POLL 20: Settlers vs Public Works

[airdrik]

Oh, I didn't see that, sorry. But you still have the same choice with the settler/worker system, you can let the 'mayors' choose where to improove (set them to auto-mode), or you can do it yourself (more people are used to this, and it is more gratifiing when you move the unit to the square and improove the tile yourself). Also, it can (or at least should) be very crippling to kill off the enemy's workers and pilliage their land. With PW you can only pilliage their land, there are no workers to kill, so it isn't nearly as crippling.

And besides, firaxis has already said that they are using a settler/worker system, why can't you just accept this? Let Civ have a Settler/Worker system, and let CTP have a Public works system. (firaxis keeps settler/worker system: it comes out when they estimate it. firaxis changes to public works, add 2-3 months to release date + $5/game).

[MarkG]

quote: Originally posted by airdrik on 04-17-2001 06:16 PM 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?

i mostly recall settlers running around doing nothing rather than stoping and "admitting" that they have nothing to do

[MarkG]

quote: Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 04-17-2001 08:07 PM It gives you more strategic lataitiude and gives you greater control.

more control than point-click-place?

quote: - You dislike managing your own units (too much time, you say) so you would rather have the AI do it for you.

i dont dislike managing settlers. it's just that at later stages and during wars i'm focused on battles and can not spent time on settlers. it gets tiresome especially as your empire gets larger

quote: Mark, you are evaluating the settler system purely by the auto workers.

i'm concetrating there, cause that where it's weakness is.
as i have said, if the civ3's workers have much much better automation features, i will be happy. i just doubt that it will happen

quote: 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.

well, as you describe yourself, lots of people dont use the auto-mode exactly because it doesnt work well!!

quote: So my solution for you is to actually use settlers as they are meant to be used: By the player!

yeah, and real men do it on keyboard only...

[MarkG]

quote: Originally posted by Chronus on 04-17-2001 10:50 PM YES! How in the world did the issue of auto-settlers creep into this discussion anyway? That takes all the fun out of it

civ games are fun because traditionally they allow all kind of playing styles and give you varying situations to deal with. civ is and has always been about choices

therefore, if i want to focus on my war front at certain part of the game(while i enjoyed the building and the tile improving tile-by-tile with my settlers earlier) why should i have to still deal with settlers? should i pause them just for that? or should i have wait while the do silly dance routines? i would like the choice to be able to focus on more fun things(at that time). what's so wrong about that???

[ChrisShaffer]

quote: 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.

quote: well, as you describe yourself, lots of people dont use the auto-mode exactly because it doesnt work well!!

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.

quote: therefore, if i want to focus on my war front at certain part of the game(while i enjoyed the building and the tile improving tile-by-tile with my settlers earlier) why should i have to still deal with settlers? should i pause them just for that? or should i have wait while the do silly dance routines? i would like the choice to be able to focus on more fun things(at that time). what's so wrong about that???

I ask again - can you automate Public Works? Is there a demonstrable benefit of automated public works over automated settlers? Or do you simply stop using public works when you're at war? If that's the case, then yes, you could just pause your settlers when you're at war. Couldn't you? Wouldn't that be effectively the same as not using your public works features?

It sounds like you'd be just as happy if there was a setting "don't show me settler movement" just as there was a setting in Civ2 to "don't show me oppenent units movement."

[MarkG]

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.

[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).]

[MarkG]

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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[MarkG]

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

how CIVilized...

[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