Settlers/Engineers vs. Public Works

[Odin]

What do you think Civ3 should have; settlers making improvements(civ1&2), or a public works tax on production(CTP1&2)???

[David James]

I have to say that I kind of like both...

I would say that physical installations, such as fortresses, listening posts and airbases should be built by units - and I'd be fine with certain military units being able to do that, such as infantry (phalanxes, legions, pikemen, marines, etc). Engineers would be able to build twice as fast though.

Strict tile improvements such as fields/irrigation, mining and fisheries are well implemented with the PW system - and it does make a bit more sense than setting settlers out to do that I feel. Setting up new colonies on distant islands and having to send two settlers always annoyed me as the second settler could be turned into a new city instead. PW makes more sense as it is more like taxing your citizens and then paying them to go out and improve the land. I'd do away with the CtP notion of having to spend the entire amount to build an advanced farm when there's already a field there though - the cost of the field should be subtracted from the cost of the advanced farm if one is already there (or a field could be made a prereq as in Civ2, but I personally prefer the CtP implementation of being able to skip right over that).

However roads and rails present a bit of a problem as we know very well that roads were built by the Roman legions yet they're not strictly an installation either. One could argue that it comes down to whether or not the city derives any benefit from road construction - in Civ2 they clearly do (trade arrows) but in CtP it was set up so that there was no trade benefit from roads, which kind of galled me when I found out that all my roads weren't producing any cash benefits (though that can be "fixed" in the game files). On the other hand the military clearly benefits from a road infrastructure for reasons we're all familiar with. So perhaps it should be made possible to build roads and rails (and tunnels/monorails) either way, which is not a bad compromise and is in keeping with historical precedent as well - the military were not the only ones to build roads, but they sure were the only ones to build fortresses, etc. whilst they never built farms (at least not while on active duty).

Oh, and I would like to see a new type of installation - a seaport or harbour or drydock of some sort that could be build along a coast for ships to take refuge in to recover from battle and made available in the age of sail sometime (a la Gibraltar etc). It could be combined with a fort and later an airbase, and it couldn't be built beside another port so as to prevent it from becoming an excessively quick and easy method of canal building across continents - a movement rate halting like an airbase might help to quell that sort of nonsense as well. But I don't expect this idea to become reality...
(come to think of it - not allowing airbases to be built directly beside each other would prevent human players from building airbase walls as a cheap shield against nukes and air attacks as well)

Of course installations could be built anywhere in the world (as in Civ2) and not just on the end of a road as in CtP (or so it seems so far - I just got the game a few weeks ago for dirt cheap).

Ok, I think that's about all I have to say for the moment on the subject.

------------------
Yes, as a matter of fact, going to Queen's does make me better than you.
[This message has been edited by David James (edited February 09, 2001).]

[DarkCloud]

Having both and implementing them would be a good idea, you use
the public work money to buy the improvment and then the settler
improves them.

But this would make you pay for the improvement twice and so it
would be better just to have public works, but Civ III probably wont
use public works as that is a CtP idea and is thus copyrighted.

Darkcloud, you're probably right that Activision has "public works" copywrited...However, the principle of public works could still be used - just call it by a different name, like "city services" and if Frixis combines both the public works concept with the settler work concept, the end result would be different from CTP's basic public works concept so there shouldn't be any copywrite infringement.

Any how, I may be out in left field on this, but that's how I see it.

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by wittlich on 02-15-2001 01:33 PM Darkcloud, you're probably right that Activision has "public works" copywrited...

Good! I never thought of that.
Let Activision keep their bad-selling non-awarded CTP-games for themselves, including the design-solutions as well.

quote: However, the principle of public works could still be used - just call it by a different name, like "city services" and if Frixis combines both the public works concept with the settler work concept, the end result would be different from CTP's basic public works concept so there shouldn't be any copywrite infringement.

.

Well, lets hope not.
I dont want to loose that ingenious clickable city-area view we had in Civ-2/SMAC. Improve it - yes, but DONT replace it.

