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.

quote: well, as you describe yourself, lots of people dont use the auto-mode exactly because it doesnt work well!!

That's not what he said at all! He said most people don't use the auto-settlers because they *want* to manage their settlers. He even went so far as to say he didn't use auto-settlers for the first two years he used the game - not because they were poort at the job, but because he didn't *want* to use them.

quote: therefore, if i want to focus on my war front at certain part of the game(while i enjoyed the building and the tile improving tile-by-tile with my settlers earlier) why should i have to still deal with settlers? should i pause them just for that? or should i have wait while the do silly dance routines? i would like the choice to be able to focus on more fun things(at that time). what's so wrong about that???

I ask again - can you automate Public Works? Is there a demonstrable benefit of automated public works over automated settlers? Or do you simply stop using public works when you're at war? If that's the case, then yes, you could just pause your settlers when you're at war. Couldn't you? Wouldn't that be effectively the same as not using your public works features?

It sounds like you'd be just as happy if there was a setting "don't show me settler movement" just as there was a setting in Civ2 to "don't show me oppenent units movement."

quote: Originally posted by ChrisShaffer on 04-18-2001 01:56 PM can you automate Public Works?

yes, you can

quote: Is there a demonstrable benefit of automated public works over automated settlers?

yes. first of all, when there is nothing to be done, nothing is done(instead of having to see a settlers move around hopelessly). second, when there is something to be done, you dont have to see any settler move to it's target.

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by ChrisShaffer on 04-18-2001 01:56 PM That's not what he said at all! He said most people don't use the auto-settlers because they *want* to manage their settlers. He even went so far as to say he didn't use auto-settlers for the first two years he used the game - not because they were poort at the job, but because he didn't *want* to use them.

I agree! Personally, I have never even tried auto-settlers (or auto-terraformers in SMAC). I enjoy moving them around manually, and I want spoonfeed them with exact duties to perform - thats part of the fun. As long as automatic map-recentering and unit-flashing is incorporated, it really not any "hard work" involved to do this.

Some people make a big thing out of the problem of managing "300 settlers" around the map. Well, that I can understand of course!

But for several reasons, that argument is totally irrelevant in Civ-3. Firaxis have already confirmed some rather expansion-restrictive under-the-hood changes in order to combat ICS:

- Both settlers & workers cost city pop-reduction (means 50-100+ cities empires very unlikely - not enough time to regenerate pop).
- Different & more cultural empires much harder to conquer/pacify (means militaristic 50-100+ mostly undeveloped cities empires are unlikely).
- Firaxis have stated that they opt for a "overcompressed game": less no-mans-land expansion (means 50-100+ cities empires are less likely).
- The "Bigger-Always-Better" problem is combated: means smaller empires have tempting counteracting favours (= 50-100+ cities empires are less likely).
- They have also stated that internal instability-problems is a factor much harder to overcome (means 50-100+ cities empires are less likely).
- And the list goes on...

So you see; I dont think that the "hundreds of workers" problem is going to be a problem. Its simply not going to be practically possible to build and maintain that many cities (and therefore workers) in Civ-3.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited April 18, 2001).]

quote: Originally posted by Ralf on 04-18-2001 03:45 PM But for several reasons, that argument is totally irrelevant in Civ-3. Firaxis have already confirmed some rather expansion-restrictive under-the-hood changes in order to combat ICS... ...So you see; I dont think that the "hundreds of workers" problem is going to be a problem. Its simply not going to be practically possible to build and maintain that many cities (and therefore workers) in Civ-3.

i guess we can hope, cant we?

[Chronus]

"when there is nothing to be done, nothing is done(instead of having to see a settlers move around hopelessly"

Couldn't you just sentry the settler in a city? That's what I do when I'm finished using them for the time being and it hasn't given me any problems.

[airdrik]

Yah, you could sentury them in a city, or if you got really bored, you could have them build fortifications/roads/railroads/airbases/etc. everywhere (on every land tile on the continent ) or transform everything to your every whim.

[Cyberbugs]

I consider it very important that your are able to set the worker unit to, for example, build mines and farms but not roads.

Sometimes it might even be good not to build roads between your own cities, because these same roads could be fataly exploated by an attacking civilization thus helping it in its offensive, and also it might be better to invest the time of your workers in building mines rather than roads.

[markusf]

Public works sucks. There is no sence of accomplishment when building a highway all over the map in one turn and then attacking with 50 units.. Its just plain retarded. Settlars also slow down ICS a LOT. All you have to do with pw, is build a road in straight line out of your main city and just crank out settlars and move them along the road. Accept defeat your PW 'Freaks' we won

quote: Originally posted by markusf on 04-19-2001 04:46 PM Accept defeat your PW 'Freaks' we won

how CIVilized...

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Public work are a good system :

1) More realist than a peon lost in an distant continent buildind a fort.

2) If you want to contruct a distant amenagement (far from a city), you have to build a road first. so building a railroad accross a contienent could take a lot of time. Except by building a temporaly city (which isn't unrealist)

3) It's a pleasure to wreak havoc on a amenagement just in construction

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Public work are a good system :

1) More realist than a peon lost in an distant continent buildind a fort.

