 |
| |
|
|
airdrik
|
 |
Nampa, ID, USA
Oct 2000
time: 22:12
|
|
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 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... 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ChrisShaffer
|
 |
Iowa City, Iowa, United States of America
Aug 1999
time: 23:12
|
|
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."
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Chronus
|
|
"when there is nothing to be done, nothing is done(instead of having to see a settlers move around hopelessly"
Couldn't you just sentry the settler in a city? That's what I do when I'm finished using them for the time being and it hasn't given me any problems.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cyberbugs
|
|
Sweden
Mar 2001
time: 05:12
|
|
I consider it very important that your are able to set the worker unit to, for example, build mines and farms but not roads.
Sometimes it might even be good not to build roads between your own cities, because these same roads could be fataly exploated by an attacking civilization thus helping it in its offensive, and also it might be better to invest the time of your workers in building mines rather than roads.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
meriadoc
|
 |
Troy, NY
Dec 1999
time: 00:12
|
|
Personally, I prefer the public works system, but if CivIII uses a settler/worker based system I won't really mind. I will admit that there is something more personal and less abstract about having a unit build my improvements and, yes, I could have the worker accompany the troops to the battle and build forts and stuff.
However, the PW system isn't that different. Neither CivCTP or CTP2 allowed you to build entire roads across the world all at once. In CTP2 you could only place tile improvements inside of your national borders or, in the case of forts, where a unit was already. So, basically, the PW system allowed you to manage your tile improvements with a little less micromanagement while still requiring you to depend upon your units a little.
My major objection to settlers building my roads and stuff is not really the micromangement - I like that (I've never used mayors because I want to do it all myself). My major objection to settlers is that I have a short memory. While I was playing Civ2 it was not uncommon for me to forget what it was I wanted a settler to do by the time it got to its destination.
Someone suggested putting down "pre-fab" packs that your workers then use as sort of a blueprint. You place a pack and when the worker becomes available he'll head off to the next pack and start working. I think that's a great idea and I kind of hope that Firaxis includes something like it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ralf
|
 |
Sweden
Mar 2000
time: 06:12
|
|
I have always suspected that Firaxis would go "anti CTP-2" then it came to core-elements of the game, like the settler-system instead of public works, and fixed city-areas instead of expanding CTP-2 ones. The reason is (and was) pretty easy to foresee:
Theres so many new additions and features in the Civ-3 game already, and the dumbest/most risky thing that they could do, would be to replace fundamental game core-elements, like the settler-system and the fixed city-area modell, that have millions of play-testing hours under their belts, and instead fumble around with totally new and untested concepts.
The "expanding city-areas" concept for example, turned up to be a "can-of-worms" idea, with many unexpected & less attractive side-effects. As for the support of the public-works system: Well, just as many (or more) seems to actually prefer the original settler-system. So Firaxis really didnt risk anything by placing their bets on a tweaked and upgraded version of it.
Now there is even less reason why they would look at CTP/CTP-2 design-solutions for inspiration, and instead go their own way. A quote from the CTP-2 section:
"The latest issue of Technology Investor Magazine reports that gaming company Activision is falling to pieces, and what’s more- CTP2 is one of the main reasons. According to the article,
Last Quarter its earnings dropped 35%. However, Tony Hawk was not the 1-2 punch that hurt Activision. The 'CTP2' sequel, which was expected to match its prequel ‘Call to Power’, bottomed out selling less than 30 000 copies."
That pretty much sums it up. Sad, infact - we need MORE tbs-strategy games with civ-style flavour - also from other companies then Firaxis. Not less. However, this should also serve as a warning example for other developers.
IF THE BASIC CONCEPT HAS BEEN PROVEN SOUND - TRY TO IMPROVE ON IT. BUT, DONT REPLACE IT. DONT CHANGE FOR THE SAKE OF CHANGE.
[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited April 20, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
the failure of activision was that they tried to sell ctp as civ3 and not so much that some of their ideas needed more work. the low sales of ctp2 have much more to do with what impressions ctp1 left than with it's actual quality
btw, the expanding city radius (i believe) was hailed by players as a great move, both as being more fun department as well as helping in the war against ics...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ralf
|
|
Sweden
Mar 2000
time: 06:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MarkG on 04-20-2001 03:34 PM
the failure of activision was that they tried to sell ctp as civ3...
|
Selling CTP as the updated Civ-3 was the very reason that people got lured into buying the game in the first place. That was Activisions only chance of getting significantly above ordinary salefigures - and they knew it all too well. Why else, was it so important for them to have the catchword "CIVILIZATION" (with capital letters), directly above "Call to Power" on the package?
quote:
the low sales of ctp2 have much more to do with what impressions ctp1 left than with it's actual quality
|
The low sales of CTP-2 was a consequence of people now knew for sure that activisions CTP-games had nothing to do with those old civ-classics. Infact, CTP-2 was in many ways a final test if their civ-variant really would stand on its own two legs, without the walking-stick support/goodwill of the original Sid Meier Civ-titles.
The test failed. The Activision-variant of the Civilization-concept just couldnt survive a second comming. Most people didnt like CTP, and they didnt like the fact that Activision once again refused to produce a CTP-2 demo, that they could evaluate. So they hesitated...
Then the bad/lukewarm game-magazine reviews came. Some CTP-2 fans run to Activisions defence, but just 2-3 weeks later, the whole CTP-2 forum was overwhelmed with angry civers complaining over the weak AI. These angry AI-post where infact so many that you guys felt compelled to create a special CTP-2 AI-section to house them all. That was the feelings of "the actual quality" of CTP-2, at the time.
[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited April 21, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chief
|
|
Perth, W.A., Australia
Apr 2001
time: 05:12
|
|
EXACTLY... settlers/workers are so the way to go. Although PW may have seemed like a good concept, it just didn't work in a game... it sucked. Settlers/workers provide many more tactical options in the placement or automation of tile improvements and can also be destroyed, making it an opportunity to cripple an enemy's resource/food gathering!
quote:
Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 04-11-2001 01:42 PM
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.
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
noitazilivic
|
|
How about PW like in CTp, but to please those of you who use settlers/workers strategically (forts or others like sensors) you could have special units for these. I am not talking millitary settlers, but perhaps a type of infantry could have the ability to build a semi-permament for (entrench etc) or a millitary unit that can also set up listening posts?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ralf, you don't want to drag a map around to place improvement with a PW system, but you are willing to herd settlers/terraformers/engineers around a map, perhaps 20 a turn, look around the map for tiles that should be improved, spend several turns getting 20+ settlers to their proper spots and then spending 7+ turns to add roads/railroads/irrigation/farms or road/railroads/mines to a single square? I'm just not convinced. I guess I'd rather hunt around on the map for things I'd like to improve, place as many improvements ans I would both like and afford simulataneuosly and wait sveral turns as people (who are not in unit form) build it. I guess I'm just more interesting in building the empire I would like as opposed to moving blinking units around a screen. Silly me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Al'Kimiya
|
|
With PW you could make improvements in lake/ocean areas, allowing more food income (and trade?). Has anyone considered this for settlers/workers?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-04-2001 09:51
|
|