[monolith94]

Nah - settlers kick the public works system's butt!

[Grumbold]

I like building with settlers because they always let you know when they are ready for a new job and can always start the next one immediately. PW is a more realistic approach, though, than building a settler in 3,000 BC and have it work for 5,000 years for the cost of a few food. In both systems the level of transformation possible in the later game seems too large. Railway networks do not spring up overnight and entire mountain ranges do not get levelled in a year or two. Put enough engineers or PW on the job and that is all too possible in Civ games.

[Chuckles]

I'm pretty happy with the public works model in CTP. Except that I also hate that you don't get any credit when upgrading existing terrain improvements. That's just dumb.

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by Chuckles on 02-17-2001 06:22 PM I'm pretty happy with the public works model in CTP. Except that I also hate that you don't get any credit when upgrading existing terrain improvements. That's just dumb.

This is exactly what I hate with Public Works system! That ingenious clickable city-area view is carelessly scrapped under the pre-text of "streamlining the interface" by meddlesome CTP game-designers.
The result? You upgrade a city-area terrain-tile, but you dont have the foggiest how that upgrade actually adds to the overall city-output. That vital and important (but often underestimated) game-mechanical chain between user-inputs and game-outputs gets lost in the process.

The player feels that he doesnt "get any credit" for this or that upgrade. The same criticism can be aimed against the "expanding city-areas" concept as well.

[Sabre2th]

Personally, I liked the PW system better, but I'll buy it and love it either way.

------------------
"We don't know a millionth of one percent about anything."
-Thomas A. Edison

[Sabre2th]

quote: Originally posted by Sabre2th on 02-17-2001 09:51 PM Personally, I liked the PW system better, but I'll buy it and love it either way.

I probably shouldn't say this, just in case it turns out to be like ctp.

------------------
"We don't know a millionth of one percent about anything."
-Thomas A. Edison

[Urban Ranger]

Pay for the ability with PW and have engineer units doing the actual work.

PW represents the funds, material, etc. while the units represent the actual people doing the work.

Ralf,

IIRC, you can actually see who works the various areas within the city radius and re-assign your workers. It's not simple and straightforward, though.

[Sabre2th]

That might be a bit more realistic, Ranger, but I think it would make it more complicated than it needs to be.

------------------
"We don't know a millionth of one percent about anything."
-Thomas A. Edison

[me_irate]

I personally like the idea of both. Public works could be used to build farms and such. But you should also be able to use enginers and settlers to do the job also. But only settlers and later units of the type should be able to change terain. (such as hills to plains). Also the ability to click the map and place works as in Civ. 2 is my most missed ability that is not in CTPII.

[Sean]

The SMAC system also had it's merits. I liked how you didn't have to take a population hit, just to improve terrain. This would also help for those cities that are short on food.

[Tiberius]

quote: Originally posted by monolith94 on 02-15-2001 05:22 PM Nah - settlers kick the public works system's butt!

I agree.
I like settlers/engineers much more than PW.

I understand that some people don't want to bother themselves with settlers, caravans, spies, etc, but I don't want Civ3 to become a wargame, with only military units.

While caravans represent the commitment of a player for trade, engineers represent the commitment for development.
For warmongers make some automation options (autosettler or maybe auto PW), but for the rest of us keep the engineers (and the caravans).
[This message has been edited by Tiberius (edited February 21, 2001).]

