The design decision that can have a huge impact

[Addled Platypus]

another supporter for roads



and railroads

[nato]

I guess my first post was too long.

Here, I'll quote from it directly:

I would keep roads / railroads (built with a public works system), but only for movement, not trade increases. This is because placing roads to important places is actually an interesting strategic decision, not the drudgery of must-rr-every-tile.

Didn't even have to edit that in!

I think it is very telling that roads-to-important-places is the counter example being argued. Thats because, like I said, its the only terrain improvement that involves some thinking instead of drudgery.

I doubt anyone can really defend the i, m, rr game, so the only semi-interesting thing, a road to important places, is being brought up.

Like I said, keep the roads for movement decision, lose the tedious repetive decisions.

The fact is that what you term tedious is in fact the core of empire building:administration. If you don;t like it, automate the workers. That simple.

I respectfully disagree on all counts.

Civ lets you play the emperor, or highest decision maker. We shouldn't have to deal with improving each tile anymore than we should have to deal with laying out the streets for every city or recruiting each individual soldier or doing all the bureacratic work for your millions of citizens.

This is a game meant to be fun. If its not fun, remove it. Improving every tile is not fun, and takes time away from actual empire building.

Why automate what would be better removed entirely?

Further, I bet turn wait times would come way down if 100s of computer-controlled workers didn't have to be moved every turn.

I play civ to build an empire, to simulate building a civilization. That means making roads-that means grand improvement project-the romans are known for theirs roads, the chinese emperor for their canals and walls.

As I said in my very first post, the roads (for movement) I agree with and would keep. No canals in civ yet (so I guess if you want them YOU shouldn't be playing! jk). Walls would be fortresses, I definitely would want to keep those. Their placement is an interesting strategic decision, not a tedious burden.

If you want a game devoid of that, simple, don't play civ.

A nice day to you too.

As I've made clear, I want a game with what civ is really about, big empire level decisions. The fun, interesting, strategic stuff. In fact, I think those civ game features are so great that the game would be much improved if the "irrigate here, mine there, rr all" stuff could be cleared out. Its just clutter.

Maximize strategic decisions that require our intelligence and planning, minimize repetitive decisions that only require endurance and a mindless zone.

Make Civilization, not Administrative Bureacracy!

[GePap]

Maximize strategic decisions that require our intelligence and planning, minimize repetitive decisions that only require endurance and a mindless zone.

Make Civilization, not Administrative Bureacracy!

Like? I mena, honestly, becuase in all startegy games ever devised, resource management and "the tedious things" have been central.

You honestly think the emperor's life is exiting and full of grand strategic decsions? If only, I think most emperors would have said.

Again, the in game solution to the game issue you bring up is simply better automation of the system, not a radical change-to what, I really can;t say, becuase the sort of system you push for would not work in a tile based game like civ-maybe in a province type game, but not tile based.

Want to stick to the "big issues"? Why not then push for a return of the one great MOO3 idea that was dropped like a stone? Having to manage your own imperial time and letting lower decisions made by underlyings? In doing so you allow for the one activity that actually ate up the vast mayority of time for most rulers but does not appear in civ-internal politics.

[nato]

You honestly think the emperor's life is exiting and full of grand strategic decsions? If only, I think most emperors would have said.

I have to politely ask, are you serious? You see what you're typing?

Civ is a GAME. It is meant to be fun, not realistic. Realism is a plus, but realism that is flat out boring should not be simulated.

I certainly want the game to be exciting and full of grand strategic decisions. You're saying you don't?

I certainly do not want a realistic simulation of the tedious and boring parts of ruling. You're saying you do?

I don't want that anymore than I want to simulate the emperor getting a cold or getting dental work, even though that happens in reality.

Your line of argument is simply amazing to me. You're saying tedium should be inserted for realism.

I think its pretty damning for the worker system if this is the defense you're left with. "Sure its tedious ... but so is real life!"

Like? I mena, honestly, becuase in all startegy games ever devised, resource management and "the tedious things" have been central.

Yes, I agree resource management is good!

However, I don't think workers making terrain improvements is really resource management.

When you do it, you are mechanically hitting i, m, and r over and over again. Resource management implies some sort of contemplation, weighing returns on expenditures. I, m, rr over and over just doesn't have this.

As is, terrain improvement just does not qualify for such terms as administration and resource management.

Again, the in game solution to the game issue you bring up is simply better automation of the system, not a radical change-to what, I really can;t say, becuase the sort of system you push for would not work in a tile based game like civ-maybe in a province type game, but not tile based.

