One of the features which I find makes it "necessary" for me to micromanage the city production is that if I want to build a knight and my city produce 34 shield, then I need to always either (1) hurry with cash to 40 shield after one turn or (2) adjust my lands so that I can get 35 shield but maybe with negative food in order not to waste 32 shield if I leave things alone. The wasted shield is significant enough for me to want to do micromanagement to get almost the exact number. All these should not be necessary. The game should be about strategy, not who can micro manage things better.

Similarly, food production are wasted on growth. This should be change as well.

The better approach should be to cascade the excess shields/food to the next production/food. This will make micromanagement of cities unnecessary so that players can concentrate on strategy issues. So, in the above case, I should have
turn 1 - 34 shield
turn 2 - 68 shield
turn 3 - 32 shield with cavalry produced. (Instead of zero shield)

I'd like to see this too. Maybe as a option so the die-hards can still get their MM kicks :)


Ted

I disagree. It's unrealistic, your overproduction on a battleship wouldn't help out to build a nuke. Maybe production wouldn't be wasted if you built the same thing, the extra sheilds would carry over but if you switched the extra is lost.

While I'll be the first to admit it's a pain in the ... sometimes & I'm a complete rookie at micromanagement, its definatly what seperates the pawns from the kings.

@Gengis Khan
Just think what a boost it would give to the AI.

AFAIK the AI doesn't have the ability to MM so suffers from lost production and food far worse than any competent human player.


Ted

I like this idea. You should think of it this way: after half a turn (or 29/37 a turn ;) ) the unit/buiding is finished and the production of a new unit/builing is started. Each city should just remember the overproduction in a project and put it in the next project. In Master of Orion II, it worked this way.
I agree that the AI would benefit from it much more than an experiened human player. That's another reason (except the excessive micromanagement), why I would like it. I play at Deity level, so I would suffer a lot, but I like it anyhow. :)
I don't think they'll change this in Civilisation 3 however. It's too radical. But I'm hoping for Civilisation 4.

Also prebuilding would be pointless, and the computer could prebuild without even meaning to.

ex. Say in your capitol your producing 55 sheilds a turn, you build a warrior for 10 sheilds netting you 45 "extra" sheilds a turn & a unit. You could either upgrade the unit for money or disband it for more surplus shields. After a few turns you could build ANYTHING in 1 turn.

Way too powerful!

Originally posted by Gengis Khan
Also prebuilding would be pointless, and the computer could prebuild without even meaning to.

ex. Say in your capitol your producing 55 sheilds a turn, you build a warrior for 10 sheilds netting you 45 "extra" sheilds a turn & a unit. You could either upgrade the unit for money or disband it for more surplus shields. After a few turns you could build ANYTHING in 1 turn.

Way too powerful!

This abuse can (and should) of course be avoided. It is very easy to avoid. Put a maximum of 300 on shields you can have in "holding". Then it would be equal or weaker than a prebuild.

Having all shields in every city roll over to the next item would make it too easy for the player. However, it might be interesting to have a small wonder, that once built, accumulates up to 50 overproduction shields, with the option to use them every 10 turns or so. There's already a Recycling Center, so it would have to be named something else (Spare Parts Facility? Salvage Yard?). I'd like something similar for food storage too - a Grain Elevator Complex, maybe, especially if you can fish on sea tiles and send that food to a city (then its grain production can be stored). There should be a stick side to this as well as a carrot - cities should riot if they starve, for several turns - that way the player has to be more careful in preventing population loss. The way it is now is somewhat ridiculous - a conversation between two citizens of a starving city might go something like this: "Hi, Bob!" "Oh, hi, Jim! Say didya hear that they ran out of food over in Queens last week? Everybody died, and no one is working that tile anymore! It's really dropped our city production down!" "Gee, that's too bad. Well, I've got to get these banners over to Manhattan - we're celebrating WLTK day next week!"

1) I would limit the rollover to only apply to the next turns build. So if you have 55 production and you are making a warrior, you get the warrior built and 10 shields in the box. The rest is lost. This way there is "saving up" that is exploitive.

2) I would also keep the current policy that if you have 300 shields saved up and you switch to a warrior, then you lose 290 shields.

Note that the first rule actually follows from applying the second rule at the beginning of your turn.
---------------------
In other words, if you are building something that is more shields than the city's production per turn, you use all your shields, but if you build something that is costs less shields than you make in a turn, you still lose the shields.

This would remove the need to MM without being exploitive. Unless someone can find a flaw in my idea?

