Settlers/Engineers vs. Public Works

[Tiberius]

quote: Originally posted by monolith94 on 02-15-2001 05:22 PM Nah - settlers kick the public works system's butt!

I agree.
I like settlers/engineers much more than PW.

I understand that some people don't want to bother themselves with settlers, caravans, spies, etc, but I don't want Civ3 to become a wargame, with only military units.

While caravans represent the commitment of a player for trade, engineers represent the commitment for development.
For warmongers make some automation options (autosettler or maybe auto PW), but for the rest of us keep the engineers (and the caravans).
[This message has been edited by Tiberius (edited February 21, 2001).]

[Mister Pleasant]

I hate managing herds of units across mountains and plains. BTW:
(1) CTP1 sort of credited previous improvements - building a new improvement on an old only too one turn.
(2) CTP1 was "clickable". CTP2 did lose something by eliminating worker placement. But that's a subject which is agnostic with respect to PW vs. Engineers.
(3)Pathfinding for settlers on autoimprove sucks. Period. Another thread mentioned not using settlers for AI city placement as it disadvantages the AI far too much. Same with poor pathfinding on auto. AI is better off using a public works system so as to avoid pathfinding difficulties.
(4)The fact that activision cannot write an AI or diplomacy systme to save their lives doesn't mean that they did not make significant improvements over civ2. PW was a notable example. I should not have to waste food and loose population to build a unti to build a road (really, does a chain gang or work crew require 10000 people to build a road?). Nor should I have to move 20 to 30 units around the board every turn to improve my civ.
(5) Activision ripped off the whole damn game from Microprose, Firaxis can steal a single concept.
While I will be dissapointed if Civ3 is another settler/engineer/terraformer micromanagement nightmare, give me a decent AI (one that can develop and fight)and all is forgiven. Give me an AI that can use an aircraft carrier and launch a sea invasion and I'll be in heaven.

[Mister Pleasant]

Hmmm, a chain gang unit . . .
Will there be a George W. AI personality type?

[Tiberius]

quote: Originally posted by Mister Pleasant on 02-21-2001 03:04 AM I hate managing herds of units across mountains and plains.

But you don't hate managing herds of military units, right? Well, Civ is not a wargame, and I pray to Firaxis to keep the civilian units, too.

quote: I should not have to waste food and loose population to build a road (really, does a chain gang or work crew require 10000 people to build a road).

You have right here, but separating settlers (city founding, reduces population) from engineers (TI building, cost shields) could improve the system (SMAC has done this already with colony pods/formers).

[This message has been edited by Tiberius (edited February 21, 2001).]

[Adm.Naismith]

Tiberius, I don't want Civ wide model "reduced" to a wargame.
I want a game that use units where units are more appropriate, e.g. more efficient, more pratical, more funny.

Defend my empire by raw numbers screen, not by units, is not funny. Chess too has units! (Without ranking, supply line...)

Having to use an engineer to build a road where I want one is good for me. Having to move workers on square (and check them every other turn) to better use available (inside city radius) resources, well, is not the most funny part of CIV IMHO.

We need a unit to simulate workers exploiting resources outside city radius: SMAC Supply units must be changed a bit (see other thread about satellite cities ) to reproduce villages (I mean rural population for farms, miners and so on), but are a good starting point.

A mix of these PW & Special units can be balanced, not too much micromgmt and a lot of funny. Firaxis team must earn its money here.

Edited for URL reference
------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant
[This message has been edited by Adm.Naismith (edited February 21, 2001).]

[Ted Striker]

Now players, see here we can simplify things for a nice little compromise that makes things real smooth.

1) At the start of the game, you want settlers because you want more units to play with, and not that much is going on, plus micromanagement doesn't really bother you that much at this phase.

2) LATER in the game, you can make Public Works an upgrade or City Improvement, and then won't have to use the settlers anymore. By this time, you're tired of moving all those damn guys around, so anything to reduce micromanagement is a good thing!

The best of both worlds.

[tmarcl]

[quote]Originally posted by derek on 02-21-2001 01:27 PM
Now players, see here we can simplify things for a nice little compromise that makes things real smooth.

1) At the start of the game, you want settlers because you want more units to play with, and not that much is going on, plus micromanagement doesn't really bother you that much at this phase.

2) LATER in the game, you can make Public Works an upgrade or City Improvement, and then won't have to use the settlers anymore. By this time, you're tired of moving all those damn guys around, so anything to reduce micromanagement is a good thing!