I hate managing herds of units across mountains and plains. BTW:
(1) CTP1 sort of credited previous improvements - building a new improvement on an old only too one turn.
(2) CTP1 was "clickable". CTP2 did lose something by eliminating worker placement. But that's a subject which is agnostic with respect to PW vs. Engineers.
(3)Pathfinding for settlers on autoimprove sucks. Period. Another thread mentioned not using settlers for AI city placement as it disadvantages the AI far too much. Same with poor pathfinding on auto. AI is better off using a public works system so as to avoid pathfinding difficulties.
(4)The fact that activision cannot write an AI or diplomacy systme to save their lives doesn't mean that they did not make significant improvements over civ2. PW was a notable example. I should not have to waste food and loose population to build a unti to build a road (really, does a chain gang or work crew require 10000 people to build a road?). Nor should I have to move 20 to 30 units around the board every turn to improve my civ.
(5) Activision ripped off the whole damn game from Microprose, Firaxis can steal a single concept.
While I will be dissapointed if Civ3 is another settler/engineer/terraformer micromanagement nightmare, give me a decent AI (one that can develop and fight)and all is forgiven. Give me an AI that can use an aircraft carrier and launch a sea invasion and I'll be in heaven.

Hmmm, a chain gang unit . . .
Will there be a George W. AI personality type?

[Tiberius]

quote: Originally posted by Mister Pleasant on 02-21-2001 03:04 AM I hate managing herds of units across mountains and plains.

But you don't hate managing herds of military units, right? Well, Civ is not a wargame, and I pray to Firaxis to keep the civilian units, too.

quote: I should not have to waste food and loose population to build a road (really, does a chain gang or work crew require 10000 people to build a road).

You have right here, but separating settlers (city founding, reduces population) from engineers (TI building, cost shields) could improve the system (SMAC has done this already with colony pods/formers).

[This message has been edited by Tiberius (edited February 21, 2001).]

[Adm.Naismith]

Tiberius, I don't want Civ wide model "reduced" to a wargame.
I want a game that use units where units are more appropriate, e.g. more efficient, more pratical, more funny.

Defend my empire by raw numbers screen, not by units, is not funny. Chess too has units! (Without ranking, supply line...)

Having to use an engineer to build a road where I want one is good for me. Having to move workers on square (and check them every other turn) to better use available (inside city radius) resources, well, is not the most funny part of CIV IMHO.

We need a unit to simulate workers exploiting resources outside city radius: SMAC Supply units must be changed a bit (see other thread about satellite cities ) to reproduce villages (I mean rural population for farms, miners and so on), but are a good starting point.

A mix of these PW & Special units can be balanced, not too much micromgmt and a lot of funny. Firaxis team must earn its money here.

Edited for URL reference
------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant
[This message has been edited by Adm.Naismith (edited February 21, 2001).]

[Ted Striker]

Now players, see here we can simplify things for a nice little compromise that makes things real smooth.

1) At the start of the game, you want settlers because you want more units to play with, and not that much is going on, plus micromanagement doesn't really bother you that much at this phase.

2) LATER in the game, you can make Public Works an upgrade or City Improvement, and then won't have to use the settlers anymore. By this time, you're tired of moving all those damn guys around, so anything to reduce micromanagement is a good thing!

The best of both worlds.

[tmarcl]

[quote]Originally posted by derek on 02-21-2001 01:27 PM
Now players, see here we can simplify things for a nice little compromise that makes things real smooth.

1) At the start of the game, you want settlers because you want more units to play with, and not that much is going on, plus micromanagement doesn't really bother you that much at this phase.

2) LATER in the game, you can make Public Works an upgrade or City Improvement, and then won't have to use the settlers anymore. By this time, you're tired of moving all those damn guys around, so anything to reduce micromanagement is a good thing!

A nice compromise, Derek, but it's not real consistent, imo. Also, it kind of makes it more confusing, especially for a novice player to say that at the beginning of the game, you need to build a unit to improve the terrain, but later on, you have to use public works.

My suggestion (which is worth exactly what you've paid for it :-) ) is this:

Auto improvement. In the city screen, you can decide how you want to improve the terrain surrounding your city (you want all squares totally irrigated with roads in each square-for squares where irrigating (sp?) is not allowed, mine it.) Then, during the game, the computer automatically improves it.

For building roads/railroads between cities, use an engineer unit (that doesn't require food, just production like any other unit). For founding new cities, use a settler (that does require food-and the population drop).

