POLL 20: Settlers vs Public Works

[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."

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???

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...

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

[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).

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?

[airdrik]

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.

[Chronus]

"... 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. ;-)

[Cyclotron]

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"

[ChrisShaffer]

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...

[airdrik]

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?

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]

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!!