Expendable Builders and Gameplay Pace?

[deltahawk5]

I've been talking to a lot of my friends playing the game, as well as reading a lot of the comments on various forums.

There seems to be some consensus that expendable builders (in comparison to Civ V complete) are extensively (but not exclusively) hampering, as well as throwing off-balance, city/district development +expansion, and army/navy production?

This seems to disproportionately affect the AI, but also makes anything other than a science rush start highly disadvantageous to the player in the long term (thus limiting possible victory types). It's also leading to players abusing builder sell-off at 1 charge, which I've found is the only reasonable way to keep up.

Ex. Medieval units in modern/information era, mid-game buildings/wonders in late game, basic building development in late game cities taking 40+ turns.

 

[deltahawk5]

No comments? Thought this would get some level of attention. :\

 

[chazzycat]

how are builders responsible for all that? maybe you need to elaborate a bit more.

Selling them with 1 charge remaining does seem like an exploit that will be patched quickly, but otherwise I am not convinced that builders have anything to do with the balance issues.

 

[thecrazyscot]

If anything all your examples are due to teching too quickly and would simply be fixed by making techs and civics more expensive.

 

[Matte979]

Na builders are most likely not the cause, I think a general balance is more the issue, and then agree that the AI need some work.

 

[bbbt]

I don't see the expendable builders as the issue in Civ 6. Compared to Civ 5, a lot of of unimproved yields are higher. And there are more limits early growth ( ie housing). And getting up luxuries asap isn't as critical because there is no happiness penalty per city. So it's not designed that you need as many improvements asap as in Civ 5.

 

[deltahawk5]

how are builders responsible for all that? maybe you need to elaborate a bit more.

Selling them with 1 charge remaining does seem like an exploit that will be patched quickly, but otherwise I am not convinced that builders have anything to do with the balance issues.

I guess my primary complaint about the way they're setup now (3-5 charges), is that they shift army production and city improvements. If you expand up to 5-6 cities by mid-game, they become incredibly dependent on early game cities providing builders and production/trade to grow. By the time you're in the modern era+, the newer cities still aren't entirely sufficient and your major cities are lagging behind in terms of district development because of it.

I'm not saying they're the sole responsible factor for the imbalance, but they play a big role IMO.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

I really dislike the fact that it's not economical in most cases to waste Builder charges on improving regular tiles, instead of resources. I like how in the Civs up to Civ IV the map would be covered in improvements in the late game (and in V as well, apart from roads... Removing the ability to make roads everywhere sure works well with 1upt ). Now it's just a messy wilderness where some parts are improved and others aren't.

Imo, the culprit is the increasing cost of Builders (as well as Settlers and districts -- brutal!). Remove all escalating costs and double tech and civic costs (or +50 %), and you have a better and more enjoyable game.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Builders are pretty important for housing pre neighbourhood.

Its main problem is maybe that military have such good return on investment.

 

[deltahawk5]

I really dislike the fact that it's not economical in most cases to waste Builder charges on improving regular tiles, instead of resources. I like how in the Civs up to Civ IV the map would be covered in improvements in the late game (and in V as well, apart from roads... Removing the ability to make roads everywhere sure works well with 1upt ). Now it's just a messy wilderness where some parts are improved and others aren't.

Imo, the culprit is the increasing cost of Builders (as well as Settlers and districts -- brutal!). Remove all escalating costs and double tech and civic costs (or +50 %), and you have a better and more enjoyable game.

I'm still amazed how expensive builders are (vs Civ V), even in the late game. 400-700 gold or 7-12 turns. The fact that they're expendable makes it even more difficult to maintain a standing army. I hear a lot of people saying "Well, you just have to think more about how you develop your cities!" and that DOESN'T always apply, because not everyone lands in an area covered with bonus resources (or re-rolls until they do). Ex, my last game standard on a far southern area with mostly plains and some tundra, with barely any wheat or livestock. The only way to maintain a growing population and high production in that scenario is to continually build farms outward, as you replace them with cities. That alone doubles, if not triples the load of builders.