Originally posted by Ivan the Kulak
Having all shields in every city roll over to the next item would make it too easy for the player.

Would make what too easy?
The human player is much better at micromanagement than the AI, so it would make the game harder for the human player.
If a city produces 39 shields and produces a cavalry (80 shields) than the (smart) human player will increase the production of such a city to 40. Or a player might, after 1 turn of producing a cavalry, switch the production to a 50 shield item, rush it, and switch it back to cavalry (this to produce the cavalry in 2 turns).
The AI won't do these things.
So the game will get harder when the human doesn't have that micromanagement advantage anymore.

Also this waste of shields is very strange. In the case mentioned above the cavalry should be build in just a little more than 2 turns (actually 2 2/39 turn) and than the production should switch to the next item in the queue which would get 37 production in the third turn. It's strange to lose that production.

Also this per turn production doesn't add something to the game. Just some more micromanagement, but no real strategy. The more time you spend in a turn to manage this micromanagement, the better you play. It doesn't require real intelligence, just persistence.

This Idea is good if you want to build lots of wonders of the world!

I have thought about the cascading problem as well. As others have bought up, you just need a cap to it and it will not cuase any problem. My ideal solution would be to cap it to what you are currently building. With that in place, you can implement this safely without creating a lop hole.

Gengis Khan> I understand you have not done too much micromanagement. If you have, you would appreciate this a lot! Micro-management of cities is very powerful with the current design. But the neccesity to do it to play well simply makes no sense. I see the need to MM workers where I am actually making decisions. But for cities, it is a no-brainer for me and I had to spend massive playing time on this just because it is so powerful.

Roland - such a wonder as I proposed would become available later in the game, after cities were already working every tile, so switching production tiles around would not make that much difference. You're right about the rush buy trick, although I regard this as something of an exploit myself. Of course if you're in a government that uses forced labor to rush, it's really not worth the cost to rush units this way on a regular basis. If the AI built this wonder it would have the same advantages as the human player anyway - I would think that it would actually make more efficient use of this than the human player who doesn't extensively micromanage. You could let the AI store more shields than the human to give it a bigger advantage as well. I wish the AI could allocate its shields the way it did in civ2.

Ivan - I don't use the rush buy trick either, but I try to get production levels in cities that are more "effective". For instance, a production level of 40 would be much more useful if you're building cavalry than a production level of 39. And a production level of 43 wouldn't add anything. The AI doesn't think about these things and therefore plays far less optimal than the human player. ( I achieve the more optimal levels of improvement by changing minse to irrigation or the other way around)

I think of the turn based system as a system where you look at a continuous system at fixed points in time. At these fxed points in time (the turns), you can make decisions. But if you look at it like this, then it is very strange that a city can't start on the next project between turns. Especially if this next project is already in the queue. The decision is already made and the city doesn't have to wait until the next turn to start on the next project. It can use it shields that weren't used for the previous project on the next project.

Why should such a natural thing need a smal wonder?

If cities don't lose the overproduction in a turn, then production micromanagement won't be needed. A city that produces 39 for tree turns on a cavalry will use the overproduction of 37 (3*39 -80) on the next building project and will switch inbetween the turns to this project. Effectively this means that in the turnbased system the 37 unused shields will be stored for the next project. This storing would have a limit of 300 (or another number) to avoid misuse for building wonders (more than with prebuilding).

I wouldn't mind if a city that produced 50 shields could build a worker (10) and a cannon (40) in one turn. As long as they are in the queue.

Excessive saving of production (you could do this until 300 shields) is a stupid strategy. You should use it to build things. For wonders it's just another way to prebuild. But you could better use an expensive palace or expensive small wonder to prebuild for a wonder, because they cost more than 300.

Sorry for the lengthy post. I just think that Qitai's idea is great. :goodjob:

I'd just like to add my vote to this change. Less tedium for the player and more effective AI civs = a better game.

But, I can't see it happening. It's been this way since Civ 1.

I don't think they'll change it either - the point to having it this way is to reward those who DO get into the nuances of the game, and micromanage, which is not a bad thing. The wonder I suggested would appeal to those who don't micromanage, though. The Grain Elevator would be useful to everyone, however - many times I've wanted to get a newer city growing through increased food supply, and I don't want to waste time building workers and sending them over - if I have a coastal city that's useless for production (low shields, high corruption), why not send its extra food to a more useful city?

