Civ6 Blog Post - Automation

[Ryika]

Even if there was automation, you would still need to keep an eye on those things because of the worker charges. You built one and automated it and soon it would be used up so you had to manually build another to leave it automated. And it also would be a problem when you want to build the improvements that aren't done automatically (like forts) just to find the builder you had kept around was used up a while ago.

Then with the districts system, how are the automated workers supposed to know where to not built improvements because you're planning to build a district / wonder there soon and building an improvement there now would be basically a waste of a builder charge? It wouldn't be much of an automation if you had to fill it up with inputs like marking tiles they shouldn't work on and so on.

None of these are arguments against having automation though. Those are arguments for why one shouldn't use it - and yeah, I agree. But automation is not about "perfection", it's about "I don't want to have to deal with this". At the point where I would use automated workers I would literally not care about any of these "problems". I would just build a worker every now and then, and when the game tells me it has used up its charges I would consider building a new one.

Just like automated workers currently don't do a good job at placing the right improvements at good locations and instead just run all over the place. During the later stages of the game I still use them, because I don't care about efficiency of a few +1 Food Tiles here and there.

The new alternative is now simply leaving the tiles empty.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Ok, let's say this. With the cost of builder usage, the cost of error is too high. It requires a lot of investment to make builder automation cause player rage in less than half number of cases. So it's a feature which requires a lot of work and causes a lot of player rage. These are quite good reasons for not implementing it.

It doesn't prevent automation from being modded in, of course. Players tend to tolerate mod mistakes much easier and could uninstall the mod in the worst case.

 

[Ryika]

Ok, let's say this. With the cost of builder usage, the cost of error is too high.

I don't see why that would be the case. If it's anything like Civ V then workers will be comparably cheap later on, so why would I care if that worker I just produced has a chance of constructing some Improvements on a Tile that I want to build a District later on?

This again is just an argument for not using automation if you're interested in Efficiency, I literally don't care about Efficiency at that point. And I'm certainly not alone on that - read the comments on the Builder First Look Video, there's quite a number of people - in fact, some of the highest rated comments are - who say they dislike the fact that automation is gone.

It requires a lot of investment to make builder automation cause player rage in less than half number of cases. So it's a feature which requires a lot of work and causes a lot of player rage. These are quite good reasons for not implementing it.

Nah, sorry, this is just nonsense. Civ Vs workers didn't do a good job, decreasing the "Efficiency per Hammer"-threshold drastically, people still used them. Beyond Earth's Workers did a REALLY bad job, and some people even went as far as to build their strategies around automated workers, just so they didn't have to deal with it.

Having a feature that isn't perfect is better than simply not having the feature at all. ...and even then, how hard can it realistically be to allow players to "block" certain tiles for automated workers to reserve them for Districts? From my experience with modding that sounds like a few hours of work.

It doesn't prevent automation from being modded in, of course. Players tend to tolerate mod mistakes much easier and could uninstall the mod in the worst case.[/QUOTE]
Well yeah, if it's possible to mod that in.

 

[stealth_nsk]

IHaving a feature that isn't perfect is better than simply not having the feature at all.

That's the main point, I believe. Each feature has it cost in developer hours. Feature with low priority, high cost and possible side effects is something you just don't implement in your software product.

Speaking about the rest:

1. Even though builders are cheap, they have cost. Worker automation costs worker turns only, once you had all required improvements in place and free workers, you could let them build what they want on free lands. It was also cost worker turns only to fix their mistakes.

2. The cost of mistake could be even higher if neighborhoods can't be removed easily - the thing we saw in one of the videos where it was impossible to build Wonder on top of neighborhood.

3. Without waiting time I don't think you'll need to automate worker.

So, with all this. Workers were built (and conquered) just for the general good of empires. While recruiting builder you usually already know the tiles you want to improve (otherwise you'd build something else). With this most players will not want to automate them.

 

[Ryika]

That's the main point, I believe. Each feature has it cost in developer hours. Feature with low priority, high cost and possible side effects is something you just don't implement in your software product.

Yeah, and like I said: I can't see a basic implementation take more than a few hours. The "automation" must already exist, because the AI uses it, so changing it around to allow the player to push a button and have the Player's Workers use it can't be that much work.

But sure, I agree - it should probably be low priority, however, that's not even the position that they're arguing from. They're arguing that, because every improvement is so important and instantly now, automation is a "bad thing" and "not needed". And yeah, for efficiency that may be true, but there are clear cases where I would prefer even an inefficient automated system over having to do stuff myself. Again, I simply don't enjoy having to scroll through my empire and find those few pesky new tiles that still "need" Improvements. I'm perfectly fine with having an automated worker do some badly optimized bandage-work.

