Community Feature: Worker Improvements

This is what it looks like were I come from:

Where I come from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MakaraWindFarm.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2463/3623418557_fc17ef519e_m.jpg

http://www.meridianenergy.co.nz/NR/rdonlyres/4A221C2F-FC68-46E3-9F21-1C1C6F988EF5/24735/WW.jpg

The one thing I'm really concerned about is that improvement choice is now really dull.
You build mines on hills, farms next to rivers and lakes, and farms or trading posts elsewhere. Only three main improvements. Plantations/pastures/camps/wells are just for bonus resources.
And then maybe sometimes lumbermills if you don't want to clear the forest.
Maybe this was deliberate to reduce the ability of the player to outperform the AI in this area, but its still a sad loss of detail.
 
there are less basic choices but then thats better because you don't waste time building water wheels everywhere when you would have been better off building farms there and building workshops elsewhere. It's too complex, a little simplicity goes along way.
 
I think choices are still there, but they are far from micromanagement now, you need to think about roads, forts and GP improvements. Good enough for me - sitting with calculator to give city a better outcome wasn't that good for me.
 
I did a unproffessional little mod for personal use in BtS, allowing lumbermills earlier. Whyle doing the mod I spent considerable time investigating tile improvements.

To keep it short, it seemed to me that the devs considered mines as primary production improvement, the others being inferior choices unless you chose a strange path through the techtree or had a certain combination of civics.
Only lumbermills were a real competitor, but they came so terribly late, that they were irrelevant most of the time.
Getting production from flat land seemed like an emergency startegy.
 
About windmills and hills, it might be me, but the way Greg phrased that sentence with some of the negatives involved I think he meant that windmills can only be built in cities on hill and watermills in cities adjacent to rivers. Not what he said, but I think its what he intended.
 
But I like the look of waterwheels and windmills on the map :(

I'd like something such as "If the city is next to a river, you may build a waterwheel. After it is built, the worker may construct exactly one waterwheel adjacent to a river within the city's borders.".
 
About windmills and hills, it might be me, but the way Greg phrased that sentence with some of the negatives involved I think he meant that windmills can only be built in cities on hill and watermills in cities adjacent to rivers. Not what he said, but I think its what he intended.
Yes, I am guessing that Greg said the exact opposite of what he meant in regards to the windmills.
 
About windmills and hills, it might be me, but the way Greg phrased that sentence with some of the negatives involved I think he meant that windmills can only be built in cities on hill and watermills in cities adjacent to rivers. Not what he said, but I think its what he intended.

Count me as one more. As soon as I read Greg's post, I thought to myself: "he obviously meant the opposite". But then I saw everyone else taking it without question (and justifying it :D) and began having my doubts.

I'm a bit sad to see towns (cottages) gone, as someone else pointed out, they added the realism that big cities sprawled over a considerable area and not just one plot. Trading posts? I can't really see there being more than one trading post within a major area, but as it is we're gonna see trading post spam in some cities, which is quite unrealistic. Come back, cottage! Maybe not as overpowered, but do comeback (how about cottage -> village -> town?). Grounds for modding, at this point.

But overall I feel it's great simplification, I have always been overwhelmed by late game choices of workshop, windmill, watermill, and I consider myself a bit versed in civ. Poor worker AI doesn't help either, it would have been nice in Civ IV to be able to point out, in some specific screen, some rules: never replace a cottage, leave at least 3 forests in each city's radius, etc.
 
Yeah, I rarely trust automation unless I know the exact rules behind it. I trusted the emphasis this options in civ IV cities, but that was it.

Transparent automation rules would be good.
 
I didn't see an answer on the other question: do regular improvements have a gold upkeep cost? How much?
 
So, all those preview comments about how you shouldn't build improvements before you need them are just BS?
 
So, all those preview comments about how you shouldn't build improvements before you need them are just BS?

Or previewers just have a fondness for generalizing when they really mean roads.

I do hope all improvements have maintenance, though. Buildings do, afterall.
 
Or previewers just have a fondness for generalizing when they really mean roads.

[To clarify: I have no difficulty at all believing that previewers misinterpreted this.]

I do hope all improvements have maintenance, though. Buildings do, afterall.
I really, really hope they don't.
Improvements are supposed to be providing bonuses, not costs.
[Honestly, I'd prefer that buildings didn't either, but buildings I can live with.]

Buildings at least are always giving you a bonus, whereas improvements with upkeep might be causing you costs even if you didn't have a citizen using the tile, so they are providing you nothing but costs.

Not fun.
 
This is what 2KGrek says about forts in Civilization5. "Fort: A special improvement that does not increase a tile’s yield nor provide access to a resource. Instead, a fort improves a tile’s defensive bonus. Forts do not provide a bonus to units in enemy territory. Requires Engineering."

Why do not forts provide a bonus to units in enemy territory? Why aren't my forces able to use fortifications just because they are on enemy soil? What's up with that? I need to mod that weirdness out, because in the Middle Ages that won't do. A captured castle is supposed to function exactly the same way for me, as for the enemy I take it from. That's part of the charm of laying siege to and capturing castles.
 
[To clarify: I have no difficulty at all believing that previewers misinterpreted this.]


I really, really hope they don't.
Improvements are supposed to be providing bonuses, not costs.
[Honestly, I'd prefer that buildings didn't either, but buildings I can live with.]

Buildings at least are always giving you a bonus, whereas improvements with upkeep might be causing you costs even if you didn't have a citizen using the tile, so they are providing you nothing but costs.

Not fun.

Well since you dont get the benefits from the tile unless you are working it, maybe they could implement it where you dont incur the maintenance cost unless you are working it.

Either way, I believe tile improvements (a MAJOR part of the game) have been balanced enough that they dont really need a maintenance cost. Roads make sense though because their benefit (movement, trade route) is there weather you are working that tile or not.
 
This is what 2KGrek says about forts in Civilization5. "Fort: A special improvement that does not increase a tile’s yield nor provide access to a resource. Instead, a fort improves a tile’s defensive bonus. Forts do not provide a bonus to units in enemy territory. Requires Engineering."

Why do not forts provide a bonus to units in enemy territory? Why aren't my forces able to use fortifications just because they are on enemy soil? What's up with that? I need to mod that weirdness out, because in the Middle Ages that won't do. A captured castle is supposed to function exactly the same way for me, as for the enemy I take it from. That's part of the charm of laying siege to and capturing castles.

yeah, that's weird.
 
Back
Top Bottom