POLL 20: Settlers vs Public Works

[chief]

EXACTLY... settlers/workers are so the way to go. Although PW may have seemed like a good concept, it just didn't work in a game... it sucked. Settlers/workers provide many more tactical options in the placement or automation of tile improvements and can also be destroyed, making it an opportunity to cripple an enemy's resource/food gathering!

quote: Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 04-11-2001 01:42 PM Settlers are the best way to go, because PW just isn't... well, good enough for this kind of game. I just can't see railroads appearing out of nowhere and such. In addition, settlers add strategic possibilities in that they: 1) Can be killed; so you can stop the enemy from building improvements at all 2) Must be managed better, to save your citizens 3) Really ARE population, not just excess production. Production doesn't build itself, you need vast amounts of workers to build railroads and dig mine complexes.

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by MarkG on 04-20-2001 03:34 PM the failure of activision was that they tried to sell ctp as civ3...

Selling CTP as the updated Civ-3 was the very reason that people got lured into buying the game in the first place. That was Activisions only chance of getting significantly above ordinary salefigures - and they knew it all too well. Why else, was it so important for them to have the catchword "CIVILIZATION" (with capital letters), directly above "Call to Power" on the package?

quote: the low sales of ctp2 have much more to do with what impressions ctp1 left than with it's actual quality

The low sales of CTP-2 was a consequence of people now knew for sure that activisions CTP-games had nothing to do with those old civ-classics. Infact, CTP-2 was in many ways a final test if their civ-variant really would stand on its own two legs, without the walking-stick support/goodwill of the original Sid Meier Civ-titles.

The test failed. The Activision-variant of the Civilization-concept just couldnt survive a second comming. Most people didnt like CTP, and they didnt like the fact that Activision once again refused to produce a CTP-2 demo, that they could evaluate. So they hesitated...
Then the bad/lukewarm game-magazine reviews came. Some CTP-2 fans run to Activisions defence, but just 2-3 weeks later, the whole CTP-2 forum was overwhelmed with angry civers complaining over the weak AI. These angry AI-post where infact so many that you guys felt compelled to create a special CTP-2 AI-section to house them all. That was the feelings of "the actual quality" of CTP-2, at the time.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited April 21, 2001).]

the failure of activision was that they tried to sell ctp as civ3 and not so much that some of their ideas needed more work. the low sales of ctp2 have much more to do with what impressions ctp1 left than with it's actual quality


btw, the expanding city radius (i believe) was hailed by players as a great move, both as being more fun department as well as helping in the war against ics...

[Ralf]

I have always suspected that Firaxis would go "anti CTP-2" then it came to core-elements of the game, like the settler-system instead of public works, and fixed city-areas instead of expanding CTP-2 ones. The reason is (and was) pretty easy to foresee:

Theres so many new additions and features in the Civ-3 game already, and the dumbest/most risky thing that they could do, would be to replace fundamental game core-elements, like the settler-system and the fixed city-area modell, that have millions of play-testing hours under their belts, and instead fumble around with totally new and untested concepts.

The "expanding city-areas" concept for example, turned up to be a "can-of-worms" idea, with many unexpected & less attractive side-effects. As for the support of the public-works system: Well, just as many (or more) seems to actually prefer the original settler-system. So Firaxis really didnt risk anything by placing their bets on a tweaked and upgraded version of it.

Now there is even less reason why they would look at CTP/CTP-2 design-solutions for inspiration, and instead go their own way. A quote from the CTP-2 section:

"The latest issue of Technology Investor Magazine reports that gaming company Activision is falling to pieces, and what’s more- CTP2 is one of the main reasons. According to the article,
Last Quarter its earnings dropped 35%. However, Tony Hawk was not the 1-2 punch that hurt Activision. The 'CTP2' sequel, which was expected to match its prequel ‘Call to Power’, bottomed out selling less than 30 000 copies."

That pretty much sums it up. Sad, infact - we need MORE tbs-strategy games with civ-style flavour - also from other companies then Firaxis. Not less. However, this should also serve as a warning example for other developers.

IF THE BASIC CONCEPT HAS BEEN PROVEN SOUND - TRY TO IMPROVE ON IT. BUT, DONT REPLACE IT. DONT CHANGE FOR THE SAKE OF CHANGE.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited April 20, 2001).]