Speaking about the rest:

1. Even though builders are cheap, they have cost. Worker automation costs worker turns only, once you had all required improvements in place and free workers, you could let them build what they want on free lands. It was also cost worker turns only to fix their mistakes.

2. The cost of mistake could be even higher if neighborhoods can't be removed easily - the thing we saw in one of the videos where it was impossible to build Wonder on top of neighborhood.

3. Without waiting time I don't think you'll need to automate worker.

So, with all this. Workers were built (and conquered) just for the general good of empires. While recruiting builder you usually already know the tiles you want to improve (otherwise you'd build something else). With this most players will not want to automate them.

1.) Yeah, that's true for the old system as well though. A worker costs Production, that production then turns into X benefit over the course of the game. The less efficient you handle your worker, the smaller X will be in the end.

The only thing that is really different is that the gap in efficiency may be a lot higher and that you may run into negative efficiency, at which point... well, again, the alternative to manual workers is to simply not build a worker.

2.) It can't be THAT bad, because the AI needs to be able to make up for its mistakes/lack of planning, too. Unless they actually made it so the AI plans ahead internally this time around and already knows where it wants to put all the stuff (which would be cool, but won't happen) it runs into the same problems.

3.) Already covered above.

 

[Haggbart]

I don't see why that would be the case. If it's anything like Civ V then workers will be comparably cheap later on, so why would I care if that worker I just produced has a chance of constructing some Improvements on a Tile that I want to build a District later on?

This again is just an argument for not using automation if you're interested in Efficiency, I literally don't care about Efficiency at that point. And I'm certainly not alone on that - read the comments on the Builder First Look Video, there's quite a number of people - in fact, some of the highest rated comments are - who say they dislike the fact that automation is gone.


Nah, sorry, this is just nonsense. Civ Vs workers didn't do a good job, decreasing the "Efficiency per Hammer"-threshold drastically, people still used them. Beyond Earth's Workers did a REALLY bad job, and some people even went as far as to build their strategies around automated workers, just so they didn't have to deal with it.

Having a feature that isn't perfect is better than simply not having the feature at all. ...and even then, how hard can it realistically be to allow players to "block" certain tiles for automated workers to reserve them for Districts? From my experience with modding that sounds like a few hours of work.

It doesn't prevent automation from being modded in, of course. Players tend to tolerate mod mistakes much easier and could uninstall the mod in the worst case.

Yes people want the feature because they're used to having it.

But it might be that with workers now building things in an instant and most importantly - considerably fewer improvements than before (because districts and wonders) and not building roads, that the designers feel that people will no longer miss the feature when they actually play the game. And if it was included, some would use it out of habit. It's really too early to tell if it will be missed, and by whom.

Also, there are AI systems in place for basically everything in the game. So you could have automated techs, civics, city building and settlers as easily as workers. So the only real argument for worker automatization at this point is that it was there in previous Civs.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Yeah, and like I said: I can't see a basic implementation take more than a few hours. The "automation" must already exist, because the AI uses it, so changing it around to allow the player to push a button and have the Player's Workers use it can't be that much work..

Other than AI being able to afford much more builders and much worse land setup, there's a critical difference. Player plan about districts, wonders and city specialization exists in player's head only. AI plan is available for other parts of AI, like builder logic. This actually changes everything and makes AI algorithm unusable for players' builder automation.

 

[rastak]

In really don't care much myself. I would only automate workers once I had a bunch of them standing around doing nothing and moving them became really tedious. Since they removed the need for this tedious activity, I don't mind that they also removed the automation that was used to deal with it.

 

[chaosprophet]

Well, the main reason there seems to be no automation is because the developers wants it to be so, they want players to actually make the choice of what to build where themselves, that's together with a system where choices are more important (because of city unstacking) and with changes to the worker, now builder, to work better with no automation (instantly building improvements, charges)

 

[redwings1340]

It also sounds like you're going to use builders a lot less in civ VI than workers in civ V. In V, you had a worker in every city, created pretty early, basically constantly making improvements until the end of time. In VI, creating builders is going to be much more of a timing maneuver. You'll create a builder every so often when your population starts working unimproved tiles, and it will only have three charges. With districts and wonders taking up tiles, and roads being constructed by traders, I imagine you'll want a builder every 5 population per city or so, and use it for about 3-6 turns for each builder.

Automation really won't save you all that much time, and with limited resources, where you build improvements is pretty important, so I can see the logic with this change.