200 % behind this ;)

Waiting for Firaxis to make this an option, there is my utility. Topic : Civ3Ext (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?threadid=57158)

I like the idea of rolling over shields. After all, shields represent raw materials found or produced. If there are extra materials, countries definitely use them for other projects. This rollover idea stems from efficiency in production that many countries excersize.

What about wonders... I was under the impression you could only 'start' wonders if your current build had NO shields in it...

Muchembled> Cool. I may give it a try one of these days. But as it is, I wouldn't want to be playing a mod which no one elses plays. Anyway, did anyone look at the AI and how they perform? Does it shows any significant improvement? Or did the mod affects the human only?

Originally posted by Qitai
Muchembled> Cool. I may give it a try one of these days. But as it is, I wouldn't want to be playing a mod which no one elses plays. Anyway, did anyone look at the AI and how they perform? Does it shows any significant improvement? Or did the mod affects the human only?

The utility that Muchembled made works perfect as far as I can tell. I used the utility on a single player game that was already in the modern era, and I was already winning so I can't tell if the AI got better. I spied at the AI's cities to see if they also get the extra food production and shields and they do get them. So I assume that they play better now because the AI is not as good at micromanagement as the human player.

The other features of Muchembled's utility are great too. The utility warns you when a city has grown and when a city will go into disorder. You should try it sometime. It greatly reduces micromanagement and thus improves gameplay. :goodjob:

I agree with food rollover; it's sensible and practical.
I disagree with shield rollover; AI is aggressive enough already.
I'm glad we need not be concerned with gold rollover.
Now this gold rollover comment has given me new ideas about rush-buying. I'll start a new thread on it.

I like both roll-over ideas. It makes sense, and would certainly take away MM tedium. And to the people complaining about the AI having an advantage: That's a good thing. If you want to have the AI be at about the same challenge, take away other advantages (free units, etc.). That's also a good thing, the fact that the AI wouldn't need these advantages.

Or just go down a difficulty level.

As long as Chieftain isn't too hard for novices nor Deity too easy for experienced players the difficulty levels are doing their job.

Originally posted by Pembroke
Or just go down a difficulty level.Actually, what I meant to say was Firaxis could take away those bonuses/add human bonuses to make the difficulty levels the same true difficulty.

I tried that utility, and it does work great!

If you just rushed something (so the shield box was full), you still get that city's shield output for the next thing you are building, so you aren't 'wasting' any shields by rushing.

One thing I haven't checked is if the cascade of shields from a cleared forest prevents a wonder build. Let's say you only need 5 shields to finish a project. You clear the forest (10 shields), and now have 5 shields cascaded to the next project. I don't know if those 5 shields will be counted as coming from the forest and preventing you from building a wonder next. I know the forest gets cleared before the game adds your city's shield production, so in some cases this penalty won't apply (like if you need 11 shields to finish something, and you produce 6 shields/turn, then the last 5 shields that got cascaded came from the city, so you could start a wonder).

You still need to do some micromanaging, so there is still an advantage for doing micromanagement. Example: For 4 turn settler factory, you still may need a forest tile to pick up the extra shield or two every time you gain a population point, and then to take the 'new' citizen off of the forest and back to a higher food tile to stay at +5 food.
But actually now that I think about it, maybe if you use 'emphasize food' you wouldn't need to do this. The first settler may get delayed by 1 turn, but after that you should be able to keep the settler/4 turns pace since the shields are cascading. The one or two shields may eventually add up to 1 full settler, but that wouldn't be for another 15 settlers (minimal impact), it isn't too much of a difference if you have 16 cities instead of 15.

But for those cities at +3 or +4 food that have a granary (where you only need 10 food, so some food is wasted), you don't need to switch the tiles around every 3 or 4 turns (to maximize commerce/shields since you don't need the food), or to build cities so that they share these tiles so you can switch the tiles around between the two cities every 3-4 turns.

You probably wouldn't need to do the more advanced micromanagement, either (having workers adjust the terrain every turn or two to accomodate your shield/food needs).

This does help the human in the early game more so than the AI. The AI would still have the problem of having the shields for a settler built up before they have the population points for it. And the notorious worker tasking of the AI hurts it. So the human still needs proper worker management to have an edge.

Later in the game, the AI would be better, because they of course don't try to balance shield output to what they are building (have a 30-shield city build a 90-shield unit, and a 20-shield city build an 80-shield unit). The AI will still build solar plants when they already have Hoovers. The AI will still have too few workers when they have pollution all over the place, and other idiot things the AI does in the late game that causes them to fall apart.