A nice compromise, Derek, but it's not real consistent, imo. Also, it kind of makes it more confusing, especially for a novice player to say that at the beginning of the game, you need to build a unit to improve the terrain, but later on, you have to use public works.

My suggestion (which is worth exactly what you've paid for it :-) ) is this:

Auto improvement. In the city screen, you can decide how you want to improve the terrain surrounding your city (you want all squares totally irrigated with roads in each square-for squares where irrigating (sp?) is not allowed, mine it.) Then, during the game, the computer automatically improves it.

For building roads/railroads between cities, use an engineer unit (that doesn't require food, just production like any other unit). For founding new cities, use a settler (that does require food-and the population drop).

This eliminates the micromanagement of units (especially annoying in the later stages of the game), while eliminating the food cost/population drop just to build a mine.

Marc

[Ted Striker]

Naw Marc you misunderstood me. Using the Public Works system later in the game isn't mandatory, it would be an "upgrade." The novice player could use settlers the whole game if he wanted to. The whole point is that the Public Works option becomes available later in the game, but it's not required.

It's something designed to reduce micromanagement late in the game, but only if a player decides he wants it.

[Urban Ranger]

I like the idea of PW since it is one of the things that, when taken together, will give you a feel of managing an empire instead of a collection of cities.

However, I also want to have the ability to transform terrain around a city site before I actually build it.

[Tiberius]

Adm.Naismith, you made some good points (as usual).
But ... (there is always a but, isn't it? )
...the elements that civers found "funny" in Civ differ from player to player. For example, I enjoy very much improving my cities with settlers/engineers, especially in the early stages of the game. I admit it that in the lategame, I find no more fun in micromanaging hundreds of engineers (what a nightmare!).
I agree that Firaxis must find a sollution to avoid this, but not removing completely a part of the game which I enjoy very much (actually with caravans is exactly the same problem).

That's why I find Derek's idea pretty good. I'm not sure that this is the perfect sollution:

quote: - settlers founding cities, require food, loss pop - engineers improving TIs , require shield (production) - later in the game, after a certain discovery, make it possible to use PW (and/or automated PW), but only if you want to

...I also don't know how hard is to implement this, but certainly is an improvement over the current system and its better than totally removing the engineers.

[Biddles]

I liked how in CTP you could build a city and then quickly get the farms and stuff in so the city would grow quicker (Protoss of CTP ). I know you can do that in Civ, but it takes too many settlers to do so. I actually used to save my PW points the turns before the settler was finished, so that I could immediately improve the terrain.

[down th' pub]

If support for Settler/Engineers was VERY high then that could represent the investment in PW. You just have to make more complex improvements more time consuming. Doesn't ctp & civ do that already?
[This message has been edited by down th' pub (edited February 25, 2001).]

[sulla]

I did not like how in Civ I&II that units built every tile improvement, it was a big pain in Civ II to send a slow settler around your emmense empire building roads/railrods. The public works in Ctp I and II were a big improvement, it works better and makes more sense. For example does the government have cities make their own roads to connect them to other cities? No, it builds interstates and highways which the nation as a whole pays for even if the road is only regional. In any central government everyone usually shares the costs of the tile improvements covered in public works even though the effects are almost always local. Therefore public works makes more sense and is easier to use.

------------------
Sulla-The last dictator of Rome before Caesar. He changed Rome and Rome sure as hell changed him.

[Nemo]

One great advantage of a settler is that you could take them to the battle field with you. with PW you cant make a road out side of your boundry...what is that about? by historic presidence i beleive they should keep the settler/engineer because it acts like a unit, as the army/military engineer's have throughout history - they go with the troops consort and expediat the transit and battles. down with PW - keep the engineers!

afterthought: i think activision used PW to try and curb ICS. by having PW instead of settlers they could increase the resources needed to build a settler. But, since i dont like to ICS when i play, i could care less about PW (it was the only signifigance i saw, and to me, it was not enough to outweigh all the troubles it had - like have to build a fort outside your boundry, just to connect a road because your boundry was off my 3 squares or something)
[This message has been edited by Nemo (edited February 26, 2001).]

[Sirotnikov]

I think we could make a compromise:

We have both engineers and PW.
Mostly they don't overlap, but both can build roads.

PW can only build roads in City radius (preferrably growing radius *hint*).

After invention of some cool tech that has something to do with transport, it can build dem roads in all of your country area (the terrain that is yours but isn't city terrain).

Engineer can build road anywhere, so it is used in ancient times to connect distant cities, and in newer times to connect very distant cities or maybe build roads on the war front.

Note: Under no circumstance do I support the removal of engineer units and having only settlers and PW!