How do we handle it all?

All right, I have read a few of thease threads and some of them talk about adding things to the game such as geoligists, religion, and ordinances. This poll is about what we should do to handle all those new concepts . As for me, I dont want this game to be to much like SimCity so I say we should just force some of it on to the governator. O.K. not all of it on the governor, I just make my governator handle my citezens moods and I emphasize food.

Please explain your vote.
PLEASE!!!!

If you need a governor to handle a feature, then its a sign the feature requires too much micromanagement for the user to want to handle it each turn.

If you have to micromanage it, then it depends on the amount and the extent. If a player on Chieftain need to micromanage a lot to get the feature to work, then the feature is too complicated.

The 3rd alternative would be none of the above, which I don't see so I won't vote here. PS. can you add it?

I tried to edit it but it wont let me. What do you mean by none of the above? Since there isn't one and I dont know how to change it I suggest you vote other and then explain your vote.

I think that the best game systems are when you can set a 'empire-wide' standard in a single screen then, if you want, go and adjust individual cities according to your needs-either yourself or via governers. So, like in CTP1 and 2, you could set national wages, working hours and rations-so it should be in Civ4.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

You know, I wouldn't mind you people explaining your vote. Oh and by the way can't the Governator control all the people? Do you realy want to make the game torture? Don't vote for micromanaging!

Well, it wouldn't be Civ if you don't micromanage...

Well I'm sure it wouldn't be all governor. I have my governor manage my citezens moods but not what they build!

GoliathFF8 said:

Well, it wouldn't be Civ if you don't micromanage...

Click to expand...

I Disagree with this. Civ is inherently a big picture game. We aren't concerned with details such as how the workers get their work done, how the soldiers fight, how the tech gets researched. We never look at, or even see, the little decisions- or micromanagement. In civ we focus on the big decisions.

As far as my vote is concerned, if a feature would require too much micromanagement it should either be rethought it can either be managed on a single screen, such as a nation-wide screen or a provincial screen, elimanate the feature, or redo the feature so that it does not require micromanagement.

My philosophy is to eliminate any or most features that require the player to excercise a mechanical skill... a repeatable, tedious task. Anything like this should be cut out of the game.

And reorient the game to high level visionary decisions. What constitutes a visionary decision? Well, I have two requirements in mind:

1) Two different high level visionary options will both be equally successful, although still different.

2) A high level visionary choice that you take one game won't work out the next game, because it depends on the player's ability to be sensitive to their surroundings.

How is that different from what we have now?

Well, for one, there's always one best strategy in Civ. And two is that the best players generally follow these mechanical steps every game... save a few opportunistic surprises, or a few geographic obstacles that makes each game unique.

How we handle it all has nothing to do with whether we assign it to governors or micromanage it ourselves. The answer is some weird combination of neither and both.

If we assign everything to governors and automate everything, the game sucks.

If we micromanage all kinds of stupidness, the game sucks. Despite what people say, micromanagement is not the point of Civ, nor does mastering it make you a strategic genius. It makes you a monkey.

But if we use governors for everything, the game sucks. Ultimately, there HAS to be decisions for the player. But the decisions have to be big, not small-minded.

I voted for the governator because he has big mucles and he is smart. Also all that micromanaging causes stress.

Micromanagement is what makes civ such a good game imo! Its also the key to finishing higher difficulty levels. It is what makes civ so interesting and challenging. The more you can go deep into micromanagement, the more depth and options the game takes. I love to spend time figuring what citizen to work what terrain tile will get me to produce my settler 1 turn earlier and get a possible advantage over the AI.. If they take that away from the game I will probably suicide bomb the firaxis headquarter.

The way it is right now, if you dont feel like micro managing (which I dont understand) you can still turn on automatic worker actions and governors, so where is the problem?

I am just polling people's opinons about how they will tackle any new concepts in Civ4. Great speech though. But I would have to agree with dh_epic.

The problem is if you turn on governors, you're no better than the AI you're playing against.

Winning the game at the higher difficulty levels hinges not on your brilliance and creativity, your ability to deal with crises in creative ways... but it hinges on your ability to exploit the holes in the AI in a mechanical way. If you turn on the governors, you lose. And if you play without the governors, the game is interesting the first 3 times you do something. By the time you're building your 100th road, you're kind of ready to move onto more interesting gameplay concepts.

Micromanagement is NOT the point of the game. That's like saying McDonald's is the best restaurant in the entire world because they found a mechanical procedure to feed more people faster. I don't know what the best restaurant in the world is, but to me it hinges on the creativity and brilliance of the head chef, not the fact that you found all kinds of mechanical ways to be super-efficient.

