Fasten the game and make it more fun

[Naokaukodem]

It doesn't make sense that in Civ6, compared to Civ5, you have to build a commercial hub or harbor + a market or lighthouse AND then a trader to get any trade route going.

It doesn't make sense that in Civ6 you have builder charges but you still have to lose time to move those builders around.

To some extent, it doesn't make sense that for getting to build a library, you have to build a campus before, compared to the other games of the franchise. This slows down the game, make barriers for some players (like me) and no one get benefit from it.

It doesn't make sense that you spend so much time on building settlers and have to move them manually afterwards. It's boring.

So instead here what I propose :

- District construction is instantaneous. They do not have any adjacency bonus. Buildings have to be built, are more relevant and maybe even they contribute even more to the generation of great people when specialists assigned to them.

- Either go back to slow but permanent workers, either go for a more direct improvements system.

- Traders doesn't need any building to be built, only the commercial hub placed. (then keep the pop limit for districts)

- Cities can be built directly from the queue of another nearby city. The max distance from this city is (workable range) times 2 +1, in Civ6 and Civ5 it would be 3x2+1=7 tiles. The minimum distance is 1 (tiny villages on the tile, not touching each other) or 2. Later cities can join up and form suburbs/"great" cities/Megalopolises. Territory is claimed only when the city is completed, so you cannot start unfinished cities to claim territory. Cities can be built near foreign civs ones as long as they are not in their current territory. Cities are like wonders, if the AI build a city near or in the exact same spot than you during its turn 1 turn before you, the production is lost and you get some consolation prize in the form of gold or production. You can still build "Settlers" and send them as far as you want, but as you can imagine it's more expensive and takes more time, and is more dangerous or even more costly (needs escorts). Barbs scouts are alerted when they see a settler.

- Ports count as districts. They can be placed anywhere instantaneously on your territory at the cost of another district. Navies would be less boring to make. You may have to buy tiles to do so though.

- Gold should be used more often to underline its value. = everything is cheaper and you get more gold from trade routes. Production should be mostly used for infrastructure, like roads, forts, claiming territory by building cities (cities can't be bought), wonders, traders (cannot be bought either), units maintenance, etc. not to mention you can still build everything with production, that would just be an oppotunity choice vs. gold because eventhough you would use gold more often, you have a finite amount of it. (GPT) Some might think that gold and production would be too interchangeable and redundant, but that's just because before everything was expensive so production was generally preferable, but in fact it always has been that way. (remember the Shields upkeep cost of units in Civ2) Now we need a good balance between the two, because if you buy too many units with gold for example, you may lack production to build everything that exclusively needs it. Also, it wouldn't feel ok to have virtually infinite amount of gold, i.e. have more income than you can spend it.

I know everything is not perfect in those suggestions (especially the gold part which I nearly scrapped) but maybe you have better or more refined ideas on that topic, whereas you got inspired or had the ideas before.

Thx for reading and sorry for the loud thinking (did this in notepad before posting it)

 

[FishFishFish]

It doesn't make sense that in Civ6 you have builder charges but you still have to lose time to move those builders around.

It kinda does. You shouldn't be able to build a builder in one of your high production cities in order to improve a tile in a far away city immediately.

 

[GeneralZift]

I like some of these ideas, to bridge that gap between excessive micromanagement of Civ6 and simplicity of Civ5 while keeping the districts

Not a fan of cities being built like wonders ... Just seems unclear and unclean.

I prefer permanent workers. Underlining gold sounds like a good idea. At the same time you don't want to strangle the player.

Overall, interesting ideas

 

[Naokaukodem]

It kinda does. You shouldn't be able to build a builder in one of your high production cities in order to improve a tile in a far away city immediately.

You know what I mean. What if instead you would build improvements directly in the city building queue, that's what I mean.

Not a fan of cities being built like wonders ... Just seems unclear and unclean.

What do you mean unclear and unclean ? The wonder part of building cities would just be the competition between close civs. But you can happen to not any enough close enough civ. The main thing to keep up here is that cities would be built in the city queue, but you could still have "colonies" maybe after a tech or civic.

 

[FishFishFish]

You know what I mean. What if instead you would build improvements directly in the city building queue, that's what I mean.