2) If you want to contruct a distant amenagement (far from a city), you have to build a road first. so building a railroad accross a contienent could take a lot of time. Except by building a temporaly city (which isn't unrealist)

3) It's a pleasure to wreak havoc on a amenagement just in construction

[meriadoc]

Personally, I prefer the public works system, but if CivIII uses a settler/worker based system I won't really mind. I will admit that there is something more personal and less abstract about having a unit build my improvements and, yes, I could have the worker accompany the troops to the battle and build forts and stuff.
However, the PW system isn't that different. Neither CivCTP or CTP2 allowed you to build entire roads across the world all at once. In CTP2 you could only place tile improvements inside of your national borders or, in the case of forts, where a unit was already. So, basically, the PW system allowed you to manage your tile improvements with a little less micromanagement while still requiring you to depend upon your units a little.
My major objection to settlers building my roads and stuff is not really the micromangement - I like that (I've never used mayors because I want to do it all myself). My major objection to settlers is that I have a short memory. While I was playing Civ2 it was not uncommon for me to forget what it was I wanted a settler to do by the time it got to its destination.
Someone suggested putting down "pre-fab" packs that your workers then use as sort of a blueprint. You place a pack and when the worker becomes available he'll head off to the next pack and start working. I think that's a great idea and I kind of hope that Firaxis includes something like it.

[Ralf]

I have always suspected that Firaxis would go "anti CTP-2" then it came to core-elements of the game, like the settler-system instead of public works, and fixed city-areas instead of expanding CTP-2 ones. The reason is (and was) pretty easy to foresee:

Theres so many new additions and features in the Civ-3 game already, and the dumbest/most risky thing that they could do, would be to replace fundamental game core-elements, like the settler-system and the fixed city-area modell, that have millions of play-testing hours under their belts, and instead fumble around with totally new and untested concepts.

The "expanding city-areas" concept for example, turned up to be a "can-of-worms" idea, with many unexpected & less attractive side-effects. As for the support of the public-works system: Well, just as many (or more) seems to actually prefer the original settler-system. So Firaxis really didnt risk anything by placing their bets on a tweaked and upgraded version of it.

Now there is even less reason why they would look at CTP/CTP-2 design-solutions for inspiration, and instead go their own way. A quote from the CTP-2 section:

"The latest issue of Technology Investor Magazine reports that gaming company Activision is falling to pieces, and what’s more- CTP2 is one of the main reasons. According to the article,
Last Quarter its earnings dropped 35%. However, Tony Hawk was not the 1-2 punch that hurt Activision. The 'CTP2' sequel, which was expected to match its prequel ‘Call to Power’, bottomed out selling less than 30 000 copies."

That pretty much sums it up. Sad, infact - we need MORE tbs-strategy games with civ-style flavour - also from other companies then Firaxis. Not less. However, this should also serve as a warning example for other developers.

IF THE BASIC CONCEPT HAS BEEN PROVEN SOUND - TRY TO IMPROVE ON IT. BUT, DONT REPLACE IT. DONT CHANGE FOR THE SAKE OF CHANGE.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited April 20, 2001).]

the failure of activision was that they tried to sell ctp as civ3 and not so much that some of their ideas needed more work. the low sales of ctp2 have much more to do with what impressions ctp1 left than with it's actual quality


btw, the expanding city radius (i believe) was hailed by players as a great move, both as being more fun department as well as helping in the war against ics...

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by MarkG on 04-20-2001 03:34 PM the failure of activision was that they tried to sell ctp as civ3...

Selling CTP as the updated Civ-3 was the very reason that people got lured into buying the game in the first place. That was Activisions only chance of getting significantly above ordinary salefigures - and they knew it all too well. Why else, was it so important for them to have the catchword "CIVILIZATION" (with capital letters), directly above "Call to Power" on the package?

quote: the low sales of ctp2 have much more to do with what impressions ctp1 left than with it's actual quality

The low sales of CTP-2 was a consequence of people now knew for sure that activisions CTP-games had nothing to do with those old civ-classics. Infact, CTP-2 was in many ways a final test if their civ-variant really would stand on its own two legs, without the walking-stick support/goodwill of the original Sid Meier Civ-titles.

The test failed. The Activision-variant of the Civilization-concept just couldnt survive a second comming. Most people didnt like CTP, and they didnt like the fact that Activision once again refused to produce a CTP-2 demo, that they could evaluate. So they hesitated...
Then the bad/lukewarm game-magazine reviews came. Some CTP-2 fans run to Activisions defence, but just 2-3 weeks later, the whole CTP-2 forum was overwhelmed with angry civers complaining over the weak AI. These angry AI-post where infact so many that you guys felt compelled to create a special CTP-2 AI-section to house them all. That was the feelings of "the actual quality" of CTP-2, at the time.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited April 21, 2001).]

