Announcement

**Ralf** · April 16, 2001, 16:31

quote:

Originally posted by MarkG on 04-16-2001 01:33 PM
so the fact that auto-settlers run around like... lemmings doing nothing is a game rule??????

Have i said that? Artificial intelligence has its very specific built-in limitations in any large random-map multi-optional game like Civ, whether one understand this or not. If the public-works system where such a wonder-recipe for a strong AI, why wasnt the AI in the CTP-2 game that god then?

Seriously speaking; if the AI is good or bad has nothing to do with if the human player use the settler-system or the public works-system. I advocate the settler-system because I like it better seen from a human player point of view. But I sure as hell dont advocate it for the AI-civs.
Maybe they can use AI-settlers though, if best possible AI-city placement "beacons" (invisible for the human player) have already been pre-calculated in conjunction the the random map-generation. Infact, they can even have visible city-area AI-workers, as long as the real work is done by some kind of tweakable AI-owned terrain-tile maturing-process. I sure hope so - otherwise we can say goodby to any hope of a noticeably stronger strategical/logistical AI in Civ-3.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited April 16, 2001).]

**MarkG** · April 16, 2001, 17:41

1) when i spoke about deficiencies i was referring to badly fucntioning auto-workers. when you responded a "general level" talking about game rules, i replied to that...

2) i never connected PW with a strong AI. on the contrary, PW doesnt need any fuctions to move settlers around, it just needs the functions to figure out where to place improvements. therefore it needs LESS ai(which is good cause good ai is hard to program )...

3) given that the majority of the people use auto-settlers to a smaller or bigger amount(dont tell me to do a poll about it), a good AI for the settlers is in fact crucial...

**Ralf** · April 17, 2001, 00:01

quote:

Originally posted by MarkG on 04-16-2001 06:31 AM
i'm sorry, but i would like to choose how i play and not have the deficiencies of the game change how i play the game...

There is a difference between "deficiencies" and deliberately designed game-rules, MarkQ. Every strategy-game must have RULES.

Compare with a game like "Europa Universalis". In that game its MUCH harder to ignore good ally-relations, and conquer other provinses - not to say whole countries. A famous swedish historian however wrote in a newspaper game-review, that the degree of realism was at least 10 to 1, compared with Civ-2.

Now Civ-3 isnt EU and it never vill be, I admitt. But game-rules isnt automatically "deficient" just because certain players cannot do exactly what they want, within that game-environment. Infact it shouldnt be possible - thats the whole point with having game-rules in the first place.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited April 16, 2001).]

**ChrisShaffer** · April 17, 2001, 14:32

quote:

3) given that the majority of the people use auto-settlers to a smaller or bigger amount(dont tell me to do a poll about it), a good AI for the settlers is in fact crucial...

Harrumph. I think you're wrong. Most people I know do not use auto-settlers at all. We're all agreed they're horrible at the job (in Civ2 and SMAC at least, hopefully they'll be better in Civ3). I'm reasonably sure there's a pretty big contingent of people who never use auto-settlers.

So, I will _ask you_ (not tell you) do to a poll about it. Maybe you'd be as surprised about auto-settler poll results as you were about the settlers / pw poll, eh?

**MarkG** · April 17, 2001, 15:15

quote:

Originally posted by ChrisShaffer on 04-17-2001 02:32 PM
Harrumph. I think you're wrong. Most people I know do not use auto-settlers at all. We're all agreed they're horrible at the job

perhaps that's why they dont use them? perhaps there are lots of people who like pw for exactly that reason?

**raingoon** · April 17, 2001, 15:20

In Mark G's defense, what is surprising is that this new poll in fact shows a statistical dead-heat between PW and Settlers. That said, Mark, you have to admit that the results of this poll vindicate those of us skeptics who believed the last one was skewed toward PW by a margin of about 2:1.

And I also think it's not true to say that most people use or require the auto-settler function when they play. I won't say they don't if you don't say they do, and then you won't have to do another poll.

Finally, I still think dognheat had the right idea by suggesting (even at this late hour for the design team) that PW be somehow combined with the settlers in Civ 3. I will echo that suggestion, providing the playtesting reveals that the auto-settler function is inadequate.

**MarkG** · April 17, 2001, 15:21

quote:

Originally posted by airdrik on 04-17-2001 12:51 PM
you can let the 'mayors' choose where to improove (set them to auto-mode)

but that's the whole issue, auto-mode is problematic!!

quote:

And besides, firaxis has already said that they are using a settler/worker system, why can't you just accept this?

oh i have accepted it and dont expect firaxis to change the whole system to pw or anything else. i'm just debating their decision

**airdrik** · April 17, 2001, 17:41

quote:

Originally posted by MarkG on 04-17-2001 03:21 PM

Originally posted by airdrik on 04-17-2001 12:51 PM
you can let the 'mayors' choose where to improove (set them to auto-mode)

but that's the whole issue, auto-mode is problematic!!