 

[Ryika]

Also, there are AI systems in place for basically everything in the game. So you could have automated techs, civics, city building and settlers as easily as workers. So the only real argument for worker automatization at this point is that it was there in previous Civs.

No, the argument is that there's a point where I really don't care about worker efficiency anymore and at that point I want automation to exist. The same problem doesn't exist for technologies or City buildings for example, because realistically... if a city has everything it needs I simply set it to gold focus and that's it for that city. Done. Same with tech - I just click on Future Tech and then I don't have to do anything anymore.

That's what late-game automation is for workers. The alternative is still simply not building any workers. Which will be fine by itself, but automation would solve that issue a lot better.

Other than AI being able to afford much more builders and much worse land setup, there's a critical difference. Player plan about districts, wonders and city specialization exists in player's head only. AI plan is available for other parts of AI, like builder logic. This actually changes everything and makes AI algorithm unusable for players' builder automation.

It doesn't change anything, that's how it worked in CiV already. Worker Automation was in no way optimized for the player and people who were too lazy to do stuff themselves were fine with that.

 

[stealth_nsk]

It doesn't change anything, that's how it worked in CiV already. Worker Automation was in no way optimized for the player and people who were too lazy to do stuff themselves were fine with that.

Civ changed. Imagine you're planning a city for science, but AI thinks it's going to be a cultural city. It will build farms on tiles which would grant bonuses to campus and leave tiles granting bonuses to theater district. That's increased probability of mistake. Put it together with increased cost of mistake and the result will be quite disastrous.

 

[Ryika]

Civ changed. Imagine you're planning a city for science, but AI thinks it's going to be a cultural city. It will build farms on tiles which would grant bonuses to campus and leave tiles granting bonuses to theater district. That's increased probability of mistake. Put it together with increased cost of mistake and the result will be quite disastrous.

I really don't know why it is so hard for you to understand that I don't give a damn about potential mistakes. Even if a worker ends up building 3 farms on exactly the Tiles that I wan to build 3 districts on within the next 10 turns: I don't care. That's totally fine with me.

It won't happen constantly. It will most likely not happen regularly. So I don't care. I know that's what I sign up for when I click the Automation-Button. And I'm willing to take that risk when I'm too lazy to build improvements myself. It the worst case I'll just build another worker and click the automation-button again.

Really simple.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I really don't know why it is so hard for you to understand that I don't give a damn about potential mistakes. Even if a worker ends up building 3 farms on exactly the Tiles that I wan to build 3 districts on within the next 10 turns: I don't care. That's totally fine with me.

It won't happen constantly. It will most likely not happen regularly. So I don't care. I know that's what I sign up for when I click the Automation-Button. And I'm willing to take that risk when I'm too lazy to build improvements myself. It the worst case I'll just build another worker and click the automation-button again.

Really simple.

Ok, you don't care, that's fine. But you're not the only one. Other players will expect better results and will be really frustrated with what they get.

 

[Ryika]

Ok, you don't care, that's fine. But you're not the only one. Other players will expect better results and will be really frustrated with what they get.

People will expect to be able to automate and be really frustrated with what they get (no automation at all).

It's a really stupid argument, no matter how often you repeat it. "Better give them nothing than give them a system that somewhat works, that will make them happy!"

Let's see how that works in real life!

"We have bread, but it's from yesterday. Better throw it away, because the homeless people may be really sad when they realize that the bread that looked so delicious is kind of hard."

"Better don't buy your children any pc instead of buying them one that works but can't play current titles. They could be really disappointed if they ever find a game that they can't play!"

Doesn't seem to work very well, does it?

 

[cazaderonus]

It's a good thing. It's not much considering experienced civ players werent using automated workers anyway. But i still welcome very much the change to builders.

I got to admit that after 800 hours, i was getting tired of dealing with my worker army in CiV. Keeping them busy etc.

Now that improving tiles is instantaneous and will require a more constant hammer investment through building builders throughout the game, i m sure it will be a lot more pleasant overtime. Also, less unit on map, always good.

 

[stealth_nsk]

People will expect to be able to automate and be really frustrated with what they get (no automation at all).

New players never saw worker automation, they are ok. For old players Builders differ enough from workers so this also look new. You could see the replies in this thread for general feeling of old players.

Consider this potential automation as new feature nobody expect. In this case having it implemented badly would be worse than not implementing at all.

And, surely it's quite easy to mod in for those who can't live without it.

 

[Ryika]

New players never saw worker automation, they are ok. For old players Builders differ enough from workers so this also look new. You could see the replies in this thread for general feeling of old players.