[chief]

EXACTLY... settlers/workers are so the way to go. Although PW may have seemed like a good concept, it just didn't work in a game... it sucked. Settlers/workers provide many more tactical options in the placement or automation of tile improvements and can also be destroyed, making it an opportunity to cripple an enemy's resource/food gathering!

quote: Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 04-11-2001 01:42 PM Settlers are the best way to go, because PW just isn't... well, good enough for this kind of game. I just can't see railroads appearing out of nowhere and such. In addition, settlers add strategic possibilities in that they: 1) Can be killed; so you can stop the enemy from building improvements at all 2) Must be managed better, to save your citizens 3) Really ARE population, not just excess production. Production doesn't build itself, you need vast amounts of workers to build railroads and dig mine complexes.

quote: Originally posted by Ralf on 04-20-2001 06:24 PM Selling CTP as the updated Civ-3 was the very reason that people got lured into buying the game in the first place. That was Activisions only chance of getting significantly above ordinary salefigures - and they knew it all too well. Why else, was it so important for them to have the catchword "CIVILIZATION" (with capital letters), directly above "Call to Power" on the package?

i'm not sure if you agree or disagree with me...

activision failed cause they had to stop the series in the way that they did and because they probably lost money(again, in the entire series). and they failed cause instead of presenting ctp1/2 as what they were(different civ-like tbs games), they presented them as "civ3". if ctp1 didnt have "civilization" in it's title we would probably be making "ctp3" suggestions now...

quote: The low sales of CTP-2 was a consequence of people now knew for sure that activisions CTP-games had nothing to do with those old civ-classics.

ctp2 was doomed for the bigest part of ctp1 buyers due to the bad memories of ctp1

quote: Then the bad/lukewarm game-magazine reviews came.

actually, ctp2 got much much better reviews than ctp1(cgo 4/5)

quote: These angry AI-post where infact so many that you guys felt compelled to create a special CTP-2 AI-section to house them all.

actually, if you had visited the specific forum you would see that the purpose of the forum is to discuss how the ai can be modified, since, well, it can be modified...

[noitazilivic]

How about PW like in CTp, but to please those of you who use settlers/workers strategically (forts or others like sensors) you could have special units for these. I am not talking millitary settlers, but perhaps a type of infantry could have the ability to build a semi-permament for (entrench etc) or a millitary unit that can also set up listening posts?

[Fredric Drum]

noitazilivic: Are you talking about engineer troops? Not a bad idea...


Fred

Ralf, you don't want to drag a map around to place improvement with a PW system, but you are willing to herd settlers/terraformers/engineers around a map, perhaps 20 a turn, look around the map for tiles that should be improved, spend several turns getting 20+ settlers to their proper spots and then spending 7+ turns to add roads/railroads/irrigation/farms or road/railroads/mines to a single square? I'm just not convinced. I guess I'd rather hunt around on the map for things I'd like to improve, place as many improvements ans I would both like and afford simulataneuosly and wait sveral turns as people (who are not in unit form) build it. I guess I'm just more interesting in building the empire I would like as opposed to moving blinking units around a screen. Silly me.

[Al'Kimiya]

With PW you could make improvements in lake/ocean areas, allowing more food income (and trade?). Has anyone considered this for settlers/workers?

[Cyclotron]

quote: Originally posted by Al'Kimiya on 04-25-2001 03:56 PM With PW you could make improvements in lake/ocean areas, allowing more food income (and trade?). Has anyone considered this for settlers/workers?

With settlers, you could just take a settler out to the ocean square in question with a ship and park it there while the settler works. That is, assuming Civ3 has sea improvements...

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

[MrFun]

Actually, in Civilization II, you could improve sea tiles indirectly by building a city improvement called Harbor (if I remember correctly). By building Harbors, you increased trade by 1 in each sea tile.

Was there also another city improvement that increased food by 1 in all sea tiles in Civilization II?

------------------
"I should like to know if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle, making exceptions to it -- where will it stop? If one man says it does not mean a Negro, why does not another say it does not mean some other man?"
-- Abraham Lincoln's quote, and his anti-racist ideals

[Brad]

quote: Originally posted by MrFun on 04-26-2001 12:46 AM Was there also another city improvement that increased food by 1 in all sea tiles in Civilization II?

No but I think the offshore platform increased shields by one in each ocean square

[Cyclotron]

Actually, the Harbor was the improvement that boosted food by one, and the offshore platform boosted shields by one. No improvement boosted trade on the water, apart from governments/wonders that boost trade on both land and sea like Democracy and the Colossus.

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

[Russian King]

Some ppl say 7 civs aint enough-ok fine. 10will do for me, not much diff...
BUT even if i was like Roman, that would mean nothing to me SINCE:
A MAJOR DISAPPOINTMENT At first, i was outvoted that for improving terrain you needed to remove a population from a city(at least they cant settle so i dont have the temptation) now the co. is telling me settlers remove 2 pop!!! THIS IS ABSURD ... if they build cityes with 2 pop-fine if they build cities with improvements-fine but WHY, i repeat: WHY did they do that? to have something to protect doesn't seem like a fair reeason 2me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. dont we have our whole civ already??? so what FIRAXIS are saying:

"Let them take your cities, just leave the settlers alone"

I PROTEST once again! if they fix the nuke and everything else is better than i've seen before, fine they can have my money for the game, otherwise: Dont hope for it!

i will make a new topic room on this