 |
|
thor015
|
|
a question i submit to the creators of civ III...
What is the best way to "farm" or "develop" the land?
i am talking as far as mining, farming, roads, etc..
should it be the traditional civ way of settlers or engineers, or should it be more of a Public works thing like in CTP?
i think this is important, i enjoy ctp more because i don't have that worry of the settler wondering around making roads...whereas i like the challenging concept of using my cities production for public works and then simply placing them on a map tile
WHAT DO YOU THINK????
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ralf
|
 |
Sweden
Mar 2000
time: 06:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by thor015 on 12-30-2000 03:20 AM
should it be the traditional civ way of settlers or engineers, or should it be more of a Public works thing like in CTP?
|
I dont like Human player Public works - at least not CTP-style, because the city-area view is "streamlined away". Without the inputable city-area view, i can not...
a/ See and understand the inner-workings between all used tiles within a blink of eye.
b/ Let the field-workers emphasize either food-, shield- or coin-generating tiles.
For the latter, you can of course incorporate public works emphasize-sliders, but that is a rather inexact and roundabout method, compared to the city-area view.
At the same time, I dont like the idea AI-civ controlled settlers/engineers visibly moving around within the city-areas, updating the tile-improvements either. The AI is notoriously weak then it comes to pathfinding, and in such a strategical/logistical important area, like maximizing the AI-civs production output, should be done by some kind of city-area mature-process, or by the use of templates instead.
This "AI city-area mature-process" should be fully txt-file tweakable, by the human player, giving him the ability to trim/emphasize overal AI Civ-dependent city-area outputs.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ralf
|
|
Sweden
Mar 2000
time: 06:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MarkG on 12-30-2000 11:23 AM
you dont need to.
|
If you go to work, without understanding how and why your work actually adds to the overal process - that same work becomes rather meaningless, right?
The same things happens if one dont know how this or that added tile-improvement or city-improvement actually adds to the overal end-result. I have played many strategy-games, there i didnt had that exact notion. It all wined up with that i added "just another gradual improvement", because - in one way or the other, that i didnt clearly understood - it supposed to be beneficial.
It all felt rather inflationary and meaningless, in the end.
quote:
you've got specialists for that
|
Specialists can only be used really effective in big modern end-game cities. Early on, in smaller cities; the drawbacks of lifting out workers from the fields, is simply not worth the benefits.
Just like our history: For a large part of history, 90-95% and more worked on the fields, right? Its basically the same for a "large part of the Civ-game".
Specialists are end-game complements - not replacements.
[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited December 31, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fintilgin
|
|
I think a combination of the two might be best. Moving the settlers around gives you a feeling of control and purpose, but can take a lot of work. Public works goes quickly, but may be too streamlined and vauge feeling.
Perhaps a new system, a little like public works, but where there is no `public works stockpile' or specific production. Instead, you can order any improvement built anywhere in your territory at any time, as many as you want. Then that improvment will be built by syphoning off production from the city whose radius it will be within. Possibly the improvement might syphon off resources averaged across your empire, but that might make it too easy. Perhaps you'd start with each city building their own improvements, but technology would eventually allow you to build more and more kinds from the Empire's stockpile.
A city could build one farm at a time, or lay out several, and have them each build more slowly (or possibly the computer could build them one at a time in the order you laid them down).
This way you could set out areas to be farmed, or mined and have cities slowly improve themselves, based off your orders. The computer would probably be more able to figure out what to build as well, without worrying about moving units around and such.
Joe
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ralf
|
|
Sweden
Mar 2000
time: 06:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fintilgin on 12-30-2000 03:23 PM
Moving the settlers around gives you a feeling of control and purpose, but can take a lot of work.
|
The irony of it all, is that even with a revamped public-works idea implemented in Civ-3, most civers still want to control exactly on which map-tile (whether its inside, or outside any of your city-areas) this, or that tile-improvement shall be applied. In both models we are dealing with the exact same increasing number of tile-objects in the overal game, thats needs attention. If anything, the micro-management of tile-improvements actually increases with the public-works model.
The reason to this, is that with the old settler-system, the player is lead-guided automatically, both when and where any settler is out of work (by map-recentering and unit-flashing).
With the Public-works model, on the other hand - the player have to manually check if theres enough build-points to build a tile-improvement, then manually drag around that damn map back and forth, in order to find just as many appropriate and potential tile-objects, as in Civ-2.
What the heck has actually been gained, in terms of less micro-management, by incorporating "public-works? 
Of course, one can argue that, with the Public-works solution, the player can wait until enough build-points have been gathered, so he can build tile-improvements on several squares in one go.
But, this means losses in use-efficiency. To loan arguments from real-life business: It would be like replacing "just-in-time" (= settler-model), with inefficient "stock & store" (= public-works model).
Also, is it really worth it, considering the hard-to-finger-point "detached feel" (less control and purpose) that many civers complain about, over at the CTP-2 section?
Sure, many civers complain about the settler-solution as well, but as you can see of above arguments, the whole tile micro-manage problem isnt that easily solvable.
Besides, I have never understood why people think the settler-model is so laborious. If the map automatically re-centers, and the unit is flashing, then whats the problem? Remember, Civ-3 isnt realtime - its turnbased! You got all the time in the world.