**MarkG** · April 17, 2001, 17:54

quote:

Originally posted by airdrik on 04-17-2001 05:41 PM
If auto-mode is problematic, then PW is too, because as I said, the computer can use the same functions to tell where a worker should improove next as PW uses to improove it. The only difference is that you have to wait for the worker to move to the spot and improove.

you're wrong
the problems in auto-settlers are two:
- settlers have to move to the next spot that needs to be worked and their paths are often not the best
- settlers must always have something to do

none of the above exists in PW

**airdrik** · April 17, 2001, 18:16

quote:

Originally posted by MarkG on 04-17-2001 05:54 PM
you're wrong
the problems in auto-settlers are two:
- settlers have to move to the next spot that needs to be worked

That's what I've been saying, but that is the only difference.

quote:

and their paths are often not the best

The go-to feature will be fixed up so that workers won't be going arround in circles trying to find where they are going.

quote:

- settlers must always have something to do

Well if they don't have anything more to do then the computer will recognise this and reliquish control back to the player. I think it already does this though, doesn't it?

**ChrisShaffer** · April 17, 2001, 18:22

Not having played CtP, I have to ask - was the computer better at developing terrain in CtP than it was in Civ2 or SMAC? Is this demonstrable? (i.e. can anyone give a concrete example of how the computer used Public Works better than it uses Settlers?)

If, as I suspect, the only concrete difference is that the computer has problems moving units around, we can hope that the goto function fixes will solve this problem...

**Cyclotron** · April 17, 2001, 20:07

quote:

Originally posted by MarkG on 04-17-2001 05:54 PM
you're wrong
the problems in auto-settlers are two:
- settlers have to move to the next spot that needs to be worked and their paths are often not the best
- settlers must always have something to do

none of the above exists in PW

Well, I happen to think you're wrong. Yes, settlers do have to move. But isn't that good? It gives you more strategic lataitiude and gives you greater control. I for one like to maneuver my units. Also, settlers don't have to always have something to do. You can make them rejoin a city to add population.

Mark, I think our difference lies here:

- You dislike managing your own units (too much time, you say) so you would rather have the AI do it for you. If I were dependent on the AI, I too would support PW.

- I see managing units as fun, and I would rather have the multitudinous options and tactics you get from the settler system than the limited PW system.

Mark, you are evaluating the settler system purely by the auto workers. Many people (most people I've asked) don't even use auto workers. You say this is because the AI is bad... I for one knew about the feature but never even used it for the first few years I owned the game, because I thought "why would I ever want to give up managing my settlers?" When I tried it, yes, it did stink. So my solution for you is to actually use settlers as they are meant to be used: By the player!

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

**Chronus** · April 17, 2001, 22:50

"... use settlers as they are meant to be used: By the player!"

YES! How in the world did the issue of auto-settlers creep into this discussion anyway? That takes all the fun out of it. I don't anyone (personally) that uses the auto-settler feature either. And all this talk about improving the automating features ... do you want to play the game or simply watch it?

Hmmmm, here's an idea:

Maybe Firaxis can PERFECT the automating features and then automate the military units instead of the settlers! By doing this, I can now happily move my settlers about, perfecting my infrastructure, while my military advisor automatically moves my military units and engages in war with utter PERFECTION! I won't even have to think about the war ... because my advisor knows what's best ... what fun! ;-)

I like havng to take a few seconds to study the map to determine the best route for my settler ... I like yelling out "DOH!" whenever I accidently move them off the road because I wasn't paying attention (and knowing I'll waste another turn putting them back on the road) ... I like having to rush out the military units because a hoard of barbarians suddenly show up, threatening my settlers ... I like building fortresses in key locations out in the middle of nowhere ... I like helping my allies clean up their pollution ... etc.

Aggrevating? Yes, at times. Fun? Yes! Yes! YES!! :-)

p.s. please pardon the sarcasm above ... I was having too much fun. ;-)

**airdrik** · April 18, 2001, 00:04

quote:

Originally posted by MarkG on 04-16-2001 05:41 PM
2) i never connected PW with a strong AI. on the contrary, PW doesnt need any fuctions to move settlers around, it just needs the functions to figure out where to place improvements. therefore it needs LESS ai(which is good cause good ai is hard to program )...

And why can't it use the same functions to get where to move the settlers to build next?

A worker on auto-mode is finished with what he is doing. The computer runs it's function to see what it will improove next. The unit is moved using the go-to command. When the unit gets there it starts working.

The only difference between this and the public works is that public works doesn't have to move the unit there, but they both get the job done, and in fact if you have more workers working in an area then they will actually work faster than the public works will.

Also, What if you don't want to improove the area around a city? If you want to restrict the growth of the city for some reason, work all the tiles but just not grow? Like if you know that improoving a certain tile will lead to unneeded pollution, or you are playing ICS and don't want to improove the surrounding tiles. With PW you have to let the computer improove the tiles, but with a settler/worker system you can improove exactly how you want.

**MarkG** · April 18, 2001, 00:39

quote:

Originally posted by airdrik on 04-17-2001 12:04 PM
With PW you have to let the computer improove the tiles, but with a settler/worker system you can improove exactly how you want.

i think it was you that i've said this before: with PW, the computer does NOT take over the job of doing the tile improvement. in ctp2 you have the CHOICE to leave the job to your mayors, but as i said, it's a CHOICE. got it?

Announcement

POLL 20: Settlers vs Public Works

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment