Micromanagment OR NOT??

[Slingshot]

It is surprising to see how few Apolytoners chose the 'No!' option.

The poll results make me think that people want CivIII to be more an extension of CivII than a radical new generation of the Civ tradition.

[Slingshot]

On a (slightly) different topic... Poor DanQ/MarkG!

It would be great if some Firaxian threw them a CivIII bone from time to time. It's been such a slow news month, I'm worried about seeing something like:

April 22 - This just in! Sid Meier scratches his arse. Read all about this most recent development in the CivIII section. Post your comments here...

[Gord McLeod]

quote: Originally posted by Slingshot on 04-21-2000 09:22 PM It is surprising to see how few Apolytoners chose the 'No!' option. The poll results make me think that people want CivIII to be more an extension of CivII than a radical new generation of the Civ tradition.

That's funny... the results make perfect sense to me. I'm betting the vast number of 'Give me automation options!' voters represent both the 'Yes' and the 'No' camp. I myself voted that way because I love micromanagement, but there are times I don't want to be bothered with it and don't want to be prevented from being able to do it. Automation *options* give you the best of both worlds.

[MarkG]

quote: Originally posted by Slingshot on 04-21-2000 09:26 PM On a (slightly) different topic... Poor DanQ/MarkG!

hehe, we(Dan and I) should probably not complain. We had a great period before, geting huge news and mostly posting about them or having them exclusive, starting from the ctp2 announcement, to brian reynolds and later bhg, and then to sid's message. Not to mention the 4 interviews we posted during March(Tim Train, Phil Sulak and Brad Oliver, and Steve Mariotti)

[Gearyman]

I'm not surprised at the poll results. In fact, I think it acurately shows what gamers want--the ability to change every little detail when they want, but if they choose not to change it, they do not have to.

SMAC did that with the workshop idea, where you could modify your units if you wanted to, but if you didn't, the game did it for you.

If Civ III could have the option to micromanage, but smart non-microcomanagement (this includes smarter automation for units), the best of both worlds could be achieved.

[Diodorus Sicilus]

"One man's Micromanagement is precisely what the next guy most enjoys doing in the game."

I posted something similar to that saying months ago in the "Suggestions to Firaxis" threads, and nothing has changed since - in fact, the current thread reinforces it.
As long as Civ is a competition game, either between people or between a person and the computer, and as long a person can do a better job of decision-making and planning than a computer/AI can, people will micromanage in the game. Period.
As for making an AI that can "micro" manage as well as a person in Civ, note that Chess has only two sides, 64 tiles of only two types, 16 units on a side of 6 different types, and it took how long and how much $$$ to develop Big Blue? Multiply Chess's complexity by about 8 orders of magnitude (terrain types, number of tiles, number of units, types of units, diplomacy, development, research, etc, etc) and then try to develop a competitive AI - but don't expect to play it on this or the next generation of home computers!
So, we are reduced to "automating" the micromanagement. This, from all the discussion so far, comes down to managing the individual cities in your Civ - civ-wide research and taxaton aren't a problem since they are Civ-wide.
The problem with grouping cities into Regions is that there weren't no such thing until mass rapid transportation was available - either a group of cities had to be connected by river-canal-sea or by railroads. No road traffic could carry bulk goods any distance with animal motive power, so Regions before the railroad will be mostly riverine or coastal - and damn hard to define except in terms of trade routes established.
Automating individual city builds, and especially starting queues, runs into the problem that individual city start-ups vary with the requirements of the citizens: a city in the desert needs water systems first, in hostile territory they need defenses, over the ocean needs a port first, etc. For an extreme example, the Romano-German city of Aquieas Mattiacus (modern Wiesbaden on the Rhine) started with a set of hot bath spas, to entice Romans and their money and goods across the river! How to you automate that kind of thing?

Programmable Defaults are another thing, and should be added to any game...
Multiple Build Queues is long overdue, but why tie it to a specific number? The bigger the city, and the more facilities for production it has, the more "simultaneous Builds" it should get. At the same time, by building only one thing (Priority?) it should be able to concentrate resources for a "Rush Job" - within reason.
I'd have the number of possible simultaneous builds be dependant on the size of the city (assuming lots of little workshops or industries as a % of the population), certain special Improvements (Shipyards, Barracks, Factories, etc), and possibly on the Social-Political organization of the civ. The last is based on the premise that a Militaristic society will produce more military units than a democratic-peaceful capitalistic one, which would, however, produce more wealth and happiness producing Improvements faster.
Which brings up "automatic" infrastructure for a city. I think this should be based squarely on the Social-Political structure and the requirements of terrain and surroundings. Thus, a city across the ocean from the Capital will start with a Stockade/City Wall and a Port. A city of a capitalist-Democratic civ will build a Market first, while a Theocracy will build a Temple first, etc. For player interaction, you can change the auto-builds, but building anything else first would cost more: the automatic-socially-generated builds would be very cheap for that particular civ.
Finally, why should only the resources of a single city be used to build a Civ-wide Wonder? I know right now in CivII I can use Caravans to add resources to a Wonder build, but such a project should automatically receive resources from other cities in the civ. The amount should vary depending on transportation technology and location (can it be shipped in by sea, river, or canal) and by the requirements of the civ-society: an economic Wonder would attract extra resources in a capitalist civ, a religious Wonder in a Theocracy, a military Wonder in a civ which is militaristic, or is getting butt-whipped in a war...

Anyway, there are my semi-random additions to micromanagement - you'll never get it out of a game, because most of us Want To Win, but the Option to avoid as much of it as you want should be added to Civ.