Micromanagment OR NOT??

[Ferdi]

I have read many posts in this forum and a question always come to my mind.
How many of us like micromanagment and how many don't?
I think this question might be important but I bet that the response is balanced to 50% of people against micromanagment.

As for me, I dislike all sort of micromanamgment. What's your opinion?

[Darkstar]

I dislike it, but it's just part of the formula. We all have our own playstyles, and that's USUALLY not in step with the computers, even where there is automation available (like SMAC).

So, I think we'll still have humogous amounts of micromanagement. And that's better then NOT being able to micromanage... after all, we want control of our empire, to do things OUR way.

-Darkstarr

[Ferdi]

Yes, it's better to have an opportunity to micromanage but I'd rather not to be bound to! Now that's the case in all civ like games I've played, just because automation systems were wrong or non-existant.
We would be able to program some actions triggered by this or that event, thus avoiding to have to scan each city each turn to do something. A game like civ become quickly annoying if you have to repeat the same little action more and more again.

[Urban Ranger]

I agree with Ferdi.

For those who likes micromanagement, they have the option to do so.

For those who don't, facilities should be in place to aid automation.

[Qilue]

Perhaps a terraform queue.
eg
irrigate
build road
move N
build mine
build road
move NE

With the option of unit stacking available to do this faster and automated unit stacks available too.

[The Joker]

I think there should be significant disadvantages of having a large "Civ-type" civilization, meaning that smaller ones with perhabs 20 cities should be better. In such a civ it wouldn't be as annoying to be nurcering your cities. Although I still think there should be more automation in the game. I would really like a working automated formers system, which worked together with the cities to move workers to the squares that had just been irrigated. I would like just to build formers (/engineers, whatever) and then think no more of that.

I would also like less micromanagement and more macromanagement. I think that in Civ-games your more rule a bunch of individual cities in stead of a civilization. The only macromanagement is when you change SE settings once in a while, and when you talk with another Civ-leader. I would like far more extended diplomacy and SE, and more civ-wide actions to take, and then have the AI take care of some small matters.

[Ari Rahikkala]

What about Clash of Civilizations style? If I understood it right, player can micromanage as much as he wants, but if he doesn't want to micromanage, the game does it for him.

[SWPIGWANG]

I WANT
User Programable automation

With a system like that, everyone should be happy
It would be even better if the queue/langrage used can be made into packs people can download.......

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm the different one here. I LOVE micromanagment! However, in some respects I think macromanagment is better (like in building of improvements, etc).

[War4ever]

i agree with the above as i am a lousy micromanager..... every game i lost out on thousands of beakers and shields because i forget to look at cities or i am afraid of takingtoo long in MP.... although i am getting better and it is helping out my advantage. Automation is good for some people and the option is important but even someone who hates micromanagement like myself would probably not use it much

------------------
They call me Mr. Fierce

[Dobermann]

I like the found "complete" cities idea Utrecht..just so you know
perhaps with customizable city imp.
temple+marketplace+barracs+3 riflemen
temple+marketplace+library+barracs+citywall+1 mech inf.

Of course someone is going to complain...(hey how will you be able to build a city with all that in a turn when it takes like uh 20 in the ancient age)...sigh

[Darkstar]

I always thought it was silly having to tell a city to build a market, bank, or temple, for example, especially in modern to futuristic times. I mean, if you have any merchants about, they are going to want a market. Whereever they get together to sell their stuff (well, to trade between them and what not), IS going to become the market. Bankers are going to want to branch out (more profits). And people will build temples, whether you, the state, sponsor them or not (especially in places where the common citizen has more personal freedoms then early tryanies). That sort of thing bugs me.

In the beginning, when you have the people tightly controlled, and they are tightly focused on whatever it is they are doing, I can understand. But in 1950, in a democracy? Come on...

-Darkstarr

[Utrecht]

Darkstar,

You are right in the black and white sense that no American President is going to tell the City of Hoboken to build a library.

However, you could look at it another way. You as a leader give Tax credits to Hoboken to improve literac. Hoboken takes it an pop out comes a library.

Doberman, I think that many of those complaints of anchient build times vs. modern build times can be understood though modern construction practices and their superiority to older ones. After all it used to take 10-20 years to raise a cathedral in the dark ages, but 1-2 years today.


[This message has been edited by Utrecht (edited January 03, 2000).]

[Biddles]

I like micromanagement to an extent. But what I would like to see is a customised build queue that can be saved and used in multiple cities. Especially in the late game i get sick of having to finish production of fusion lab, build quantum lab, build psi gate.. when all I am doing is the same queue over and over. When you get 50 + cities you end up spending 10 minutes a turn changing production.

I like being able to micromanage as much as possible, but I don't like pointless repetition.


------------------
- Biddles

"Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission

[Utrecht]

It really depends.

Mostly on the repatative nature of the tasks.

Examples of this:

In Mastore of Orion (1 and 2) I would simply destroy the planet rather than conquering it because I did not want to have to deal with the management of the plant. However, I very much enjoyed the expansion of the first hundred turns.

Civilization: After about the first 20 or so cities, I stoped building because the creation and growth of them became boring. However in the early game, the micromanagement was fun.

Early game: Micromanagement = fun
Mid game: = Chore
Late Game = BORING.

So perhaps a better question is what changes to make micromanagement less "fun". Obviosly the early game ius focused on creating a stable source of income (both knowledge and coin).

Mid game is more of a consolidation of position and the beginnings of offensive. This is where the majority of games are realy won or lost. The switch to military focus has begun.

Late Game: Simply staving off the inevitable or mopping up. Almost entirely military based.

Some solutions:

Be able to found more "complete" cities. I never understood the need to build a temple in a city in 1900. This means that the costs of a city founding in late game goes up or there are certain technology gates that once passed, raises the default buildings built in a city.

As suggeseted above an robust custimized build order for all cities. In my opinion this some what workable, but unfortunately is unable to react to changing needs quick enough.

I am sure there are others, but they make the growth of cities "fun" almost a roleplaying type experience and I do not believe that Wonders are sufficient to this purpose.