POLL 20: Settlers vs Public Works

[MrFun]

This entire thread is meaningless now since it looks like Firaxis has decided to stay with using Workers for tile improvement.

------------------
Never submit to social double standards.

[Theben]

Activision may have a copyright on public works, and I haven't seen any indication that Firaxis will use it. So what we need is an improved auto-worker function.

1st off we need to be able to customize the priorities of the worker, preferably in-game, for each tile and each tile improvement. FE, on a plains square the priority might be: 1-irrigate, 2-road, 3- RRoad, 4-farm, while a grassland square would have 1-road, 2-irrigate, etc. Modifiers would be necessary for the various govt types or SE factors, depending on which is used. FE, in the example above, irrigation would be flagged off in despotism.

There would also need to be one for the AI. This one should NOT be in-game, but only in a .txt file.

Then the player should be able to drag a box, or select specific squares, for the worker to auto-improve. Perhaps even assigning which tiles to work 1st, 2nd, etc.

And the player should be able to assign (a) specific tile improvement(s) to be done over an area or a given path. This would be mainly necessary for road & RRoad construction.

Lastly, ALL improvements should be performed after all other units have gone or waited, to allow the player to get to any workers auto-stumbling into an enemy army!

[Cyclotron]

quote: In civ2 I've got to move my entire heard of emgineers over to the west cost - and if I don't have railroads or roads out there yet - this just isn't happening. Control - under PW, I build what I want when I want it as long as I have the funding. Flexibility - if I deside that the east coast is up to snuff while the west coast needs to be improved, I do this instantly without 80 years of redeployment.

If I was in this situation, I would either rush buy engineers on the west coast. If I establish a tiny city on a foreign coast with PW, they won't have skilled engineers, miners, railroad directors, and all the other skilled tradespeople it takes to build infastructure. I need to send skilled work crews over to develop this new territory. Theoretically, under your defenition of control, you would have even more control if improvements are free. So why not do that if you want control? What exactly do you define as control and flexibility?

------------------
"Third option, third option!"
Let's have civ bonuses that YOU control!

[Chronus]

"Control and flexibility"

Hmmmm. The problem I have with this is that it nibbles away at the idea of logistics. With settlers, you have to deal a bit more with logistics which I find more realistic and enjoyable. If you make a mistake with your settler, you pay for it. I don't want my civ (or the others) to have some quick, easy-fix way of undoing their mistakes.

"In civ2 I've got to move my entire heard of emgineers over to the west cost"

The ENTIRE herd? When we had a bunch of fires out here in the west, we wouldn't consider sending our ENTIRE fire fighting force to assist the other states. I usually keep my settlers near their home cities and send them far away only for crucial situations (and even then, it's still not my entire settler force).

"and if I don't have railroads or roads out there yet - this just isn't happening."

You now have engineers and your cities are STILL not connected by at least a road? Now who's fault is that? I see this as more proof about the concept of logistics. PW allows you to quickly fix years of poor planning - unrealistic, unstrategic, unfun (to me, anyway).

"Under PW, like in real life, I fund/subsidize Union Pacific, AT&T, or ADM to build a transcontinental railroad, telephone system, or farm. I can do what I want, I can switch strategies quickly - control and flexibility"

WOW! New Orleans must really have its act together! ;-)

All kidding aside, large scale construction takes much time and planning. Switching strategies can be done, but doing so mid-stream is COSTLY and time consuming. Settlers reflect this better than PW.

"I do this instantly without 80 years of redeployment"

I agree with many people's argument about the time scale. However, if you are going to grumble about how long it takes to move the setter to its destination, etc. then your complaint is with the movement of any units, not to mention their construction, or the construction of city improvements.

We are all aware of the fact that the time scale (even when down to 1 year per turn) is just too long a length of time. Instead of changing everything to fit a more realistic time scale, change the time scale to more realistically match the gameplay. Or better yet, IMAGINE the time scale as something different. In the ending turns of my games, I like to picture each turn as a month. Obviously, this doesn't work with everything, but it's better than letting it bug me.