 

[chazzycat]

I guess my primary complaint about the way they're setup now (3-5 charges), is that they deter from army production and city improvements. If you expand up to 5-6 cities by mid-game, they become incredibly dependent on early game cities providing builders and production/trade to grow. By the time you're in the modern era+, the newer cities still aren't entirely sufficient and your major cities are lagging behind in terms of district development.

I see. So you are saying that the need to constantly create builders distracts from other priorities. It's definitely an adjustment from Civ5 workers. But I haven't found that builders are ever prohibitively expensive. And the fact that they build stuff instantly is a huge change as well, especially helping new cities ramp up quickly. 1 builder + internal trade route = superfast ramp up.

I'm still amazed how expensive builders are (vs Civ V), even in the late game. 400-700 gold or 7-12 turns.

I feel like you're missing something with your city planning, there's no way a builder should take that long in the late game. Are you planting your cities close together, to maximize the overlap effect of factory/power plants? Building lumber mills on your riverside hexes? etc.

 

[deltahawk5]

I see. So you are saying that the need to constantly create builders distracts from other priorities. It's definitely an adjustment from Civ5 workers. But I haven't found that builders are ever prohibitively expensive. And the fact that they build stuff instantly is a huge change as well, especially helping new cities ramp up quickly. 1 builder + internal trade route = superfast ramp up.


I feel like you're missing something with your city planning, there's no way a builder should take that long in the late game. Are you planting your cities close together, to maximize the overlap effect of factory/power plants? Building lumber mills on your riverside hexes? etc.

Reading elsewhere, I just realized that districts can be overlapped/shared between cities, which explains a whole lot. Coming from Civ V, I'm used to my style of spreading cities apart to maximize long term growth. I'm gonna have to start building cities closer together from here on out.

 

[Zenstrive]

Builders are essential for initial city growth.
You need them to clear up tiles for production/food boosts and for placing districts.
Without having a clear tile, district buildings will be very, very long.
Their cost is trivial once you have 5 cities with all trade routes running as inner routes.

 

[deltahawk5]

Builders are essential for initial city growth.
You need them to clear up tiles for production/food boosts and for placing districts.
Without having a clear tile, district buildings will be very, very long.
Their cost is trivial once you have 5 cities with all trade routes running as inner routes.

It makes sense, since internal trade actually generates gold, unlike in Civ V, where you could only trade production OR food.

 

[IllustriousYou]

Reading elsewhere, I just realized that districts can be overlapped/shared between cities, which explains a whole lot.

Hold the train. If I have a district in 2 cities' catchment areas, they both get the district's output? Or are you referring to the city tile boosts from industrial and entertainment districts?

 

[lamaros]

I love the expendable builders. Builder micromanagement is not a missed thing.

I also don't think there's any issues with them, the balance problems are elsewhere.

 

[lamaros]

Hold the train. If I have a district in 2 cities' catchment areas, they both get the district's output? Or are you referring to the city tile boosts from industrial and entertainment districts?

No, just the area ones.

 

[deltahawk5]

No, just the area ones.

Now I'm confused. Can you explain further? I'm looking at civopedia and it doesn't say anything about adjacency for districts.

 

[Cronos]

I love the expendable builders. Builder micromanagement is not a missed thing.

I also don't think there's any issues with them, the balance problems are elsewhere.

The AI doesn't build enough of them. They need to be prioritised. I feel I am eternally spamming builders, its getting a bit tedious queuing them up all the time. If you have say 15 cities which is entirely possible on a large map and each city is size 10, that is 50 builders you have to queue up and send off to their doom building farms.

 

[MagicCuboid]

Now I'm confused. Can you explain further? I'm looking at civopedia and it doesn't say anything about adjacency for districts.

What he means is factories and power plants, which provide production in a six tile radius. The district adjacency bonuses on the Industrial Centers themselves only benefit the host city.