Macromanagement -- big vision -- that's the point of the game.

dh_epic said:

Winning the game at the higher difficulty levels hinges not on your brilliance and creativity, your ability to deal with crises in creative ways... but it hinges on your ability to exploit the holes in the AI in a mechanical way.

Click to expand...

I disagree, there are easy AI exploits in civ3, but I almost never use them, and when you move on to demi-god and above you really have to be creative to stand a chance. Do I produce a worker before my first settler? Should I produce 2 warriors or a single spearman? The answer is different in each game, but these are very important matters in higher levels that have nothing to do with exploiting the AI.... And micromanagement to be sure that your citizen produce the maximum output each single turn of whatever you need in the early stages of the game isn't about exploiting the AI either. Example, should you connect a nearby luxury or developpe a cattle square first? Believe it or not, it can affect the whole outcome of the game.

dh_epic said:

If you turn on the governors, you lose. And if you play without the governors, the game is interesting the first 3 times you do something. By the time you're building your 100th road, you're kind of ready to move onto more interesting gameplay concepts.

Click to expand...

I guess it depends on each person, I never get tired of micromanaging, it stays in my game style even when I "move on" to other gameplay concepts. I have played civ3 for probably many thousands of hours, and I have never used governors or automated workers except in near-ending conquest/domination games.

dh_epic said:

Micromanagement is NOT the point of the game. That's like saying McDonald's is the best restaurant in the entire world because they found a mechanical procedure to feed more people faster. I don't know what the best restaurant in the world is, but to me it hinges on the creativity and brilliance of the head chef, not the fact that you found all kinds of mechanical ways to be super-efficient.

Macromanagement -- big vision -- that's the point of the game.

Click to expand...

I guess micromanagement is not THE point of the game, but it one of the main components imo. It is the base that leads to better science output, unit developpement, etc.

I guess to me the question is simple. What's a cooler decision:

A) Should I produce two warriors first, or a settler?
B) Will I be aggressive and isolate myself, or will I find strength in allies at the expense of compromising?

A) Do I produce a worker before my first settler, or the other way around?
B) Will I push my Civilization towards Democracy and surrender power to my people, or will I push my Civilization towards Militarization and sacrifice quality of life?

A) Should I connect to a nearby luxury, or irrigate a cattle square?
B) Will I pacify my colonies, or murder the dissenters?

Don't get me wrong, I understand how (A) can be the kind of decision that affects the entire outcome of the game especially in those opening few turns. But I'd give up every single (A) for a (B), without question.

A is all about mechanically optimizing everything you do, and exploiting the inefficiency or poor judgment of the AI. B is about changing the entire direction of your empire.

So, if I understand you correctly DH_Epic, what you are saying is that though (A) will probably always be part of the Civ game, they should be streamlined, minimized, and be less critical to victory than the Big Picture Issues outlined in (B). Is that fairly close to the mark?

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Well I am not that good at the game. I am still a warlord. As I move up the levels I am sure I will use more micromanagement.

I would definitely automate geologists, but I believe ordinances and religion would be too important to let the governor handle.

dh_epic said:

I guess to me the question is simple. What's a cooler decision:

A) Should I produce two warriors first, or a settler?
B) Will I be aggressive and isolate myself, or will I find strength in allies at the expense of compromising?

A) Do I produce a worker before my first settler, or the other way around?
B) Will I push my Civilization towards Democracy and surrender power to my people, or will I push my Civilization towards Militarization and sacrifice quality of life?

A) Should I connect to a nearby luxury, or irrigate a cattle square?
B) Will I pacify my colonies, or murder the dissenters?

Don't get me wrong, I understand how (A) can be the kind of decision that affects the entire outcome of the game especially in those opening few turns. But I'd give up every single (A) for a (B), without question.

A is all about mechanically optimizing everything you do, and exploiting the inefficiency or poor judgment of the AI. B is about changing the entire direction of your empire.

Click to expand...

I get your point, and thats the reason why civ3 is such a great game: it accomodates different kind of players. And if you want to play "big picture" games it is possible to do it and have as much fun. But from what I see you must not have passed monarch level if you put asside those micromanagement issues.

The only part in which I totally disagree with you though is when you use the word "mechanically". Because it really isn't about applying THE predefined good decision, the answer to all micromanagement questions is different in each game and circumstences. It really is challenging and makes you think your brains out to figure out the best way to stend a chance against an AI that produces sciences, food, units and buildings 30% faster then you... (demi-god) (20% at emperor)

I like managing what terrain and food to use.
What I would like to see is an easier view of my mm'ing.

A "mapstat" type of view of the whole empire would be great. Thank goodness for Dianthus!
When mm'ing it would be nice if the shields in the box were numbered or color coated so I would have a faster determination of what tiles should be worked.
One more feature I would like is a "sort" option where I could group cities that share squares, sort alphabetically, by shield production, science or commerce etc.