Civilization IV, a new kind of micromanagement?

[Commander Bello]

Rollovers seem like a radical departure from previous Civ. There was an old game called Conquest of the New World (1996), that first really introduced that concept. Worked well, in that game at least. But Civ? Hmm...

3D seems to be quite a radical departure from previous Civ as well. So what?

 

[Akka]

We already had such thread before, and I'll reiterate my opinion about it :

The best way, I think, is to allow several simultaneous productions. Any excess from one product will automatically be distributed in the others.
Hence, no waste. And more than anything, a REAL reason to have a few developped cities over a lot of undevelopped ones, which is, I think, one of the most important things to balance, as in all Civ, expansion and making a lot of cities has ALWAYS been A LOT better than being perfectionnist.

 

[rhialto]

Not sure I see how one city producing two things simultaneously would work. On the visual interface, you'd lose the neatness of seeing what the city is building on the main screen (or else clutter up the list with multiple rows of text for each city). And in gameplay, I fail to see how producing two items in 20 turns is more fun than producing one in ten turns and the other one, another ten turns later.

 

[Roland Johansen]

The way rollover production SHOULD work is like this. You should be able to set a build queue for each city. When the current project is finished, any remaining hammers are used to start the next project. And in a sufficiently high production city, you might finish multiple items from teh queue in one turn. An 85-hammer city could finish 4 spearman units and start on a fifth in just a single turn, provided that they have been queued up.

If you finish the items in the queue, any remaining hammers from that turn are lost. the workers go home and slack off because they haven't been given anything to do.

As I said before, this would be my preference too. I don't think that it is really necessary to let the remaining hammers be wasted though. Punishing someone for not assigning some jobs is not really needed. It can be solved easily by a well wriitten interface. Consider the following example:

A high production city (Rome) finishes a low production project like a worker and the building advisor appears and asks: Rome has just built a worker, what shall we build next. I choose another worker as I really want to do some improving to my lands. The advisor disappears for a mere moment and then reappears with the message: Rome has just built two workers, what shall we build next. I choose a spearman and again the advisor disappears and reappears with the message: Rome has just built two workers and a spearman, what shall we build next. This can go on untill all hammers have been assigned to some projects.

Of course, if you already had made a queue, then the advisor will only appear to show you what has been build that turn and what are the next queued projects in the city.

Of course this would not happen that often normally as most projects are multiturn projects.

 

[frekk]

I like the idea of rollover, and I also think the easiest way to solve the 'rollover cascade' problem is just to allow, as Roland mentions, multiple productions in a round. This way as soon as you build a thing, you're prompted for the next thing, and there's no opportunity to carry over unused production for many rounds - because there is no unused production.

I also like multiple production for other reasons, namely, that it benefits a small, highly developed civ, allowing it to build lots of units if necessary with only a few big, high-production cities.

 

[rhialto]

I admit, when i said teh shields were wasted, what I really intended to say was that they get spent on building "wealth". Since I never build that on purpose, to me, that is equivalent to "wasted". Sorry for the misunderstanding. The shields aren't utterly lost as such in my original model.

But I like Roland's modification a lot, and I think that is definitely the way to go.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I agree strongly with the suggestions put forward by Roland-and enhanced/clarified by Rhialto. I will say this though-given that we know that some of the CFC community are playtesting the game (and hopefully some of the more....'anal' players ) Then I have some high hopes that they have already discovered the problem which Roland has exposed-and dealt with it accordingly. Basically, anything which removes the concept of 'Rewarding Anal Behaviour' is an improvement. It seems like this is another issue which we can hope the ever helpful Soren will come and clarify for us !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[ThERat]

Roland deserves the Suggestion of the Month award

It's the first suggestion I completely and wholeheartedly agree. it seems so simple, yet nobody evey thought of it?

On thing though, in Civ3 the AI gets an insane bonus on higher levels, that would mean they can finish many more productions in 1 turn. Guess the AI bonus has to redesigned to cater for multiple projects.

 

[Roland Johansen]

I agree strongly with the suggestions put forward by Roland-and enhanced/clarified by Rhialto. I will say this though-given that we know that some of the CFC community are playtesting the game (and hopefully some of the more....'anal' players ) Then I have some high hopes that they have already discovered the problem which Roland has exposed-and dealt with it accordingly. Basically, anything which removes the concept of 'Rewarding Anal Behaviour' is an improvement. It seems like this is another issue which we can hope the ever helpful Soren will come and clarify for us !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

You always seem very positive about the upcoming Civ 4. I must agree that it sounds as if it will be a great improvement over Civ 3, but I don't think everything will be perfect. If the makers were adding something like cascading/rollover of shields, then I think we probably would have heard something about it. Especially because they can promote it as something that will reduce micromanagement which is one of the goals of Civ4. But maybe you're right and it is already in the game. It could be a bit too technical to explain in a promotional video.

Adding this feature to the game at a late stadium of development doesn't change the balance of the game very much. Cities will produce a little bit more efficient (say 5-10% on average) but that's it. If someone wants to experience what shields/food/science rollover would do for Civ3 PTW, then they can try the GREAT utility called Civ3Ext made by Mumchembled (there is and will be no version for C3C). It basically uses the model of rollover of shields where rollover shields are limited by the production cost of the next project.