[meriadoc]

Personally, I prefer the public works system, but if CivIII uses a settler/worker based system I won't really mind. I will admit that there is something more personal and less abstract about having a unit build my improvements and, yes, I could have the worker accompany the troops to the battle and build forts and stuff.
However, the PW system isn't that different. Neither CivCTP or CTP2 allowed you to build entire roads across the world all at once. In CTP2 you could only place tile improvements inside of your national borders or, in the case of forts, where a unit was already. So, basically, the PW system allowed you to manage your tile improvements with a little less micromanagement while still requiring you to depend upon your units a little.
My major objection to settlers building my roads and stuff is not really the micromangement - I like that (I've never used mayors because I want to do it all myself). My major objection to settlers is that I have a short memory. While I was playing Civ2 it was not uncommon for me to forget what it was I wanted a settler to do by the time it got to its destination.
Someone suggested putting down "pre-fab" packs that your workers then use as sort of a blueprint. You place a pack and when the worker becomes available he'll head off to the next pack and start working. I think that's a great idea and I kind of hope that Firaxis includes something like it.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Public work are a good system :

1) More realist than a peon lost in an distant continent buildind a fort.

2) If you want to contruct a distant amenagement (far from a city), you have to build a road first. so building a railroad accross a contienent could take a lot of time. Except by building a temporaly city (which isn't unrealist)

3) It's a pleasure to wreak havoc on a amenagement just in construction

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Public work are a good system :

1) More realist than a peon lost in an distant continent buildind a fort.

2) If you want to contruct a distant amenagement (far from a city), you have to build a road first. so building a railroad accross a contienent could take a lot of time. Except by building a temporaly city (which isn't unrealist)

3) It's a pleasure to wreak havoc on a amenagement just in construction

quote: Originally posted by markusf on 04-19-2001 04:46 PM Accept defeat your PW 'Freaks' we won

how CIVilized...

[markusf]

Public works sucks. There is no sence of accomplishment when building a highway all over the map in one turn and then attacking with 50 units.. Its just plain retarded. Settlars also slow down ICS a LOT. All you have to do with pw, is build a road in straight line out of your main city and just crank out settlars and move them along the road. Accept defeat your PW 'Freaks' we won

[Cyberbugs]

I consider it very important that your are able to set the worker unit to, for example, build mines and farms but not roads.

Sometimes it might even be good not to build roads between your own cities, because these same roads could be fataly exploated by an attacking civilization thus helping it in its offensive, and also it might be better to invest the time of your workers in building mines rather than roads.

[airdrik]

Yah, you could sentury them in a city, or if you got really bored, you could have them build fortifications/roads/railroads/airbases/etc. everywhere (on every land tile on the continent ) or transform everything to your every whim.

[Chronus]

"when there is nothing to be done, nothing is done(instead of having to see a settlers move around hopelessly"

Couldn't you just sentry the settler in a city? That's what I do when I'm finished using them for the time being and it hasn't given me any problems.

quote: Originally posted by Ralf on 04-18-2001 03:45 PM But for several reasons, that argument is totally irrelevant in Civ-3. Firaxis have already confirmed some rather expansion-restrictive under-the-hood changes in order to combat ICS... ...So you see; I dont think that the "hundreds of workers" problem is going to be a problem. Its simply not going to be practically possible to build and maintain that many cities (and therefore workers) in Civ-3.

i guess we can hope, cant we?

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by ChrisShaffer on 04-18-2001 01:56 PM That's not what he said at all! He said most people don't use the auto-settlers because they *want* to manage their settlers. He even went so far as to say he didn't use auto-settlers for the first two years he used the game - not because they were poort at the job, but because he didn't *want* to use them.

I agree! Personally, I have never even tried auto-settlers (or auto-terraformers in SMAC). I enjoy moving them around manually, and I want spoonfeed them with exact duties to perform - thats part of the fun. As long as automatic map-recentering and unit-flashing is incorporated, it really not any "hard work" involved to do this.

Some people make a big thing out of the problem of managing "300 settlers" around the map. Well, that I can understand of course!

But for several reasons, that argument is totally irrelevant in Civ-3. Firaxis have already confirmed some rather expansion-restrictive under-the-hood changes in order to combat ICS:

- Both settlers & workers cost city pop-reduction (means 50-100+ cities empires very unlikely - not enough time to regenerate pop).
- Different & more cultural empires much harder to conquer/pacify (means militaristic 50-100+ mostly undeveloped cities empires are unlikely).
- Firaxis have stated that they opt for a "overcompressed game": less no-mans-land expansion (means 50-100+ cities empires are less likely).
- The "Bigger-Always-Better" problem is combated: means smaller empires have tempting counteracting favours (= 50-100+ cities empires are less likely).
- They have also stated that internal instability-problems is a factor much harder to overcome (means 50-100+ cities empires are less likely).
- And the list goes on...

So you see; I dont think that the "hundreds of workers" problem is going to be a problem. Its simply not going to be practically possible to build and maintain that many cities (and therefore workers) in Civ-3.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited April 18, 2001).]

quote: Originally posted by ChrisShaffer on 04-18-2001 01:56 PM can you automate Public Works?

yes, you can

quote: Is there a demonstrable benefit of automated public works over automated settlers?

yes. first of all, when there is nothing to be done, nothing is done(instead of having to see a settlers move around hopelessly). second, when there is something to be done, you dont have to see any settler move to it's target.