Also; the days of founding huge 50+ empires are probably over. Its already confirmed that Firaxis shall implement anti-ICS, and anti-BAB (Bigger-Always-Better) in the game.
quote:
The computer would probably be more able to figure out what to build as well, without worrying about moving units around and such.
|
As i mentioned in a post above, there are ways to deal with that. If your interested in AI pathfinding problems, by the way - then check out this thread:
http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum6/HTML/002067.html?17
It deals with the problems of moving around city-founding settlers, and how to work around the inefficient AI city-placements, in all CIV- and CTP-games, up to date.
[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited December 31, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
thor015
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ralf on 12-31-2000 07:21 AM
Besides, I have never understood why people think the settler-model is so laborious. If the map automatically re-centers, and the unit is flashing, then whats the problem?
[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited December 31, 2000).]
|
I guess one of my main gripes with the settler-model is due to a particular annoyance I have. This annoyance is when I am trying to keep the surrondings of my cities farmed/mined/whatever then the AI moves a destroyer or brings a barbarian in and destroys my settler/engineer like nothing.
Now granted with an unit-stacking or army creating possiblity this might not be as bad but still how many defenders are you going to stack with a settler?
Another thing I find troublesome with the settler-model is when you are trying to develop a smaller or newly developed city, farther from your well producing cities, and your settler gets destroyed.
These are small details but I believe these small details make the game that much more enjoyable.
quote:
Originally posted by Ralf on 12-31-2000 07:21 AM
With the Public-works model, on the other hand - the player have to manually check if theres enough build-points to build a tile-improvement, then manually drag around that damn map back and forth, in order to find just as many appropriate and potential tile-objects, as in Civ-2.
[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited December 31, 2000).]
|
I see this point load and clear, and this (manually scrolling the map) I actually find this less annoying than having the settler get destroyed by the AI.
In CTP (haven't had the chance to play CTP2) I could always see the total number of Public works I had stored, and would just wait every few turns to scroll and make improvements (BASICALLY 1, maybe 2, THINGS TO DO). This is always nice in the earlier part of the game. Because you can use the entire empires production to develop the entire empires land (esp the smaller/newly developed city) whereas with the settler-model you have build them (1 THING), then move them throughout the empire (2 THINGS), and also worry about them getting destroied (3 THINGS) and then possibly having to rebuild them (esp annoying when they were working on a smaller cities land far from a well producing city).
Another problem/annoyance with the settler-model is the fact that your city has to use a 'food' production from the city the settler was built in, making it harder for that city to grow. I think it is easier to make your cities grow faster with the public works-model.
As far as an answer, who knows. I posted this because I was hoping it would get to the creators of CIV III and they could address it. So the more suggestions and arguments torward a solution, the better possible outcome.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grrr
|
 |
of Hamilton, New-Zealand.
Dec 2000
time: 18:12
|
|
[quote]Originally posted by Fintilgin on 12-30-2000 03:23 PM
Perhaps a new system, a little like public works, but where there is no `public works stockpile' or specific production. Instead, you can order any improvement built anywhere in your territory at any time, as many as you want. Then that improvment will be built by syphoning off production from the city whose radius it will be within. Possibly the improvement might syphon off resources averaged across your empire, but that might make it too easy. Perhaps you'd start with each city building their own improvements, but technology would eventually allow you to build more and more kinds from the Empire's stockpile.
This way you could set out areas to be farmed, or mined and have cities slowly improve themselves, based off your orders. The computer would probably be more able to figure out what to build as well, without worrying about moving units around and such.
I agree that an 'Order' system would be very easy, as a city should have a Citizen build the improvements, when enough funds are available. Also these improvements wouldn't be built until a citizen works the tile. One would 'Order' all the tile imps when they build or concur the city, and then they will be gradually built.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tniem
|
|
Hope College
Apr 2000
time: 00:12
|
|
I have never played CTP, but would be open to a public works idea.
However, it would seem to me that you won't be using settlers to build roads, farms, etc in Civ III.
SMAC you had to build seperate teraformers to do the required tile improvements and a colony pod to found cities. I think it worked for the most part and Firaxis would probably use it again in Civ III.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
markusf
|
|
I think settlars should be kept, with the public works system you build stuff instantly, and you lose a sence of time, its not realistic and doesn't really require you to focus on "building" up your cities....
I think settlars should be used to build, roads, railroads, mines, fortifications, airbases.
Public works should be used for irrigation, and transformation of terrain
|
|
| |
|
|
|
zyxpsilon
|
 |
Laval,Quebec,Canada
Sep 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
Settlers and Engineers are excellent at performing the tasks of city radius development. Not only, do they give out the -managing- feeling within play, but they also simplify greatly efficient -planning- of what's needed to increase resources output from the fields.
"KISS" (Keep it short&sweet, or simple&stupid), i believe has been the motto of many successful progress made in reality.
Now, if we could only have Oil-rigs, warehouse, assemply line, gardeners, fishermen... workers.
Hummm, that'd make it too complex! Population is available TO settlers and engineers duty. Road, fortress, irrigation... are TOO.
21 squares is large enough, but a mine might give out material-S, farmland might supply Fruits and Milk.
Trading commodities as diverse as the actual economy produces has, for example, the appeal of putting rubber tires to vehicules or fueling the Helicopter in a field airport. Commercializing stockpiles of, say, paper made out of trees... between cities is another aspect.
My camel is bringing Spice (which i didn't produce!) in exchange of Coal from a city in a middle of a desert.
My point is this > let the settlers improve the real world and the engineers build products.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:12.
Apolyton Time is 00:12. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-12-2000 13:20
|