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...

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.

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?

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 )...

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 )...

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.

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.

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.

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.

none of the above exists in PW

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!

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!! :-)

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?

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...