Terrain Improvement?

[lajzar]

Workers are sufficiently cheap that giving an extra task will jut result in more workers being built to compensate. Once you have a size 12 city or three, the only opportunity cost for a worker is 1 turn worth of production - the population cost is no longer meaningful at that point.

[Japher]

Workers are sufficiently cheap that giving an extra task will jut result in more workers being built to compensate. Once you have a size 12 city or three, the only opportunity cost for a worker is 1 turn worth of production - the population cost is no longer meaningful at that point.

Good point, but I think you over simplified the magnifying effects as well as the key of "once you have a size 12 city"... Spending time prospecting will take away from time spent improving tiles to increase growth, but might just make you overlook something that could help increase growth or production. Also, if I have 15 units prospecting, that’s still 15 turns of “actual” production time lost compared to someone else who may not use the prospecting option, but just improve with the hope of uncovering a luxury or resource. However, if I do prospect I can better prepare my towns to be more efficient for their location, even if does take 15-45 turns to break even. That 15-45 turns, however, could be enough for my opponent to “blitz build” me.

I think the opportunity costs are there, and are worth it. Building more workers still takes from building something else, using prospect still takes from something else that you may find anyway, prospecting, however, can increase town efficiency in the long run, if used correctly.

[Vince278]

I voted Civ3 style. That is one of the things that makes Civ what it is. I like the CtP style but it wouldn't seem right in a Civ product unless they are planning a combined Civ-CtP game that has the best of both.

[snoopy369]

woot ... the civ3 style crew is pulling ahead ...



Japher, you have some very good points up there. I'm not sure either if the opportunity cost is that great, but it is something. You could at minimum add that worker to another city (who doesn't have a city or two of size 3 or 4 at almost any point in the game, except in a super-grower in the modern era?) and do something productive there ...

[Drachasor]

Here's an idea, you take the CtP model, and use that as the base of the TI system. Such improvements can be made anywhere in your territory.

In addition, you can build workers that will allow you to build outside your territory. When outside, you can build on the square they are occupying. Also, inside your territory you can use a worker (or perhaps more than one) to decrease the build time of the improvement being built. Basically one would have the time, two would third it, three would quarter it, etc. Outside the territory you need an extra worker for the same effect.

Oh, and you capture an extra worker if you move into an enemy's square they are improving (this might require some balancing, and perhaps it wouldn't be necessary).

What do you guys think? Does it make an easy to follow system? Is it at all elegant? I am a bit too tired to be sure of this myself.

Hmm, perhaps workers need an increase in their upkeep cost too (for various reasons).

-Drachasor

[Fosse]

Workers fit pretty squarely into "unfun" for me, for all but the first few dozen turns.

Public works. Call it something else, make it cost something besides shields, so we can all pretend that the idea is a new one. Whatever it takes. Let's just get rid of the workers.

To build outside of your cities' radii you can have a cost increase of X% per Y tiles away from the nearest city.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Fosse
Workers fit pretty squarely into "unfun" for me, for all but the first few dozen turns.

Public works. Call it something else, make it cost something besides shields, so we can all pretend that the idea is a new one. Whatever it takes. Let's just get rid of the workers.

I agree 100%, but there are crazy people--that's what I call them--that are in love with workers, and enjoy nothing more than to move them about the map.

-Drachasor

[Dominae]

I guess the majority is crazy.

Every game has micromanagement. Micro is always better than macro. MOO3 tried and failed to make a game where everything was about macro, but: 1) it was boring, 2) players could still do the micro and perform better. Taking away all the micro from Civ3 will turn it into something 'Civ' is not.

Workers serve a useful purpose: they keep you busy. They give you something to do every turn. Now just because many here have played Civ3 way too much and can order Workers around in their sleep does not mean that moving Workers around is not fun for the casual player. Most casual players only build a few Workers anyway, and set them on auto when terraforming gets too tedious. By then, the Workers have served their purpose as an interesting diversion while the real show (i.e. military and cities) sets up.

[Drachasor]

Actually, the majority (50%) and the plurality (largest like-minded group) are against workers, though it is close. Remember, there is one proposed Worker system in the poll, and that is not getting 50%+ votes.

Another large faction want a public work system. Which is a more functional micromanagement terrain improvement system.

Another group wants something different, or wants something that is wholly automatic. These groups do not want a worker system either though.

So, I can safely say the minority is crazy people. ^^ (This can include the banana-people at your own discretion).

Personally, I prefer a more interesting early game (perhaps interaction with minor civs around you, getting them to join you), as opposed to one with a lot of tedium.

-Drachasor

[Dominae]

My whole point is that this poll is not representative of the majority of Civ players. Casual players either do not find it tedious, or turn on the automate option right away. For people who do not know any better (or do not care), an automated Worker is essentially the same as many of the other options being proposed here.

Workers have got us through 4 Civ games so far; they're pretty fundamental to the game and, I'm arguing, its success.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Drachasor
Actually, the majority (50%) and the plurality (largest like-minded group) are against workers, though it is close. Remember, there is one proposed Worker system in the poll, and that is not getting 50%+ votes.-Drachasor

Not true. At the time of posting, the breakdown is as follows:

46 - Workers
39 - CtP
6 - Automatic
8 - other
3 - Bananas
--
102 total

I classify "Bananas" as a joke, and thus only 99 total. Then there's "other", which i'll also take out, because it's easily possible for "other" to mean "workers, modified" as "ctp, modified". That means that workers are 46/91, or 51%.



Even if you reject my elimination of "other" as a category, workers still have a plurality of 46/99 or 46% to 39%, an 18% (7/39) lead. "Terrain automatically improves" cannot in any way be compared to either of the groups in any reasonable definition. "Against CTP system" is a larger plurality (52) than "Against workers" (45).