Civfanatics is hardly a good measurement of people's feelings about the game. Look at the Youtube Comments and you see quite a different picture. Youtube probably has a much better range of player skill level and player "types", and there's a sizable number of people who want automation there.

The point of "New players never saw worker automation" doesn't even make sense. Doesn't take a genius to be like: "Mhh... setting up all these improvements is really boring, wouldn't it be cool if I could have the AI do that stuff for me?".

Consider this potential automation as new feature nobody expect. In this case having it implemented badly would be worse than not implementing at all.

Consider this potential automation to be the thing that brings world peace. In this case not implementing it would be horrible. What's the point?

Automation existed in the past and it was very clear that it's not "optimal". People who were fine with it not being "optimal" still used it and people who were serious about the game understood that it's not a feature they want to use very quickly.

Again, having a feature that "somewhat works" is better than not having that feature at all, as long as it's optional. "It's better to not have a feature that many people want than to not have a feature, because some people may be disappointed!" is still a horribly flawed argument.

And, surely it's quite easy to mod in for those who can't live without it.

Yeah, you said that a second time now, but that's not a given. In Civ 5 it would have been completely impossible to implement had it not been implemented by default, we don't know how modifiable Civ VI is going to be, so no idea where you're getting that idea from.

 

[Haggbart]

No, the argument is that there's a point where I really don't care about worker efficiency anymore and at that point I want automation to exist. The same problem doesn't exist for technologies or City buildings for example, because realistically... if a city has everything it needs I simply set it to gold focus and that's it for that city. Done. Same with tech - I just click on Future Tech and then I don't have to do anything anymore.

That's what late-game automation is for workers. The alternative is still simply not building any workers. Which will be fine by itself, but automation would solve that issue a lot better.


It doesn't change anything, that's how it worked in CiV already. Worker Automation was in no way optimized for the player and people who were too lazy to do stuff themselves were fine with that.

Yes, I do believe people understand why one used automated workers in previous Civs. But builders have limited charges, and I woudn't expect you to have a whole lot of them sitting around in the late game.

But this is purely speculation. As is everything about the late game, since we haven't seen much of it yet. It might be that new tile improvements (neighborhoods have been mentioned as a possible late game tile improvement) become available that you can replace earlier tile improvements with. And that the devs don't want automated builders going about at random replacing your farms. We just don't know the reasoning yet, other than they want the decisions you make in the game to be more meaningful.

I think I've read every preview so far, and nobody say they miss automated workers so far (and those are by no means pro Civ players). Yet you're convinced the devs are wrong without having played a single turn of the game.

 

[Ryika]

Yes, I do believe people understand why one used automated workers in previous Civs. But builders have limited charges, and I woudn't expect you to have a whole lot of them sitting around in the late game.

The question isn't really whether I have a lot of workers sitting around during the later parts of the game, the question is whether I need to constantly "fill in the blanks" during later parts of the game.

Maybe they have a solution for that, then yeah - fine with me.

But this is purely speculation. As is everything about the late game, since we haven't seen much of it yet. It might be that new tile improvements (neighborhoods have been mentioned as a possible late game tile improvement) become available that you can replace earlier tile improvements with. And that the devs don't want automated builders going about at random replacing your farms. We just don't know the reasoning yet, other than they want the decisions you make in the game to be more meaningful.

Again, the AI already needs to handle that somewhat decently itself. Even if they make it so workers don't override old Improvements the worker automation would still be valuable. Let the AI do all the boring work of improving newly acquired tiles and I do the work that requires some decisions, aka replacing old improvements with advanced ones.

I think I've read every preview so far, and nobody say they miss automated workers so far (and those are by no means pro Civ players). Yet you're convinced the devs are wrong without having played a single turn of the game.

They played the early game, and they haven't played enough to even come close to a point of "fatigue", so it's hardly surprising that they wouldn't be missing that feature.

But no, I'm actually not "convinced the devs are wrong". They may have found a way that makes it so you don't constantly have to add new improvements at the edges of your empire during later parts of the game - in which case: Great! I'm happy I was worried about something that didn't turn out to be a problem at all.

But we currently don't know anything about such mechanics and realistically I don't know how that would play out anyway. Most likely you will be getting new tiles, you will be getting new pop, and you will have to run around and fill in the blanks. That just doesn't sound like fun. That's just not interesting decision-making. At that point it just becomes a chore.

And stealth_nsk keeps telling me that I and really everybody would be happier with that chore than being able to give up efficiency to not have to deal with it.