This eliminates the micromanagement of units (especially annoying in the later stages of the game), while eliminating the food cost/population drop just to build a mine.

Marc

[Ted Striker]

Naw Marc you misunderstood me. Using the Public Works system later in the game isn't mandatory, it would be an "upgrade." The novice player could use settlers the whole game if he wanted to. The whole point is that the Public Works option becomes available later in the game, but it's not required.

It's something designed to reduce micromanagement late in the game, but only if a player decides he wants it.

[Urban Ranger]

I like the idea of PW since it is one of the things that, when taken together, will give you a feel of managing an empire instead of a collection of cities.

However, I also want to have the ability to transform terrain around a city site before I actually build it.

[Tiberius]

Adm.Naismith, you made some good points (as usual).
But ... (there is always a but, isn't it? )
...the elements that civers found "funny" in Civ differ from player to player. For example, I enjoy very much improving my cities with settlers/engineers, especially in the early stages of the game. I admit it that in the lategame, I find no more fun in micromanaging hundreds of engineers (what a nightmare!).
I agree that Firaxis must find a sollution to avoid this, but not removing completely a part of the game which I enjoy very much (actually with caravans is exactly the same problem).

That's why I find Derek's idea pretty good. I'm not sure that this is the perfect sollution:

quote: - settlers founding cities, require food, loss pop - engineers improving TIs , require shield (production) - later in the game, after a certain discovery, make it possible to use PW (and/or automated PW), but only if you want to

...I also don't know how hard is to implement this, but certainly is an improvement over the current system and its better than totally removing the engineers.

[Biddles]

I liked how in CTP you could build a city and then quickly get the farms and stuff in so the city would grow quicker (Protoss of CTP ). I know you can do that in Civ, but it takes too many settlers to do so. I actually used to save my PW points the turns before the settler was finished, so that I could immediately improve the terrain.

[down th' pub]

If support for Settler/Engineers was VERY high then that could represent the investment in PW. You just have to make more complex improvements more time consuming. Doesn't ctp & civ do that already?
[This message has been edited by down th' pub (edited February 25, 2001).]

[sulla]

I did not like how in Civ I&II that units built every tile improvement, it was a big pain in Civ II to send a slow settler around your emmense empire building roads/railrods. The public works in Ctp I and II were a big improvement, it works better and makes more sense. For example does the government have cities make their own roads to connect them to other cities? No, it builds interstates and highways which the nation as a whole pays for even if the road is only regional. In any central government everyone usually shares the costs of the tile improvements covered in public works even though the effects are almost always local. Therefore public works makes more sense and is easier to use.

------------------
Sulla-The last dictator of Rome before Caesar. He changed Rome and Rome sure as hell changed him.

[Nemo]

One great advantage of a settler is that you could take them to the battle field with you. with PW you cant make a road out side of your boundry...what is that about? by historic presidence i beleive they should keep the settler/engineer because it acts like a unit, as the army/military engineer's have throughout history - they go with the troops consort and expediat the transit and battles. down with PW - keep the engineers!

afterthought: i think activision used PW to try and curb ICS. by having PW instead of settlers they could increase the resources needed to build a settler. But, since i dont like to ICS when i play, i could care less about PW (it was the only signifigance i saw, and to me, it was not enough to outweigh all the troubles it had - like have to build a fort outside your boundry, just to connect a road because your boundry was off my 3 squares or something)
[This message has been edited by Nemo (edited February 26, 2001).]

[Sirotnikov]

I think we could make a compromise:

We have both engineers and PW.
Mostly they don't overlap, but both can build roads.

PW can only build roads in City radius (preferrably growing radius *hint*).

After invention of some cool tech that has something to do with transport, it can build dem roads in all of your country area (the terrain that is yours but isn't city terrain).

Engineer can build road anywhere, so it is used in ancient times to connect distant cities, and in newer times to connect very distant cities or maybe build roads on the war front.

Note: Under no circumstance do I support the removal of engineer units and having only settlers and PW!