And, as Dom said, I seriously doubt the "casual players" who make up the far majority of civ3 sales but yet are not members of apolyton would vote anything less than 80% for "traditional workers". Certainly if Civ3 had only sold 102 copies we wouldn't be here right now.

In favor of micromanagement: If you're not currently fighting a war, what exactly are you going to do *except* move workers around? Hmm? (Like dom said, again. Sheesh, i'm a parrot.)

I have to take offense to the statement that CTP PW is a "more functional micromanagement system" as well -- it gives you exactly the same options, but without as much flexibility. Having physical units is very handy for quick changes, allows you to develop outside of city or nation radius (how exactly are you going to build a road to conquer your neighbor without a worker?), allows you to *prevent* opponents from building in a more easily seen way (ie, you could say "once foreign occupied, then stop building", but it's harder to see the square that needs stopping without a unit there), and feels more consistent (assuming the rest of the game stays in roughly the same format). You have units to do everything else, why take away the worker unit and replace it with a worker menu (essentially what you're doing)?

And honestly i fail to understand why workers mean micromanagement. In a late civ3 game, say AD 1900 (yes, some of us actually get that far with out winning ), if I take over a continent and want it roaded ASAP, I have two options - CTP and worker. (Understand that i never played ctp, so some assumptions are being made here -- correct please)

option 1: Take 20 workers, press "automate-trade", 3 times if in stacks, otherwise 20 times. Maximum 20 presses (if no stacks), and a whole continent is roaded.

option 2: click on each square, select "build road", wait a few turns, click again, select "build railroad". Total clicks: 2 per square, for a 210 square continent (big enough for 10 full cities exactly), 420 clicks (and selects, or additional keystrokes for "road").

And if I want jungle cleared out? Say a 15 square jungle? Do I want to select "automate - clear jungle" with a few workers, or ctp-style?

Ok, [/rant].

[Fosse]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Having physical units ... allows you to develop outside of city or nation radius (how exactly are you going to build a road to conquer your neighbor without a worker?)

You allow it. That's how.

Can we all move on from this argument? There are many valid arguments that can be backed up with real ideas against getting rid of workers (I favor no workers, myself, but the points remain valid), without having to bring up this non-issue in every post.

The people on the side of workers are not fools. I refuse to believe that you are simply unable to conceive of a non-worker system in which improving tiles beyond your city or national borders is possible.

[/rant]

[snoopy369]

Huh? Allowing you to build a road on someone else's soil without a worker (to indicate the intrusion) would be impractical. Just clicking on a square in your opponent's territory and selecting "road here"? I don't think this would work very well for a couple of reasons, just off the top of my head:
* difficult to identify intrusions onto your own territory
* conflicting build orders on a tile
Both of these *could* be resolved without unit workers, but unit workers make these non-problems, and the resolution (in the first case requiring having a unit-like icon indicating work being done, in the second case either the same or an error beep/message) is either unit-like (and thus why not a unit?) or annoying (don't you hate error messages?).
I certainly could conceive of a system where this is possible -- but not one that's better than unit workers. Why do you think that numerous people posting above have mentioned PTW style *plus* unit workers for outside your territory? (And once you've gotten that far, why stop ... but that's a different argument )

And please do not imply that arguments are not "real" or are "non-issues" just because you don't agree with or understand the reasons behind them. I could make the same statement about this entire discussion, but do not because I respect the intelligence and reasonability of the people on both sides here. If one of 'you' (non-worker-advocates) feels an argument has merit, I'll give you that much, albeit I will tell you exactly why I disagree with its veracity.

[Drachasor]

The tedium of workers is twofold.

1. You have to move them around constantly, and quite a distance is not uncommon. Later on many people spend most of their time fiddling with workers. On more island-like maps, this is especially annoying.

2. You have to spend time producing them, and then deal with getting rid of them when you are done. You have to build a lot of workers in a decently sized empire too.

Now, a CtP system avoids both of these problems. First you no longer have to deal with the hordes of workers late-game. This saves you a ton of time and tedium, that no one likes. Casual gamers certainly hate this. Cities grow faster, and in general things go smoother.

Casual gamers, I must say, would probably prefer a non-worker system. The mild interest of ordering workers about early game is outweighed by the massive time investment on them late-game. Without workers, the early game passes much faster, and so does the late game. This means a shorter game, which the casual player would likely prefer. Additionally, you spend more time working on more interesting things, like culture, war, etc.

Anyhow, it is extremely unfair to pretend that there are no ways to adapt a PW system to Civ. You want to build in someone else's territory? It could let you build under your own units in that case. You want to build outside your territory? Well, the same as before, and perhaps you can do it without the unit at increased cost. It is very, very easy to adapt the system. You want to build faster? Have an increased cost, just like rushing a building.

Casual gamers would prefer it, as the main lobby for the old system are die-hard Civ I/II/III fans that don't want to see a change. Even so, a substantial group of people do not like the current system, and want it change. Any adjustments would undoubtably be to reduce the annoying micro and time investment. As such even the "other" undoubtably dont like the micro of the worker system.

-Drachasor

[Max Sinister]

I'll try to consider both sides:
The fans of the "traditional" system are the majority, but the CTP system still has many fans too. If you consider that many people prefer the traditional system only because, well, it's tradition or because they don't know CTP and can't imagine how it works / whether they'd like it.

I personally would prefer a public works system since it would save a lot of time, though I have to admit that Civ3 has an advantage against CTP because of its "anthill feeling": Lots of little people busily running around. CTP lacks this a bit.