POLL 20: Settlers vs Public Works

quote: Originally posted by Der_Wachter on 04-12-2001 01:03 PM But I think it's easier to imagine soldiers being recruited (even though the game (Civ II) doesn't properly reflect this with a drop in population points) in a city where there is a large concentration of people than to try to visualize terrain improvements being built without a "physical" presence there to account for it.

in civ game so far, you dont see
- people building improvement in the cities
- soldiers being recruited
- scientists working in their labs
- entertainers singing
- "tax people" collecting taxes


why should you see workers building a road??????

[Der_Wachter]

MarkG:
Come to think of it, I don't think I can visualize the birth of a legion in my cities either. But I think it's easier to imagine soldiers being recruited (even though the game (Civ II) doesn't properly reflect this with a drop in population points) in a city where there is a large concentration of people than to try to visualize terrain improvements being built without a "physical" presence there to account for it.

[Vrank Prins]

quote: Originally posted by Der_Wachter on 04-11-2001 08:47 PM I simply cannot visualize fortresses, roads, and railroads popping in the middle of my army's advance into enemy territory without some way of justifying the sudden appearance of terrain improvements.

Now that I come to think of it, in CTP you can only build PW's in tiles adjacent to "processed" tiles in your own territory and not just way outside of it. Pretty nasty when you want to solidly fortify whatever unit in noman's land just outside, just inside, or even in the middle of your enemies territory.
In CIV-II you can do so by just bringing a settler or engineer along with your troops who can do the job whereever you want him to do that. In CIV-III this should stay that way.

quote: Originally posted by Der_Wachter on 04-11-2001 08:47 PM I simply cannot visualize fortresses, roads, and railroads popping in the middle of my army's advance into enemy territory without some way of justifying the sudden appearance of terrain improvements.

but you can visualize the "birth" of a new legion in one of your cities??

[Gramphos]

quote: Originally posted by Der_Wachter on 04-11-2001 08:47 PM Personally, I prefer settlers (or Workers as the case may be with Civ III) because I like to bring these units along whenever I'm on a military campaign. I simply cannot visualize fortresses, roads, and railroads popping in the middle of my army's advance into enemy territory without some way of justifying the sudden appearance of terrain improvements.

I totally agree. The working units are very useful in war.

[Der_Wachter]

Hello! I'm new here, but I'd like to give my two cents on this Settler/Public Works issue. Personally, I prefer settlers (or Workers as the case may be with Civ III) because I like to bring these units along whenever I'm on a military campaign. I simply cannot visualize fortresses, roads, and railroads popping in the middle of my army's advance into enemy territory without some way of justifying the sudden appearance of terrain improvements.

[Kevin Ar18]

I love sending out workers to do stuff to the terrain. It would just be plain boring without them.

Also, this idea about a queue system for the workers may not be too bad.

[Cyclotron]

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.

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

amazing!

Settlers vs Public Works

Settlers-type model 38 / 50%
Public Works-type model 36 / 48%
Dont know/Dont care 1 / 1%

Total Votes: 75

[Vrank Prins]

In COLONIZATION there is this possibility to automate the tranport of resources and tradegoods by wagontrails. Each term you can see these wagontrailunits you've build and programmed by yourself riding around out of themselves from one place to another. A bit like the camel in CIV-I&II, but also significantly different and more sofisticated.
The transportprogram, a kind of a small game"macro"program, takes away a lot of micromanagement.
When you open this program a matrix appears on your screen. You'll have to fill in the next things, from left to right in a line:[list=1][*]choose the city, from a rolldownlist, from where goods are to be taken away[*]choose the kind of goods (iron ore, timber, cotton, weapons etc.) from a rolldownlist, [*]choose the city, from a rolldownlist, where goods are to be brought[*]choose the kind of goods from a rolldownlist, which are to be left in this city[/list=a]
You can let the wagon run to another city to do the same again by just repeating this kind of order in a line under the upperone. Thus you can make a list to have the wagon make a "loading- and unloadingtour" in a route which hits up to six cities. The wagon automatically chooses the fastest way, I've never been really annoyed by "buggish" behaviour of a wagon.
Quite handy.

I can see something similar for the "programming" of workers or settlers, and, why not, other units. A list of things to be done for a unit could look like: "Go to xx" (and you would just have to point that out with your mouse(like in CTP, I love that feature !!)) "Then fortify, pillage, stack with, build road/irrigation/fort, etc." (from a rolldownlist of functions).

If "tileproccessing"units don't get that automatated functioning I choose for the Public Works like I know it from CTP. After having used this feature in CTP I was really fed up with having to do all the micromanagement in CIV-II.

Besides terraforming (changing mountains into hills, deserts into plains or grasslands etc., tileimprovements in CIV-II) takes way to long in CIV-II compared with CTP. Firaxis ought to do something about that too.
[This message has been edited by Vrank Prins (edited April 11, 2001).]

[Zanzin]

Look, worker units would be just peachy if the computer knew how to use and how to make their use (i.e. worker automation) easy for you. Unfortunately, at least in Civ2 and SMAC, it doesn't and they don't (computer stupid, and you can't trust the automation options). Considering that Civ3 is going to based, at least to some degree, on the code from SMAC, are we really going to see things changing?

As for tile improvements being strategic, I couldn't agree more - but they're not very strategic when the computer doesn't know how to take advantage of the situation.

Hence, for a part of the game that isn't overly important because of the silly (in this area) AI, Public Works has my vote, because it makes things much easier.

[Gramphos]

This is a game were you shall send your workers to improve the country, and nothing else!

[Henrik]

I was going to complain about the Don't care option being spelled, Don't Car But it was corrected during the time it took me to hit post reply

[connorkimbro]

go settlers/workers, go! automation as an option is fine, but with an order que, THATS THE WAY TO GOOOOO!!!

I just wish there were a way to guarantee that all people taking the poll can see that option before they take the poll. oh well, we're winning so far.

[TechWins]

There's a reason why the game series is called Civilization. In creating a civilization you need to have workers; so, you can strategically place roads in a city's radius and out of it's radius. To place irrigation in the exact spot that you would like it to be placed.