True, if they could come up with a competant AI it wouldn't be as game hurting a problem. They didn't manage it for Civ3, I doubt they can manage it.

Besides, if you can challenge assumptions, its not necesary anyway.

This isn't really a super radical change. Its signifigant yes, but not fundamental to the game or anything. Replace a system that allows gradual productivity increase through a lot of player labor ... with a system that allows gradual productivity increase without any player labor.

Plus it would keep the map from looking, well, borgified, prolly reduce wait time, and, if you like history, introduce some techs that were just huge in real life.

Heck, MoM had no workers (except roads for movement) and worked fine. This just isn't that radical; its already been done!

Want to stick to the "big issues"? Why not then push for a return of the one great MOO3 idea that was dropped like a stone?

That would be a fundamental change, much bigger than I'm suggesting. This idea is nothing like IFPs, and IFPs removal has no bearing on it.

Nothing that big is necesary. Just eliminate workers and replace the gradual productivity improvement with something automatic. Let the player spend his time on the real point of the game.

Its a fairly simple change that would have a big return on how you spend your game time.

[Addled Platypus]

I could see something like this

Add another advisor with two main functions (but improvements would change as the advances change)

1. City Improvements
A. Build Wall (one time build cost, no support?)
B.

millennia or three later
A. Build sewer

2. Tile Improvements
A. Irragte
B.Build mines (click on specific tiles, hold shift to que)

And maybe list by cities, get it done all at once

What say all
or

[Tripledoc]

Being able to give workers consequetive orders would be great.

For instance if you wanted a worker to only mine hills, that would not be possible now with automation.

So as suggested above you hold down shift and click all hills to mine.

However you could probably not hold down shift click hill build mine, build road, click hill, build mine, build road, and so on.

[GePap]

Originally posted by nato

Civ is a GAME. It is meant to be fun, not realistic. Realism is a plus, but realism that is flat out boring should not be simulated.

Yes, civ is a game- but so is monopoly or pong. Civ is A type of game. There are plenty of empire building games-each franchise has ways in which it is distinct. And some amount of historical realism is one of the traits of civ.

I think its pretty damning for the worker system if this is the defense you're left with. "Sure its tedious ... but so is real life!"

I personally have never found managing my workers tedious- and am happy with the level of automation. You find it tedious-that does not mean it IS tedious. After all, millions of people have play tested it-if the game was so boring, it would fail-bad games do.

When you do it, you are mechanically hitting i, m, and r over and over again. Resource management implies some sort of contemplation, weighing returns on expenditures. I, m, rr over and over just doesn't have this.

So? You have to decide where to use your time and were to improve, what takes precedent and so forth-so it is much more than just hitting buttons.

This isn't really a super radical change. Its signifigant yes, but not fundamental to the game or anything. Replace a system that allows gradual productivity increase through a lot of player labor ... with a system that allows gradual productivity increase without any player labor.

The fact is though the change first is not that gradual-an irrigated square with a road is much more efefcitve than one without either-and the fact is it should involve lots of labor and time-becuase it is so critical. Terrain imporvement is key, and as such, it plays a key role timewise.

Plus it would keep the map from looking, well, borgified, prolly reduce wait time, and, if you like history, introduce some techs that were just huge in real life.

The fact is the map does end up looking "borgfied"-that is what civilization does-change nature into something useful for us,

Heck, MoM had no workers (except roads for movement) and worked fine. This just isn't that radical; its already been done!

This isn;t MoM, now is it?

Nothing that big is necesary. Just eliminate workers and replace the gradual productivity improvement with something automatic. Let the player spend his time on the real point of the game.

Which is? Empire building. And how do you build empires? By actually building things-not through knowledge, but labor.

Its a fairly simple change that would have a big return on how you spend your game time.

It is not a simple change, as it would greatly affect city placement and the strategic's of the game, as well as city growth and thus empire expansion. It is a huge change.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
Being able to give workers consequetive orders would be great.

For instance if you wanted a worker to only mine hills, that would not be possible now with automation.

So as suggested above you hold down shift and click all hills to mine.

However you could probably not hold down shift click hill build mine, build road, click hill, build mine, build road, and so on.

SMAC already had this system-in general, civ3 would have been better if more SMAC concepts had been kept in the series.

[Dauphin]

I like Public Works, and I like workers.

As long as the game uses one or t'other I'll be happy. I don't want a hybrid system particularly.

Queueing worker orders could be useful.

[Ajan]

if you don't like moving every worker every single turn, put them on automate...that simple.

roads and rr's definitely need to be improved on, though.