However, I think the human player will have a greater advantage in the late game because the human won't mass-irrigate the world like the AI does. So the human has more shields to cascade to the next building/unit. But that is what the shield discounts are for! Maybe the discounts wouldn't need to be so great?

As long as Chieftain isn't too hard for novices nor Deity too easy for experienced players the difficulty levels are doing their job.

There are people who play 'Beyond Deity' where they give the AI a bigger discount than deity level.
Deity=40% discount
Beyond Deity=50%

Beyond Deity. Sounds good. Is this (50% dscount) the best bonus to give the AI if you want to make the game more chalenging after the start of the game?
Deity is a bit of a race to become equal and better in tech than the AI. Normally I succeed in this objective because the AI gets into mayor wars. This happens (almost) for sure after they get the technology to sign Mutual Protection Pacts (Nationalism). I think the AI at Deity (and Beyond Deity) level would be more chalenging if they can't sign Mutual Protection Pacts. But that would reduce diplomacy and that's bad.

Does anyone have any good ideas to make the AI more chalenging (by giving them specific bonusses)?

I don't agree with you Bamspeedy on the effect on the AI and the Human player of this utility. I think it helps the AI more than a good human player.
Without the utility I manage my cities in such a way that they produce exactly the amount of shields to be 95+% efficient (40 shields in a city building cavalry (80), etc.) and the food that is still produced in such a (maximum fase) city will be used to build workers and settlers to add to slow growing cities. I think that my efficiency will be much better than the AI's.
When the utility is used, I will become marginally more efficient in managing my cities, while the AI will become a lot more efficient. Of course the human player will still be more efficient but I think the difference will be smaller.
Also I think it will be most usefull for the AI to become better at the midgame and according to you that's the moment they will gain the most by using the utility.

I don't know if it is the best bonus to give, but for Beyond Deity, they just go in the editor and give the AI a cost factor of 5 (instead of 6). Buried several pages back in the succession games forums there was a game played with this setting (title of thread named 'Beyond Deity'). They won, after a rocky start next to the Greeks.
You could give them even more of a discount, but I don't think anyone has ever tried, or succeeded at that. You could give them a cost factor as little as 1, which would let them build immortals for 3 shields. :eek: :eek:

Getting rid of MPP's does sound like a good way to solve the AI's stumbles in the late game. I may try that sometime.

I would vote against this change.

Losing excess food and production is one of the mechanisms that make the game harder to master, without making it harder to learn, and therefore it gives the game greater depth, and makes it more rewarding in the long-run.

I appreciate some players may prefer to concentrate on the strategic elements of the game, but I think tactics and micro-management have an important role to play.

Carryover of excess food and shields (and excess research beakers as well, when completing a tech) would be the simplest, easiest, biggest improvement I can think of. It would do a lot to equalize the gap between human and computer play, which I'd love to see. Giving the AI bigger and bigger bonuses is no fun, and excessive micromanagement is no fun either.

Since people feel both ways about this, I'd be perfectly satisfied to have it as an option when setting up the game. Like the Accelerated Production option that exists now.

Originally posted by Snaga
I would vote against this change.

Losing excess food and production is one of the mechanisms that make the game harder to master, without making it harder to learn, and therefore it gives the game greater depth, and makes it more rewarding in the long-run.

I appreciate some players may prefer to concentrate on the strategic elements of the game, but I think tactics and micro-management have an important role to play. And I think you're crazy. :p

Losing excess food and production doesn't make it harder to master; it is simply hard to get yourself to care about the game enough to worry about it. It adds no depth to the game; how is fooling around to make sure everything evens out in the end deep? It doesn't take a smart, shrewd, or clever person to do it; it takes a persistant person to do it, as someone else said. Well, I guess you could argue that it does indeed make it harder to master and makes it deeper, but not in the sense that I'd like it to be. Plus it's not realistic. Maybe some production/food/research could be lost due to bad orders or something, but what idiot in real life notices that a battleship is done being made but continues to work anyway? Or what leader would not build anything cheap in a productive city, and instead build it in an unproductive one, because he doesn't want to waste any productivity? It makes no sense, AFAIK and IMO.

That's just my opinion, though, and you're certainly entitled to yours. :)

I view micromanaging for shields/food/commerce is the same thing as milking a game.

