Settlers/Engineers vs. Public Works

[Odin]

What do you think Civ3 should have; settlers making improvements(civ1&2), or a public works tax on production(CTP1&2)???

[David James]

I have to say that I kind of like both...

I would say that physical installations, such as fortresses, listening posts and airbases should be built by units - and I'd be fine with certain military units being able to do that, such as infantry (phalanxes, legions, pikemen, marines, etc). Engineers would be able to build twice as fast though.

Strict tile improvements such as fields/irrigation, mining and fisheries are well implemented with the PW system - and it does make a bit more sense than setting settlers out to do that I feel. Setting up new colonies on distant islands and having to send two settlers always annoyed me as the second settler could be turned into a new city instead. PW makes more sense as it is more like taxing your citizens and then paying them to go out and improve the land. I'd do away with the CtP notion of having to spend the entire amount to build an advanced farm when there's already a field there though - the cost of the field should be subtracted from the cost of the advanced farm if one is already there (or a field could be made a prereq as in Civ2, but I personally prefer the CtP implementation of being able to skip right over that).

However roads and rails present a bit of a problem as we know very well that roads were built by the Roman legions yet they're not strictly an installation either. One could argue that it comes down to whether or not the city derives any benefit from road construction - in Civ2 they clearly do (trade arrows) but in CtP it was set up so that there was no trade benefit from roads, which kind of galled me when I found out that all my roads weren't producing any cash benefits (though that can be "fixed" in the game files). On the other hand the military clearly benefits from a road infrastructure for reasons we're all familiar with. So perhaps it should be made possible to build roads and rails (and tunnels/monorails) either way, which is not a bad compromise and is in keeping with historical precedent as well - the military were not the only ones to build roads, but they sure were the only ones to build fortresses, etc. whilst they never built farms (at least not while on active duty).

Oh, and I would like to see a new type of installation - a seaport or harbour or drydock of some sort that could be build along a coast for ships to take refuge in to recover from battle and made available in the age of sail sometime (a la Gibraltar etc). It could be combined with a fort and later an airbase, and it couldn't be built beside another port so as to prevent it from becoming an excessively quick and easy method of canal building across continents - a movement rate halting like an airbase might help to quell that sort of nonsense as well. But I don't expect this idea to become reality...
(come to think of it - not allowing airbases to be built directly beside each other would prevent human players from building airbase walls as a cheap shield against nukes and air attacks as well)

Of course installations could be built anywhere in the world (as in Civ2) and not just on the end of a road as in CtP (or so it seems so far - I just got the game a few weeks ago for dirt cheap).

Ok, I think that's about all I have to say for the moment on the subject.

------------------
Yes, as a matter of fact, going to Queen's does make me better than you.
[This message has been edited by David James (edited February 09, 2001).]

[DarkCloud]

Having both and implementing them would be a good idea, you use
the public work money to buy the improvment and then the settler
improves them.

But this would make you pay for the improvement twice and so it
would be better just to have public works, but Civ III probably wont
use public works as that is a CtP idea and is thus copyrighted.

[wittlich]

Darkcloud, you're probably right that Activision has "public works" copywrited...However, the principle of public works could still be used - just call it by a different name, like "city services" and if Frixis combines both the public works concept with the settler work concept, the end result would be different from CTP's basic public works concept so there shouldn't be any copywrite infringement.

Any how, I may be out in left field on this, but that's how I see it.

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by wittlich on 02-15-2001 01:33 PM Darkcloud, you're probably right that Activision has "public works" copywrited...

Good! I never thought of that.
Let Activision keep their bad-selling non-awarded CTP-games for themselves, including the design-solutions as well.

quote: However, the principle of public works could still be used - just call it by a different name, like "city services" and if Frixis combines both the public works concept with the settler work concept, the end result would be different from CTP's basic public works concept so there shouldn't be any copywrite infringement.

.

Well, lets hope not.
I dont want to loose that ingenious clickable city-area view we had in Civ-2/SMAC. Improve it - yes, but DONT replace it.

[monolith94]

Nah - settlers kick the public works system's butt!

[Grumbold]

I like building with settlers because they always let you know when they are ready for a new job and can always start the next one immediately. PW is a more realistic approach, though, than building a settler in 3,000 BC and have it work for 5,000 years for the cost of a few food. In both systems the level of transformation possible in the later game seems too large. Railway networks do not spring up overnight and entire mountain ranges do not get levelled in a year or two. Put enough engineers or PW on the job and that is all too possible in Civ games.

[Chuckles]

I'm pretty happy with the public works model in CTP. Except that I also hate that you don't get any credit when upgrading existing terrain improvements. That's just dumb.

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by Chuckles on 02-17-2001 06:22 PM I'm pretty happy with the public works model in CTP. Except that I also hate that you don't get any credit when upgrading existing terrain improvements. That's just dumb.

This is exactly what I hate with Public Works system! That ingenious clickable city-area view is carelessly scrapped under the pre-text of "streamlining the interface" by meddlesome CTP game-designers.
The result? You upgrade a city-area terrain-tile, but you dont have the foggiest how that upgrade actually adds to the overall city-output. That vital and important (but often underestimated) game-mechanical chain between user-inputs and game-outputs gets lost in the process.

The player feels that he doesnt "get any credit" for this or that upgrade. The same criticism can be aimed against the "expanding city-areas" concept as well.

[Sabre2th]

Personally, I liked the PW system better, but I'll buy it and love it either way.

------------------
"We don't know a millionth of one percent about anything."
-Thomas A. Edison

[Sabre2th]

quote: Originally posted by Sabre2th on 02-17-2001 09:51 PM Personally, I liked the PW system better, but I'll buy it and love it either way.

I probably shouldn't say this, just in case it turns out to be like ctp.

------------------
"We don't know a millionth of one percent about anything."
-Thomas A. Edison

[Urban Ranger]

Pay for the ability with PW and have engineer units doing the actual work.

PW represents the funds, material, etc. while the units represent the actual people doing the work.

Ralf,

IIRC, you can actually see who works the various areas within the city radius and re-assign your workers. It's not simple and straightforward, though.

[Sabre2th]

That might be a bit more realistic, Ranger, but I think it would make it more complicated than it needs to be.

------------------
"We don't know a millionth of one percent about anything."
-Thomas A. Edison

[me_irate]

I personally like the idea of both. Public works could be used to build farms and such. But you should also be able to use enginers and settlers to do the job also. But only settlers and later units of the type should be able to change terain. (such as hills to plains). Also the ability to click the map and place works as in Civ. 2 is my most missed ability that is not in CTPII.

[Sean]

The SMAC system also had it's merits. I liked how you didn't have to take a population hit, just to improve terrain. This would also help for those cities that are short on food.