New Economic Model for Civ

[Lockesdonkey]

and a cut in micro-management is not a plus to some players.

1. Is increasing/leaving micromanagement the same a plus to any players?
2. If so, what proportion are they of the playing community? Specifically, are there more of them to whom less micromanagement the same is a plus?
3. On what basis is less micromanagement bad/not good? For the love of God don't cite realism, or I will send the gigantic rutabaga growing in my garden to bite your head off. (I'd send the onion, but he's been assigned to the G.W. Bush mission). This is a matter of gameplay and it requires a gameplay-based answer, though realism can be used to draw analogies/provide justification.

I want to know, since the sentiment I quoted is rather rare among players.

 

[Wodan]

IMO the types of micromanagement which are good are those which are optional. e.g., slavery micromanagement. Optional either because it's a strategy you don't have to utilize, or optional because the benefit is very small.

OTOH I do believe that if anything even close to micromanagement is removed from the game, then there would be nothing much left. Civ is management at its very core. If we take all management out of the game, then what's left is a brain-dead (and boring) macro exercise.

So, perhaps a better question is, "We know we want X amount of management, but do not want to go overboard. So, of all the possibilities, which management features do we want to be part of X, and what do we want to leave out?"

Wodan

 

[Jazzmail]

The difference between using slavery at it's worst and micromanaging it to perfection can easily exceed +50% production per pop.
I don't think micromanaging makes the game any more challenging, it just gives you more control.

Imagine never managing any aspect of on the city interface, other than the production queue. It would not make the game any easier.
Getting the most out of a city then would involve placing the city and working improvements with consideration to predicting to the standard AI governor script. This would suck, but it wouldn't be easy.

As it is now, most of the decisions we make at micro level are usually no-brainers. Stuff like moving pop around so to not exceed the happy cap or optimizing a city for it's purpose (coin, hammer, gps) is effective, but not difficult, it just takes a little time.
Basicly micromanaging cities merely counters the production bonusses we give the AI at higher levels.

You can handicap yourself either by playing at a higher level, or by micromanaging less.
(That is what I'm actually doing right now on emperor. More units on the map slow down my PC too much and more micro slows my game, so instead of increasing the AI level, I simply won't exploit slavery for a handicap)

The macro decisions in the game still make the biggest difference: who to declare war on, which civs are like more likely to be bribed into the war, which tech, which direction to expand, etc.

 

[rysmiel]

1. Is increasing/leaving micromanagement the same a plus to any players?

Me, and all the multitudinous lurkers who support me in email.

2. If so, what proportion are they of the playing community? Specifically, are there more of them to whom less micromanagement the same is a plus?

Goodness knows; which is why I argue for the capacity for more micromanagement; not the requirement for more micromanagement. Overly vocal minorities of the playing community, after all, is why there's so much effort thrown at multi-player, despite how many of us couldn't give a damn for it.

3. On what basis is less micromanagement bad/not good? For the love of God don't cite realism, or I will send the gigantic rutabaga growing in my garden to bite your head off.

Look at some of my other posts this past few weeks; I'm consistently opposed to "realism" in itself as an argument for anything.

(I'd send the onion, but he's been assigned to the G.W. Bush mission). This is a matter of gameplay and it requires a gameplay-based answer, though realism can be used to draw analogies/provide justification.

Micromanagement == control at a finer level of detail. That in and of itself is appealing to many players who have a touch or more of OCDish tendency.

 

[Scilly_guy]

1. Is increasing/leaving micromanagement the same a plus to any players?
2. If so, what proportion are they of the playing community? Specifically, are there more of them to whom less micromanagement the same is a plus?

Not sure I totally understand what you're asking? Is your question basically do people want more micromanagement? You can't really find out about "the playing" community very easily, certainly not on here. It would require a proper study to find out, or a psychologist to analyse us, but I imagine that the sort of people who post on these boards are a particular type of gamer, ie those that spend more time playing civ than another game or more time playing games than other ways to fill their time. Anyway, thats not the point.

3. On what basis is less micromanagement bad/not good? For the love of God don't cite realism, or I will send the gigantic rutabaga growing in my garden to bite your head off. (I'd send the onion, but he's been assigned to the G.W. Bush mission). This is a matter of gameplay and it requires a gameplay-based answer, though realism can be used to draw analogies/provide justification.

I hope I haven't used "realism" for anything other than analogies/precedent. Oh and I totally agree with you.

I personally would like more micromanagement, more ways which I can control things and feel like I am influencing the out come.

Macro:
What to build in a city.
What tech to research.
What direction to expand.
Where to move units.
Who to ally.

