Article: Civilization 4 Review by "Yin26" (Part 2/3)

[Cort Haus]

I wouldn't like workers to be tied to a local city. Forcing every city to build its own worker doesn't sound right. If you want a road, you need workers that can move.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

You have misunderstood what I said. I never said that each city MUST have its own workers-or even that a worker would be 'tied to its city'. I simply meant that, unless 'rebased' to a new city, a worker would be considered to return to its 'home city' upon completion of a terraforming project. By the same token, though, any worker-in any city-can theoretically take part in any terroforming activity.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[yin26]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
On another subject, Yin, your macro-management idea is interesting, but I can't see it applied to a Civ franchise game without being tested in another title first. If there were more TBS games about (ie more TBS players) there might be room for experimenting really new concepts like that without the risk of 'blowing the franchise'.

Like with workers, cities are fun at first, and some players are happy managing big empires, but there are those who might appreciate the interface moving up a level in abstraction at a certain point, so from worker & city management to provincial policy management. It might be interesting, but it wouldn't be Civ as we know it.

You are right, of course. I imagine it's too big a departure for the franchise, but I think a game that figures out an approach like this would really bring some new life to the genre!

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
You have misunderstood what I said. I never said that each city MUST have its own workers-or even that a worker would be 'tied to its city'. I simply meant that, unless 'rebased' to a new city, a worker would be considered to return to its 'home city' upon completion of a terraforming project. By the same token, though, any worker-in any city-can theoretically take part in any terroforming activity.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

OK, I think I understand now. Once a worker had 'based' itself in a city, terraforming could be carried out PW-style without moving the worker around. For building roads towards an enemy, workers could be 'free-range'.

[alveolus]

Looong Lurker
First Post

I agree with the worker tedium and the system drag.

Thos solution could be points

Each worker has 2 points (3 for the fast worker)

Each improvement is worth so many points.

Than its just a function of allocation.

Automation could be by priority of points allocation

1. Maximum points to link
2. If all links, then .....

You could adjust the priority sequence as you see it.


The downside is that an AI could not capture a worker. There could be ways around this.

1. In war and foreign troops in your territory, always a percentage chance that yopu will loose some "worker points"
2. You could allocate points to specific parts of the map or to cities.


On a different note - Yin - the first part of the review pays homage to the Bayseian mathematical approach ro decision making.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Nope, in my model any plot you are terraforming is assumed to have as many workers as you assigned to it in the first place. This means that-if the plot is overrun by an enemy unit-there is a % chance of each unit getting either killed or captured in the process. Also, any plot which is blocked by an enemy unit will obviously not be accessible by certain workers based in certain cities-if that makes sense?

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[Robert]

A solution could be that you can assign some workers to a city and tell which tile improvements you want in that city, including a priority for each tile improvement.

These workers are still vulnarable for attacks from enemies. You can control them if you want. In fact it's a form of better automated worker-use.
You can keep some workers 'free' from automation, and move them yourself. and once in a while you can manage the tiles around a city. A pop-up could occur when all improvements have been made. "4 workers have finished all scheduled improvements for Rome, what do you want them to do next?"

Other nice things to implement is something like resting. Tired workers work slower. Say 100% workers work 100%, every turn they're busy they lose like 4% and every turn they rest they gain 6%. Working in groups may give them a 20% bonus for every additional worker. It must be possible to group them. And it should be possible to include armies for protection, so you get something like a worker-army, not for war-purproses though. You can move them as one unit, untill you de-group them.

It could be that workers work faster for their home-city as well. And if they're better protected. Maybe it should even be possible to specialize workers. Some are better at making roads, others are good at removing jungle, etc. In example, every time a worker finishes a road-tile, it gets a +5% road building specialiation. Same with chopping forests, building farms, etc. etc.

Something totally different could even be that you assign hammers (shields) from a city to the workers working the land around it, to speed the workers up.Ie. every hammer speeds one worker up by 50% This comes at the top of the already available bonusses.

Workers are cool. they're non-war units, it's great that these units are available. civ is not a war-game. There should be more civil units.

[Robert]

And the good thing is that we should be able to mod this all in

[LDiCesare]

I agree with almost every point Yin makes. I wish I had public works and stacked combat. I also agree with many of Aeson's comments, though, when he says "just get to a higher difficulty level". I think I may have to learn more of the game to make good use of civics and, maybe, Golden Ages.
The thing I would really like is stacked combat, like CtP2 or Dominions II (give orders to your troops before the battle, and see how they implement orders without being able to actually affect the game - this is great for TBS games, particularly with simultaneous moves).
I think that diplomacy hasn't been spoken much of in the review, though. How do you evaluate it, yin?

[kittenOFchaos]

Rubbish review.

Ignores vast swaths of the game that are positive developments and concentrates too much on "performance issues" which didn't even affect him.

Reading that review you'd think very little has changed and that the game is completely miserable and does not work on most machines.

A good review gives a concise overview of the game, what you get to do, if a sequel it introduces the main new changes and then evaluates. A good review will then put the game in perspective against the past games and the competition and suggests what could have been done better. I also should throw in jokes about beards and such to be amusing.


The review was not interesting to read, present the game in any way shape of form in a concise and simple to understand manner that someone new to the genre or just CivIV could take in and had no beard jokes.

Pathetic!

Part III better be good

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by yin26
I wish more players would take the time to do reviews.

I intend to write a review soon from a mainly Civ 3 players perspective, with a focus on gameplay and mechanics.

The areas I'd like to cover include leader traits, technology, build mechanics, terrain development, combat, economic model, specialists, religion, city specialisation, civics, national wonders, AI behaviour and diplomacy.

That's 13 subjects for starters, and there are probably a few more. So Yin is right to say that there's a lot of work needed to cover all bases, but that is itself is a function of the amount of change introduced in this version. It would be a shame for anyone to read a review which left them with the impression that not much has really changed, when it evidently has changed a lot.

[Jeje2]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
It would be a shame for anyone to read a review which left them with the impression that not much has really changed, when it evidently has changed a lot.

[joke]
New coach on his first pressconference
The previous coach lead this team to the edge of a high cliff, but rest assured under my command we have already taken a huge step forward [/joke]

So saying that much has changed doesn't conclude a lot... maybe it's even better to say nothing

[Jeje2]

Yin or somebody: two questions
(A friend showed me Civ4 for five minutes today - first time IRL seen)

1. Is it possible to get the GRID visible? (I want the grid I WANT I WANT!!!)
2. Tech three: How is it, from steal you can research railroad, but is steam engine compulsory or NOT? (Steam engine is in the railroad tech box top right corner)

[Jaybe]

Grid is toggled with Ctrl-T (for tiles)
Railroad requires both steel & steam engine. Techs in the top-right corner are requirements, then you need at least one of the linked lines.

[Jeje2]

Originally posted by Jaybe
Grid is toggled with Ctrl-T (for tiles)

Are you sure - we tried that one imediately with no success.

Railroad requires both steel & steam engine. Techs in the top-right corner are requirements, then you need at least one of the linked lines.

OK - now I get it