If you have to havo to choose, what would you choose.

[Beatie]

Here is something to think about. If your (civ5) empire is being runned with serval people. What part of the game would you prefere to run? Imagine that you play in a team of 6 people, that make decisions on there part of the branch that they run. What do you want to run...

1 City's management
2 Workers management/settlers
3 Land based units and warfare on land
4 Navy and naval warfare
5 Air force and Air warfare.
6 Diplomacy to other countries.(and trade)
7 You forgot something... (tell me)
8 Only trade Banana's

Me als navy lover, voted to control the navy.

[Beatie]

If it's possible to play this way, and make turns go faster because you only have to play a part of the game in a competition to other teams.. there will be a overal leader off course. But I thought everybody wants to be that leader. The leader give global orders, like build more Rifleman, or build more happyness buildings. I thought about this for a long time. I think it could be fun and intresting way of playing a civ game. (i know the interface does not support this kind of game, but this is just hypothetical)

[Brutus66]

I would serve directly beneath the foreign advisor.

Pro tip: when choosing an advisor for your empire, it may not be a good idea to just pick the hottest concubine from your harem.

[pdxsean]

I'd have to pick worker management and settlers. While all of these options are important, I think nothing has the lasting and consistent value for your civ than properly managing the workers.

Although the Air Force sounds awesome, I'd hate to have to wait 4/5 of the game to take part.

[Beatie]

I'd have to pick worker management and settlers. While all of these options are important, I think nothing has the lasting and consistent value for your civ than properly managing the workers.

Although the Air Force sounds awesome, I'd hate to have to wait 4/5 of the game to take part.

hahaha yeah... they wake you soon as they invent something that flyes other then insects

[Wyrda Edocsil]

You forgot the "conductor," for lack of a better word. It's great to have one person performing each task, but, without a leader, without someone to prioritize actions and make final decisions, to pull the individual parts together, each person would be doing the thing that would be best for their small part of the empire's management, ignoring the other parts, ultimately creating chaos and failure for the team as a whole. It's like in an orchestra (hence, "conductor"). The violins might play their part in a style that would be perfect if it were on its own, but that style of playing that part might not sound good with the cellos' or basses' part. A single style and tempo must be decided upon, and each section will want to play in a different style and tempo, which would be the best for their part, on its own. The conductor chooses the best style and tempo for the piece as a whole; they bring the parts together in a way that sounds good.

P.S. Sorry for the run-on sentence. I couldn't think of a better way to state that.

[Beatie]

You forgot the "conductor," for lack of a better word. It's great to have one person performing each task, but, without a leader, without someone to prioritize actions and make final decisions, to pull the individual parts together, each person would be doing the thing that would be best for their small part of the empire's management, ignoring the other parts, ultimately creating chaos and failure for the team as a whole. It's like in an orchestra (hence, "conductor"). The violins might play their part in a style that would be perfect if it were on its own, but that style of playing that part might not sound good with the cellos' or basses' part. A single style and tempo must be decided upon, and each section will want to play in a different style and tempo, which would be the best for their part, on its own. The conductor chooses the best style and tempo for the piece as a whole; they bring the parts together in a way that sounds good.

P.S. Sorry for the run-on sentence. I couldn't think of a better way to state that.

I realize this as well, so I posted the first reply to mention this. you need a leader, someone that give global orders. There are a lot banana votes so everybody does not think this toppic is realy intresing... but still fun to read and talk about.

[rah]

I'd have to pick worker management and settlers. While all of these options are important, I think nothing has the lasting and consistent value for your civ than properly managing the workers.

Considering that I disband all my workers in the mid-game to avoid the horrific unit maint., this could get kinda boring.

[Beatie]

Considering that I disband all my workers in the mid-game to avoid the horrific unit maint., this could get kinda boring.

True, but everybody in the team should also give advise to the leader from time to time. Funny that more people like the idea it seems. Perhaps something in Civ6.. a new kind of MP game! Every civilization got 6 human players and a overal leader to take control. Players with nothing to do should be able to take other parts of the game in a certain area. The leader should also devide the work so that your main task is just a basic task... So if your air force leader your could be given some other things to do. If aviation is not inventent yet

Hehehe it give a more realistic "Give me more soldiers nobele leader..." from civ2 to the game spoken by humans of flesh and blood.

[Zoetstofzoetje]

there was a C&C game a long time ago which did something like this. i beta tested it, don't think it ever left that stage. the idea was that everyone had one unit or task. didn't work, not enough cooperation.

[Beatie]

there was a C&C game a long time ago which did something like this. i beta tested it, don't think it ever left that stage. the idea was that everyone had one unit or task. didn't work, not enough cooperation.

Civ a total different game than C&C. in civ you can give somebody something to do. Controling workers for example does take away work load for the that civ. Same goes for navy units. Only one player got control over a convoy and the others control other parts of the map. I think it can work! Meaby a system that the leader can give other things to do. So that you can team up with lets say 3 people or more. I understand that in a stress game like C&C something like this does not work. But in our great TBS game is a whole different story.

[jobe]

Worker micro Civ4 style ftw!

[Beatie]

Worker micro Civ4 style ftw!

Firaxis, did you read this forum? People seems to love to management the workers. Give them more to do!!! rembember CTP series? You have farmland, improved farmland, mine, improved mine... ect ect. So simple to put in the game, and so fun! Inventions give your workers more work. And it also makes sense. Farmland in the past was a different story then now. Same as mines. The latest coal mine goes on the surface for example. I loved workers in civ4 as well. stack them, and let create a settler, and in no time you got yourself a city ready to grow quickly.

[Zoetstofzoetje]

well, if you really want to try something like this you'll have to create a meta-mod. you'll have to find a good programmer that can hook into the game's active database. if you can read that, you can dissipate that data to a variety of players. the 'server' in this hub-spoke configuration accepts or denies entries, based on permissions. it's possible, but you're looking at a manyear of work and testing.

for me, this would be boring. civ is fun because of the differing layers coming together, requiring coordination. i don't want to be the donkey micromanaging something for somebody else. how do you like them bananas?

[pdxsean]

Considering that I disband all my workers in the mid-game to avoid the horrific unit maint., this could get kinda boring.

Yeah, but I still think workers end up with more net moves than any other aspect outlined by OP. Possibly military, if you're going for a conquest victory or something, but in a non-violent game the workers still get plenty of action.