Roland deserves the Suggestion of the Month award

It's the first suggestion I completely and wholeheartedly agree. it seems so simple, yet nobody evey thought of it?

A lot of people have already thought about it, it is not a new idea. The utility made by Mumchembled for Civ3 PTW is more than enough proof for that. One can probably also find multiple threads about this subject in the Civilization IV ideas forum. Games as early as 1996 (Master of Orion II) and probably a lot earlier have used it. But thanks for the praise anyway

On thing though, in Civ3 the AI gets an insane bonus on higher levels, that would mean they can finish many more productions in 1 turn. Guess the AI bonus has to redesigned to cater for multiple projects.

Yes, the advantages for the AI are an additional benefit. The AI (in Civ3) will happily have a city producing 29 shields per turn build 30 shields costing horseman. The (micromanaging) human player would change a few tiles used by the city (and surrounding cities) or change some irrigation into mines, but the AI won't do that. One could of course try to write a better AI, but using production cascade/rollover is a much easier way to achieve this goal. The AI then needs a smaller production bonus to be competitive and the human player has to use other methods to get the upper hand (in my opinion methods requiring more intelligence).

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I am a lot more positive about Civ4 than Civ3 (which I still liked a lot BTW), that much is true-whether it means they have solved this issue before it becomes an issue, though, is still to be seen. But yes, I do have hope , particularly if there are some 'eagle-eyed' playtesters working on the game.
As for redesigning the AI at higher levels, simply the removal of 'Wonder Cascades' will make it vital to do this anyway, whether you have carry-over of hammers or not.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[labguy23]

Maybe the extra production should just be paid out in cash, similiar to the production lost with wonders when you are beaten to the punch. That should eliminate the exploitability of the extra hammers.

 

[playshogi]

There is also the possibility of buying shields at the outset. For example, if your city produces 19s and you need 80s to build something, then simply buy 4s at the start to make it come out even. (assuming your govt type allows rush-buying).

 

[labguy23]

Having to buy the extra production would add to the micromanagement, not reduce it. You need to have some automatic method of dealing with the overproduction without needing the player to constantly monitor it to ensure maximum efficientcy. Again, purchasing production is only a solution for certain government types as well.

 

[playshogi]

It would not add to the MM if the friendly production advisor would pop up with "Do you want to buy 4 hammers to complete this project in 4 turns? (Otherwise you waste 15 hammers and complete it in 5 turns)". Besides it just another option--it's not incompatible with the other ideas presented here.

 

[apatheist]

Maybe the extra production should just be paid out in cash, similiar to the production lost with wonders when you are beaten to the punch. That should eliminate the exploitability of the extra hammers.

That's a pretty good compromise. I'd be happiest with being able to roll over, but I'd be satisfied with this.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Actually, just a quick sidenote for people who think such a system is outside the whole Civ genre-or those who think that it has not been considered by the Firaxis people (or playtesters):

I have been 'rediscovering' SMAC these last couple of days and whilst reading the manual I discovered this quote:

'Up to 10 minerals (hammer/shield equivalent) can be held over between production orders even when orders are completed normally. For example, if you have a base producing 23 minerals, and it has 5 minerals left to create a unit, on the next turn it creates the unit (expending 5 minerals), carries 10 minerals over to the next production orders, and the final 8 minerals are lost completely.'

So, not only does this show that what is being suggested here is not truly outside the Civ experience, it also strongly suggests that it might be in Civ4, given how many previously abandoned elements of SMAC have made it back into Civ4 already.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Akka]

Yep.
A shame that it has needed seven years to get back to the level of gameplay that was already reached by AC during the past millenium...

 

[labguy23]

given how many previously abandoned elements of SMAC have made it back into Civ4 already.

Like what specifically? (Sorry, if this has been mentioned before.)

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

To be fair, Akka, there were probably important 'Copywrite' issues behind why Civ3 lacked a number of elements from SMAC-given that Brian Reynolds, the chief designer of SMAC, deserted Firaxis over half-way through Civ3's development in order to build Rise of Nations.
Anyway, as for what has made it from SMAC into this game, the key things off the top of my head are Social Engineering (Civics), AI personality (agendas and characteristics for Civ leaders), the ability to convince a nation to end a war with a 3rd party and-I believe-the broader SMAC commerce system (where some degree of trade automatically occurs 'beneath the surface' when you sign treaties etc). Hope that helps.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Roland Johansen]

I have been 'rediscovering' SMAC these last couple of days and whilst reading the manual I discovered this quote:

'Up to 10 minerals (hammer/shield equivalent) can be held over between production orders even when orders are completed normally. For example, if you have a base producing 23 minerals, and it has 5 minerals left to create a unit, on the next turn it creates the unit (expending 5 minerals), carries 10 minerals over to the next production orders, and the final 8 minerals are lost completely.'

What a strange way to implement a production rolloever/cascade. I wonder why they chose to limit it to 10 minerals. Weird. Might have something to do with preventing large amounts of minerals to be stockpiled by repeatedly building inexpensive projects. But still, any one of the ideas presented by people in this thread to limit that effect was better than this one. This version of rollover is very unnatural and loses its effect when city production becomes large. Still it's better than nothing...

Thank you Aussie for finding another example of why production cascade should be a part of civ. This example also shows that it can work in civ-type games (if someone doubted that).