[Pedrun]

You have a point Mister Pleasant, but still i think the PW should be change for money. With settler or without settler.

In response to cyclotron:

Control and flexibility: I have a small army of engineers improving the Northeastern Seaboard. But growth in New York and Boston has stalled out until I build a sewer system. But Los Angeles and San Francisco on the west coast will boom with only a little irigation and a few roads (a mine or two wouldn't hurt either). SO . . .

In civ2 I've got to move my entire heard of emgineers over to the west cost - and if I don't have railroads or roads out there yet - this just isn't happening. Control - under PW, I build what I want when I want it as long as I have the funding. Flexibility - if I deside that the east coast is up to snuff while the west coast needs to be improved, I do this instantly without 80 years of redeployment. Under the settler system, I feel hemmed in by the limitation of moving units around. Under PW, like in real life, I fund/subsidize Union Pacific, AT&T, or ADM to build a transcontinental railroad, telephone system, or farm. I can do what I want, I can switch strategies quickly - control and flexibility. And PW is not "stuff falling from the sky", it is merely one possible way of modeling the world.

As to building a road outside your territory, when is the last time you saw a Mexican road crew building highways in Texas, or an American road crew building an interstate in British Colombia? But if you allow civs to trade PW in negotiations, you can simulate a Marshall Plan where allies provide funds and resources to rebuild infrastructure, or foriegn aid in general.

Frankly though, I've been convinced that buying tile improvements with gold is the way to go now. Maybe I'll write my own game. (and maybe Manson will get parole)
[This message has been edited by Mister Pleasant (edited May 14, 2001).]

[Cyclotron]

quote: As for "feeling like your building an empire", I feel like I'm building an empire either way. Quit being so fussy. And raingoon, I don't think gameplay suffers under PW, its just different. But this is a personal/subjective call. But let me ask you, if PW was a "Sid idea", then would you like it?

No, I wouldn't. A "sid idea" is the same as a regular idea: when it sucks, it sucks, and that's all there is to it. Sid is intelligent, and very good at what he does, but he is quite human and he is not my god.

quote: As for what PW adds, I feel it adds greater control and flexibility over the development of my empire as well as improving management of development. Let me ask you, what does a worker system add?

Well, let's see.

First, let's go over what you said PW adds.

"PW adds greater control." More than the settler system? I don't think so. If anything, the settler system allows you more control because you can build stuff anywhere without a long line of roads.

"PW adds flexibility." That doesn't make any sense. PW is a system of pointing to a tile and placing the improvement. The settler system accomplishes the same thing... production creates tile improvemnts. How could either one be more flexible?

"What does a worker system add?" A worker system creates more strategic choices. For instance, you can stop the construction of a fortress by preventing settlers from getting there with military units. With PW, there is no way to actually prevent a person from starting construction. A settler system also adds more choices. If you need to quickly build a fortress to help your retreating forces make a stand, do you run the settlers through the well-traveled plains (a quicker route, but more dangerous enemy patrols that could waylay your workers) or hike through the nearby mountain chain (takes longer, but better defense from enemy units and less enemy patrols)? In a sentence, settlers add more strategic depth.

Satisfied?

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "The Rajah of Resources"

[The Rusty Gamer]

This Settlers vs Public Works thing, could perhaps be settled by allowing both? Perhaps whether you use settlers or public works or some combination thereof could simply depend on one or more of the following:
1. Which civilization you are playing. Different civilizations can think in completely different ways and have different approaches to doing things.
2. Your current government type
3. Which technological age you are in

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by Mister Pleasant on 05-13-2001 02:16 PM To all of those who say PW was unrealistic, here's a question: How realistic is it for 10,000 people to spend 50 years building a road?

OK then, how about this one:
How realistic is it that 10,000 people can grow to 10 miljon within a couple of game-play hours?

