Worker Worries

[pedrojedi]

I never bother to build Mass Transit, since all pollution is automatically cared of in usually 1 turn.

Even so, I like building mass transit... I like my air clean, and my people without respiratory diseases!

And those pollution blots are a real pain sometimes

[badams52]

Originally posted by pedrojedi
Even so, I like building mass transit... I like my air clean, and my people without respiratory diseases!

And those pollution blots are a real pain sometimes

Plus having them helps stave off global warming. And I hate global warming.

[Catt]

Originally posted by nbarclay
I try not to let the number of improved tiles for my laborers to work fall significantly behind the number of laborers I have. If that threatens to happen, I need more workers.

That's my approach as well. Plus additional workers for "supplemental tasks" like building a road network towards an expected military engagement or a near-term city settlement site.

Catt

[GarP2]

another point about airfields

you dont have to put your expensive aircraft in a captured city that may flip.

[GarP2]

question about work gangs and movement

If, instead of clearing forests or jungle tiles, the tasks are mining or irrigation, it seems that work gangs can be amost as efficient as single workers, provided you have a single worker road crew go through and build the roads ahead of the work gang. This has the benefit of giving you the bonus on a some tiles sooner than would a single-worker approach. Hmmm - not very clearly said.

example: do a 3-turn improvement on 3 tiles with 3 workers. Assume connected by RR, just to isolate discussion of this bonus from that of movement costs. A gang of 3 workers completes one improvement each turn. At the beginning of the 2nd turn you get one extra production (of whatever it was that you were improving), at the beginning of turns 3 and 4, an additional 2 and 3, respectively for a total of 6. Doing the tasks as 3 single workers would only give you an increase of 3 at the beginning of the 4th turn - half as much. Small in the grand scheme of things that go on for turns and turns, but its micromanaging that we're talking about here, after all. The effect is greater for longer tasks.

Okay - now the question. If a worker has to move one tile on a road to get to the job, does he only contribute 2/3 of a turn to the job on that turn? It hasnt seemed so in my games, but maybe its getting lost in the rounding somewhere?

Thanks, GarP

[badams52]

Re: question about work gangs and movement

Originally posted by GarP2
Okay - now the question. If a worker has to move one tile on a road to get to the job, does he only contribute 2/3 of a turn to the job on that turn? It hasnt seemed so in my games, but maybe its getting lost in the rounding somewhere?

I don't understand you example, but the answer to your question is the worker contributes a full worker turn even after moving 2 tiles by roads, no fractions, so it's always better for a worker to move less than 3 and then work if he needs to make improvements on roaded terrain.

I have something else to add, but I'll post later when I have more time.

[badams52]

Last thing I want to mention, but most of you probably know this already. When using a non-industrial civ, in the beginning, mining grasslands takes 6 worker turns. When you switch to a democracy it drops to 3 worker turns, and then when you add replacement parts it drops another 50% to 1.5 turns. So if you want to build a mine in one turn without wasting worker turns, you need to use 1 worker and 1 slave worker who works at half the speed. If you use 2 workers, you just wasted .5 of a worker turn.

Woohoooo! Post 300 and climing

[Killazer]

lol trying to squeeze out .5 of a worker turn eh? lol. Anyway, I only generally build 1 worker per city unless Im surrounded by a lot of jungle in which case I go worker crazy

[badams52]

Originally posted by Killazer
lol trying to squeeze out .5 of a worker turn eh? lol. Anyway, I only generally build 1 worker per city unless Im surrounded by a lot of jungle in which case I go worker crazy

Well, every .5 worker turn leads to that much more UP and a higher score.

[Master Zen]

I stick with worker gangs of 2 (playing industrious) for work in easy terrain, and gangs of 4 for rough terrain.

I hate those jungles!!!

[MPatton]

For me every city I build I also build a worker with it. Also if you are industrious exploit that worker advantage. Also remember if you build a worker from a conquered city then you get a barbarian worker which will say ????? worker. So for conquered cities I wait. Now with regards to conquered workers should I add them to a city and make some French ones or not. If I conquer a place that is in the middle of a large jungle I clear it. When a city's terrain is done for now they go somewhere else. Then when my worker gains more abilities they go back and add those new abilities like railroad or clean up. As for cities above 20 I say let em grow unless they have low productity then I mine some of that flat land. Cities above 20 you get extra money, more score, or more science. I also move my workers away from the front lines. I have had cities with 8 million people before. Useually this happens when you place a city in a large flood plain. You get food from flood plain and shields from desert.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Killazer
lol trying to squeeze out .5 of a worker turn eh? lol. Anyway, I only generally build 1 worker per city unless Im surrounded by a lot of jungle in which case I go worker crazy

Suppose you have 12 of your own workers and 12 slaves. If you have gangs of exclusively your own workers and gangs of exclusively slaves, you can railroad six tiles with your own workers and four with slaves, or a total of ten per turn. If you work them in pairs of one domestic and one slave, you can railroad twelve tiles per turn in such a situation. So those half-worker-turns can add up to a 20% increase in worker productivity railroading (or mining) flat terrain, which is hardly trivial.

Note that if you have more of your own workers than you do slaves, hills can provide a good use for them, since hills aren't vulnerable to losses due to rounding. If I recall correctly, mountains in such a situation would ideally be worked by four of your own workers and a slave if your native workers outnumber slaves and you want your entire civ railroaded as quickly as possible, but mountain railroads are expensive enough that it's probably more efficient to waste some worker turns in order to get the benefit of cheap railroads on flatland sooner.

Nathan

[BigDork]

Thank you all for your input. I'm sure that this will me and others out in the future.

Okay, I'm at the point where I've got railroads connecting all my cities. All the tiles aren't railroaded yet but the cities are connected for fast troop movement. Now I have 40 workers and about 30 - 50 slaves. So, here's a question. Should I add my workers into cities/disband to get shields and use my slaves to railroad and also clean up pollution? I'd be saving an extra 40gpt by getting rid of the workers and that could be and extra 40 tanks I could support. Or should I wait until most of my territory is railroaded and improved before I get rid of my workers. I plan on keepign the slaves, they're free. Thanks

BigD

[nbarclay]

I definitely wouldn't get rid of my native workers until all the territory that isn't seriously corrupt is railroaded. It costs one gold to keep a worker around an extra turn, but the railroad he helps produce will yield an extra food or shield for a long time to come. I also wouldn't disband workers if there's a reasonable prospect of being able to usefully add them to cities later.

[badams52]

Once all terrain is railroaded, I usually join my workers to a city and get the number down to about 8-16 workers. I keep some around in case I want to change irrigation to mines, etc. The amound of shields you get from disbanding is worthless. 2 shields! What city is going to find 2 shields worthwhile. I usually join them to cities that are slow in population growth (like coastal cities) to get them closer to the max population threshold.