There are different degrees of milking, as there is micromanaging. You can do 'basic' micromanaging, like you can do a simple 'milking'. Using the governors is like just pressing 'end turn'. Most people don't enjoy milking, and I don't enjoy micromanaging.

Most people are dumbfounded when somebody says they enjoy milking to 2050 AD. I am equally dumbfounded when somebody enjoys micromanaging 50+ cities, and still trying to save every last shield/gold they can while in the industrial/modern age.

The higher skilled milkers are just as skilled as those who employ the 'advanced micromanagement'. But the real thing that is talked about in this thread is the 'basic micromanagement', which is the same as a 'simple milk'.

The simple milk is basically just working on a jigsaw puzzle and putting the pieces into place. You know where the pieces go, it's just a simple matter of doing it. That's exactly what the basic micromanagement is. You know which tiles need to be worked, you just have to move those citizens around nearly every single turn. There is no strategy involved in simply counting how many shields you need (and over/under producing) and placing citizens to match that. All that is, is counting. Simple math.

Even with the cascading of food/shields, there are still micromanaging that can be done if desired. Just like there are 'advanced' milking techniques for those who want a higher score. And there still is proper worker tasking to do.

Strategy (IMO) is:
1. Where do you build your cities?
2. What do you build, and in what order?
3. What do you research?
4. Does your worker mine or irrigate? (of course, despotism reduces the choices here).
5. Do you fight your neighbors, or stay at peace?
6. Do you build that marketplace, or more military?
7. Diplomacy/trade.
8. How much to use the luxury slider.
9. Do you pop-rush, or wait for the thing to be built manually.
10. What to do with that great leader?

Strategy is not:
1. Short rushing.
2. Moving citizens off of a tile because that city is producing too much food that turn.
3. Turning down research for 1 turn because you are investing too much.
4. Set what units cities are building, strictly based on their shield output (to avoid waste).

Strategy is like being a coach of a sports team.
Micromanaging is like being a bookkeeper/accountant.
Which is more fun?

PLEASE, at least give us this OPTION!

I think the basic idea of cascading excess shields (and beakers) makes plenty of sense.

One way of discouraging amassing megapiles by building Warriors in 40 shield cities would be having "stored" shields be subject to some form of corruption. Knock the same percentage of the cascading shields as corruption knocks off the base production. This means that amassed shields will decay exponentially. You'd need a minimum rate of loss to stop megapiles in the capital.

I'd be happy to limit the maximum shield (and food) carryover to the size of the storage box, and also to limit any given city to build at most one thing per turn. I think that's enough to control abuse.

With the program that marceagleye posted, a city can't 'store' more than it produces in 1 turn. If the city is producing 21 shields/turn and you build a 10 shield warrior, and then try building another warrior, the game asks you if this is OK, because you are wasting 1 shield (11 shields have been stored). If you build another warrior after that, then 21 shields would be wasted, and 21 shields would keep being wasted if you keep building warriors.

Originally posted by WillJ
but what idiot in real life notices that a battleship is done being made but continues to work anyway?

I think you answered the original ruling reason here Will, What Idiot would 'continue working' when the battleship is done, hence the ceasement of remaining shields,
On the other hand, at the advent of the Industrialisation/Production line in the tech tree, I think that the games designers should put in the roll-over effect when building the same unit in the same city. This make sense.

Originally posted by Bane Star
I think you answered the original ruling reason here Will, What Idiot would 'continue working' when the battleship is done, hence the ceasement of remaining shields,
On the other hand, at the advent of the Industrialisation/Production line in the tech tree, I think that the games designers should put in the roll-over effect when building the same unit in the same city. This make sense. Yeah, I guess it could be argued that the people realize they're done and stop working, but when those people are done making the battleship, they should move on to something else. Since I'm such a cruel dictator, my citizens don't get breaks. :evil: Plus, IMO, the concept of production and research going in turns shouldn't be so strict.

Originally posted by WillJ
Losing excess food and production doesn't make it harder to master; it is simply hard to get yourself to care about the game enough to worry about it. It adds no depth to the game; how is fooling around to make sure everything evens out in the end deep? It doesn't take a smart, shrewd, or clever person to do it; it takes a persistant person to do it, as someone else said. Well, I guess you could argue that it does indeed make it harder to master and makes it deeper, but not in the sense that I'd like it to be. Plus it's not realistic. Maybe some production/food/research could be lost due to bad orders or something, but what idiot in real life notices that a battleship is done being made but continues to work anyway? Or what leader would not build anything cheap in a productive city, and instead build it in an unproductive one, because he doesn't want to waste any productivity? It makes no sense, AFAIK and IMO.
Micromanaging cities for the whole duration of a game would take not just persistence, but a fair slice of insanity in my opinion. Micromanaging the right cities, the right way, at the right time requires a lot of experience and good judgement. I also disagree that these are easy decisions to make. Reducing wastage inter-relates with all the other small and large scale decisions a civ player needs to make. It adds a layer of complexity to civ, which I think makes the game more challenging and more rewarding.