[Addled Platypus]

My next question would have to be...

If one does not like the detail of every worker, does one worry about every detail with military units?

[Fromage10x]

I wrote this elsewhere, but I think it may apply here:

I just saw this quote allegedly from Soren Johnson, lead designer/programmer;

Drop unfun legacy (pollution, rioting, maintenance, corruption/waste)
Modern interface/help conventions
Continuous, immersive 3D world (what-you-see-is-what-you-get)
New design vectors (religion, civics)
RPG elements (unit upgrades/experience)
Coding from scratch (multiplayer, mod-friendly)
Can still take over the world!

Am I the only one that's sick of the adjective unfun? I heard it constantly from the MOO3 team as they slashed a progressive good idea for a game into crap, and frankly hearing it from the Civ devs scares me. These people need to realize that games need to have portions that are not agreeable. What makes a game fun is not JUST the most enjoyable elements...it's that those elements are achieved against some resistance. Removing every bit of a game that you find inconvenient makes for a very boring game.

Moreover, how are they even going to PRETEND that they are trying to simulate actual cities without corruption, pollution, and rioting? What will differentiate governments? It's mind bending that they'd even consider losing such core elements....

The same applies to the use of workers. People argue about the nature of a fun game, stating that anything that's not fun should be chucked. Well, let's forget the subjectivity of fun for a moment and look at the nature of games in general.

If you want a simple, fun game, there already are plenty. Go, Chess, checkers, tennis, baseball...hugely abstracted games that get at the base of what is fun. Why doesn't everyone just play baseball instead of the newest FPS on the market? Judged from the bare bones of fun, baseball has everything you'd ever want from a game: conflict, progression, physical involvement. What it lacks is reality. Complexity is its own reward, especially as that complexity mirrors the complexity of real situations.

[hexagonian]

...And we all know that the 'reality' portrayed in civ3 is accurate

Complexity for the sake of complexity is not always good - It's the implimentation of that complexity that determines its value. For instance, automation (letting the computer determine what needs to be built) is not a good workaround because the computer cannot determine just what is important to the player.

A game can be complex, and handle its complexity by streamlined gameplay. Civ3 does not do that. Where is the group command for workers for tile improvement construction. I see one for movement, but not for the actual act of construction???

As it has been pointed out earlier by GePap, civ3 should of copied many of the ingame commands that were in SMAC (multiple build orders for a particular tile, for instance)

Soren's statements actually give me hope that they may actually, and finally, come up with the best version of civ.

(...at least what I draw from that statement is not the elimination of elements such as pollution, rioting, maintenance, corruption/waste, but a revision on how these things are handled. Hopefully they will tone down the corruption from farflung cities that funnel a player into a 'raze city' mindset, revise pollution from the current whack-a-mole setup, revise the frustrating culture-flip model...)

[Mad Bomber]

...And we all know that the 'reality' portrayed in civ3 is accurate

Complexity for the sake of complexity is not always good - It's the implimentation of that complexity that determines its value. For instance, automation (letting the computer determine what needs to be built) is not a good workaround because the computer cannot determine just what is important to the player.

A game can be complex, and handle its complexity by streamlined gameplay. Civ3 does not do that. Where is the group command for workers for tile improvement construction. I see one for movement, but not for the actual act of construction???

As it has been pointed out earlier by GePap, civ3 should of copied many of the ingame commands that were in SMAC (multiple build orders for a particular tile, for instance)

Soren's statements actually give me hope that they may actually, and finally, come up with the best version of civ.

(...at least what I draw from that statement is not the elimination of elements such as pollution, rioting, maintenance, corruption/waste, but a revision on how these things are handled. Hopefully they will tone down the corruption from farflung cities that funnel a player into a 'raze city' mindset, revise pollution from the current whack-a-mole setup, revise the frustrating culture-flip model...)

Some improvements to the worker system would be useful. Ideas such as worker groups (great for pollution, forests, mining ect), governors directing automated workers, multiple build orders, and setting priorities for tile completion would be welcome. What is not welcome is to replace the system entirely. Having the worker as an actual unit adds strategy to the game.

[Fromage10x]

I didn't mean to say that Civ was a perfect representation of reality; I was just trying to illustrate that immitation of reality is the ultimate goal of many civ elements, and that removal of those elements is not progress, but degeneration. Revision I would welcome, but look at the quote. It does not say revise pollution and rioting...it says DROP them. If that doesn't mean that they are not to be included, I don't know what would.