Micro:
What promotions to give.
Where exactly to build a city.
What tiles to work/how to utilise the population.
How to spend gold (70% research, 20% Culture, 10% Espionage).
What to set workers doing.

 

[Wodan]

The difference between using slavery at it's worst and micromanaging it to perfection can easily exceed +50% production per pop.

Not disagreeing... but what's this got to do with the topic? You lost me.

I don't think micromanaging makes the game any more challenging

Actually, it should make the game less challenging. If you don't get some benefit, then why bother?

Basicly micromanaging cities merely counters the production bonusses we give the AI at higher levels.

Micromanagement is just one of the things the human can do, to enable the human to improve his/her skills and thusly be able to compete with the AI on higher levels.

Wodan

 

[Scilly_guy]

I was not aware that the AI didn't "micromanage" as well. Perhaps some of my choices of what are considered micromanagement aspects are wrong. It is kind of hard to draw a line and say what is and what isn't micromanagement.

 

[Jazzmail]

I think the distinction is important in this sense that alot of civ micromanagement has become simple procedure.

Choices become meaningful when the best course of action is very situational and cannot be viewed separately from your other decisions.

Micromanagement too often boils down to just doing something more efficiently, without it having any effects on other aspects of the game.

So on a macro level I may want to make this city or that city a factory for axemen, depending on how my war diplomacy is faring.
Then on a micro level I just set out to it. There's no ramifications, it's basicly (what should be) fire-and-forget, only I'm still doing it myself (because the AI governor stinks).

I could do with less of that kind of micro.

 

[Jaca]

I very much like the original poster's idea. It feels much more natural to me. It's worth polishing, in my opinion. Personally I'm one of these guys that do not like the shuffling around with units and tiles - but that's personal choice. I'm fully with dh_epic and his sudoku metaphor: once you can solve the micromanaging puzzle, doing (and, as it is now, having to do) it countless times becomes utterly boring and a complete waste of time. Managing and strategy (high level) is what I would like in a game as Civilization, not micromanaging and tactics (low level, mechanical in nature).

Jaca

 

[Balderstrom]

I don't really get where the sudoku folks are coming from. You click on emphasize T, (C)ommerce, GP or (F)ood. If you don't like how it set your tiles, you make a change or two. There is no major work or shuffling involved.

Theres also little reason to be using GP unless you are Trying to
a) Speed up the cities production
b1) Rush culture (Emphasize T & Build Culture)
b2) Rush Culture (Ephasize Food & Artists GP )
c) Raise your Gold/Turn above a deficit ( > 0 )
d) Build GP points

As it stands, doing most of those things, especially the first two - have consequences, they slow down your city growth.

This idea has no consequences at all. It grows you have money, you buy.
And after all this time, no one has come up with a decent idea of how GP will even fit into this scheme.

People praising this idea for the Trade (inter-city & foreign) should realize the Trade options could very easily fit into the current framework - Without throwing balance and GreatPeople out the window.

[Edit]
While pondering more, it occured to me - it might make sense to be able to de-Pop a City to gain a Gatherer.
CityBar Display is the same; CityView "9 (+1) Rome" (if you dePopped one citizen on a size 10 city)
The Gatherer (w/ wheelbarrow), can primarily do two things: Work a Tile & Transport those resources.
A City must be at least size 6 to de-Pop.

Working a Tile: Must be within your borders; Can't be worked by another City.
Transporting: The Gatherer can deliver the resources to any of your cities.
When delivered to the Gatherer's Home City, F & T add to a tradeable/useable Pool.
When delivered to another of your Cities, they are added that turn (not pooled).
Commerce is added to whichever City initially gets the resources (not pooled).

The Home City can USE, SELL, STORE, or TRANSPORT Pooled resources.

Pooled Resources would show up under Commerce Trade, clicking on them would open a menu
to allow you to offer Trade to another CIV, or to move the resources out of the
Pool so a Gatherer/Settler can "pick up" the resources.

Settlers can also Transport resources, which would add to a new cities first turn income.

NOTE: A Gatherer's mission to work a tile, and walk to a city, should be stackable with "SHIFT" and
a new Icon for "GoTO City/Repeat Gather"

CAVEAT: The Gatherer if killed, reduces your population by one.

Synergistic Idea: The ability to reduce +/- T & +/- F, Adding takes from the Pool, Subtracting adds to.

Possibly only allow Cities with a Palace or Forbidden Palace to dePop.
Gatherer's might have a Worker's MV + 1.
====================================================

This allows you to:
1) Sell Excess resources.
2) Work tiles outside of a Cities FatCross.
3) Bolster weak cities.
4) Foster initial growth of new Cities.


This prolly belongs in another thread, sorry