Getting rid of this game feature would not only reduce the gap between human and computer play, but would also reduce the gap between moderate players and those with more experience.

As for realism, I think the best games model real-life situations only roughly. Trying too hard for realism usually kills off gameplay. Almost every aspect of Civ 3 is unrealistic if you analyze it. e.g the movement rate of units, the fixed options for culture and research, the size of cities compared to land. Find me part of the game that is realistic! The concept of running a city efficiently is however, very much in tune with a model of real-life. I like the fact that an experienced player can wring more production/growth out of a city than an inexperienced one.

I personally find constantly having to enter diplomacy with rivals so as to not miss out on trade deals the dullest part of the game.

Originally posted by Snaga
Getting rid of this game feature would not only reduce the gap between human and computer play, but would also reduce the gap between moderate players and those with more experience.

Great! That's two good reasons.

Originally posted by Bane Star
I think you answered the original ruling reason here Will, What Idiot would 'continue working' when the battleship is done, hence the ceasement of remaining shields

If a single game turn is 10 years long, it would seem to me that if the workers finish the battleship after 2 years, they could spend the next 8 years doing something else. The accumulated/carryover shields represent the value of the work that they do during that time. One can either decide what to put it into in advance (using build queues), or just specify on the next turn (by giving an appropriate work order on the city screen).

Originally posted by Snaga

Micromanaging cities for the whole duration of a game would take not just persistence, but a fair slice of insanity in my opinion. Micromanaging the right cities, the right way, at the right time requires a lot of experience and good judgement. I also disagree that these are easy decisions to make. Reducing wastage inter-relates with all the other small and large scale decisions a civ player needs to make. It adds a layer of complexity to civ, which I think makes the game more challenging and more rewarding.


So, you are saying these insanity is good? I don't think it requires experience at all. I can and has done it since day zero I play this game. It just needs time and that boring persistance and especially an unwillingness to do with less. No experience required. These do not last however unless you do not have a life to live. After you have played this game over a 20 times, the last thing you need is to repeat all those fine-tuning again!



Getting rid of this game feature would not only reduce the gap between human and computer play, but would also reduce the gap between moderate players and those with more experience.


Isn't this good? Makes the AI better? As for Human Vs Human. I don't want to become a race on who has more time! A good example is DavidDesj not being able to submit a victory in GOTM20, not because he can't. But because he has a life and a holiday. I am fully confident he can be ranked among the top if he gets the chance to finish his game. I would be also very sure hat if Sir Pleb spends more time on GOTM20, his scores would be much better than what we see. All these are examples of very good players ranking lower just because they have less time, not less skill.



I like the fact that an experienced player can wring more production/growth out of a city than an inexperienced one.

I personally find constantly having to enter diplomacy with rivals so as to not miss out on trade deals the dullest part of the game.

Again, I disagree with that. I wasn't making decision when I fine tune those shields and food. Just mindlessly trying hard not to waste food and shield. And again, no experience required. Just time and the willingness to do it.

Just a bump of approval.

I really hope it's not too late for this enhancement to get into C3C.

Production carry over would help the AI more than a human player, cause a human player can micromanage. Therefore I would support production carry over as a very positive improvement and a way to simplify an improvement for the AI.

I also support a penalty for switching production, like civ2 had, this would stop the short rushing and prebuild abuse.

So, does anyone know if there's the slightest chance of getting shield carryover (as a game setup option) in Conquests. Who should we talk to? This would make a huge difference in my enjoyment of the game. And it really doesn't seem hard to implement. All that's needed is a single setting: when shields are produced, if more are generated than needed to fill the box, empty the box and start filling it again, but stop if the box refills a second time. I'm sure they could do this pretty easily (e.g., less work than adding the "Accelerated Production" option).

Well, I hope they would give us an option on this. I had not bought PTW since there wasn't really anything there that I really wanted. I have no interest in multiplayer feature or the additional civs. If this is included, then it would make a big difference on my enjoyment of the game and would really consider buying conquest.