Well, the answer my friend, is that it is all about abstract & symbolic thinking. A computer-game is after all only a computer-game, and real-life is real-life. Theres a difference.

I have read somewhere that those who analyzes humor, is those who dont have any. Maybe one likewise shouldnt analyze the realism in strategy-games too much either. Perhaps one tend to forget having fun if one do that too much.

To all of those who say PW was unrealistic, here's a question:
How realistic is it for 10,000 people to spend 50 years building a road?

Don't have an answer do you? I didn't think so.
PW represents the amount of resourses diverted from the market to build infrastructure. In real life, these represent road crews, linemen, maybe even subsidies and incentives for the private sector to build farms and mines. As for realism, I hate to break it to you, but when ADM wants to build a farm in real life, the US government does not commision a worker unit to build one for them. So don't give me these realism arguments against PW, because worker units are more detached from the world.

As for "feeling like your building an empire", I feel like I'm building an empire either way. Quit being so fussy. And raingoon, I don't think gameplay suffers under PW, its just different. But this is a personal/subjective call. But let me ask you, if PW was a "Sid idea", then would you like it? As for what PW adds, I feel it adds greater control and flexibility over the development of my empire as well as improving management of development. Let me ask you, what does a worker system add?

Actually, outright buying improvements from a menu (ala CTP) with gold is not a bad idea. Sound like the most realistic solution yet. After all, the US government subsidises (i.e. spends gold) individuals and corporations to build farms. Money can be stored up, labor cannot. Maybe for civ4. Or maybe another non-firaxis company will try it in their knockoff.

[meriadoc]

I've already said that I prefer a pblic-works based tile improvement system. However, most people seem to prefer a settler based system, and after playing Civ2 again recently, I really don't mind it either. However, I think that for Civ3 I'd prefer not to have to use a unit to upgrade the land. Mostly the only problem that I have with using a unit is that I have to move the thing, and I have problems remembering which of my identical workers are going where. So how about this for an idea:

Like the caravans in CTP, you build a worker unit. This unit then, instead of becoming a real unit, goes into a pool of workers waiting to be used. When I want to upgrade something, I simply decide what tile to upgrade and a worker is temporarily removed from the pool and used to upgrade the tile. This can even be used along with a real worker so that you get the best of both worlds - real units when you want them but less micromanagement when you want that.

------------------
The Electronic Hobbit

[Sava]

I'd like to see a public works, but, like the trade in CTP, you would only be able to do as much work as your labor force allows. This is how things get done in real life. I'm strongly against using settlers because settlers know two things about urban planning: jack and sh*t, and jack left town.

Plus it seems to take 10,000 people (a settlers unit) 20 years (the year increment in Civ2 during BC) to build a road over a 100 mile stretch. Even in ancient times, massive stretches of roads were built in a short time. And the Engineers unit made it worse. The Transcontinental Rail system was built in less than five years, yet it takes almost 5 years to build one section of track in Civ2.

I think using a labor force based public works system is the way to go. During depressions and such, the labor force would be greater due to the unemployment.

Farms and irrigation should be created automatically by the computer based on the needs of the people. Roads, mines, rail, etc should be the job of the public works.
[This message has been edited by SoulAssassin (edited May 11, 2001).]

[Cyclotron]

I think that tile impovements should gost money, but still use the settler system. It's just better that way, and it makes sure people don't abuse massed settlers.

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

[Grumbold]

If you have an army of workers then you have probably already won the game but are just riding out the endgame to maximise your score. Paying gold to make improvements forming the bulk of the cost rather than the upkeep of the unit itself is a better idea. The worker unit certainly should not need food support now it has been divorced from the settler so some additional cost is required to discourage massive overuse. Few players would create or level mountains if they cost as much as a rushed battleship.

[Seeker]

That's a good idea. Already we know in Civ3 it will cost money to support units instead of shields, so why not you have to pay for your settler to build a terrain improvement? maybe 25 gold for a road, 800 gold for a railroaded mine on a gold mountain...