That's not good either because you can't use high production cities to support low production cities. The movement is fair because you can support other cities in your empire but you have to pay a cost which is dependent on distance.

 

[Something12]

It doesn't make sense that in Civ6 you have builder charges but you still have to lose time to move those builders around.



It doesn't make sense that you spend so much time on building settlers and have to move them manually afterwards. It's boring.

How are needing to move settlers and builders around “make no sense” when it takes 40 years for some warriors to move across a river? I find it adds strategy when you need to defend them from other civs that you may be at war with.

- District construction is instantaneous. They do not have any adjacency bonus. Buildings have to be built, are more relevant and maybe even they contribute even more to the generation of great people when specialists assigned to them.

At that point just remove the districts.

- Cities can be built directly from the queue of another nearby city. The max distance from this city is (workable range) times 2 +1, in Civ6 and Civ5 it would be 3x2+1=7 tiles. The minimum distance is 1 (tiny villages on the tile, not touching each other) or 2. Later cities can join up and form suburbs/"great" cities/Megalopolises. Territory is claimed only when the city is completed, so you cannot start unfinished cities to claim territory. Cities can be built near foreign civs ones as long as they are not in their current territory. Cities are like wonders, if the AI build a city near or in the exact same spot than you during its turn 1 turn before you, the production is lost and you get some consolation prize in the form of gold or production. You can still build "Settlers" and send them as far as you want, but as you can imagine it's more expensive and takes more time, and is more dangerous or even more costly (needs escorts). Barbs scouts are alerted when they see a settler.

- Ports count as districts. They can be placed anywhere instantaneously on your territory at the cost of another district. Navies would be less boring to make. You may have to buy tiles to do so though.

I don’t see how this build a city from a city is just settlers but less strategic, and I am confused on how building ports fast somehow makes building a navy less boring? My problem with naval combat is that the ai never builds a navy and tries to do a naval invasion without any ships to protect their units, making it really easy to completely stop them with like 3 ships. Not because building a navy is slow.

 

[Naokaukodem]

That's not good either because you can't use high production cities to support low production cities. The movement is fair because you can support other cities in your empire but you have to pay a cost which is dependent on distance.

But... what's the difference of what you say with the fact you could improve instantly a distant city, except a couple of turns ? Those couple of turns do not make any kind of difference at that point, strategically speaking.

How are needing to move settlers and builders around “make no sense” when it takes 40 years for some warriors to move across a river?

It makes no sense from a gameplay QoL point of view, not realism. Because you have to build them first before starting to move them, which takes more hassle.

At that point just remove the districts.

So for you the only point of districts is the adjacency bonuses and the fact that you have to build them ? Because I don't like having to build them, it slows everything down (especially with the infamous scaling cost) and they are too much hassle for what they worth.

I don’t see how this build a city from a city is just settlers but less strategic

Sorry I don't understand this part.

and I am confused on how building ports fast somehow makes building a navy less boring? My problem with naval combat is that the ai never builds a navy and tries to do a naval invasion without any ships to protect their units, making it really easy to completely stop them with like 3 ships. Not because building a navy is slow.

Well my problem is that building districts is kinda hard to me. It's the kind of step that requires too much planning for doing basically what you could decide to do instantly before. It's kind of delayed decision.

 

[Something12]

But... what's the difference of what you say with the fact you could improve instantly a distant city, except a couple of turns ? Those couple of turns do not make any kind of difference at that point, strategically speaking.

It makes no sense from a gameplay QoL point of view, not realism. Because you have to build them first before starting to move them, which takes more hassle.

It makes sense from a strategy standpoint, since they become targets in war in order to weaken your opponents while gaining more resources in developing your empire, therefore increasing options in warfare without overcomplicating it.

So for you the only point of districts is the adjacency bonuses and the fact that you have to build them ? Because I don't like having to build them, it slows everything down (especially with the infamous scaling cost) and they are too much hassle for what they worth.
.

Well my problem is that building districts is kinda hard to me. It's the kind of step that requires too much planning for doing basically what you could decide to do instantly before. It's kind of delayed decision.

If they have no strategy in placement and can be built instantly, why can’t we just build the buildings directly at that point without building a district? In addition, what is hard about building districts in their current state, considering that most just need to be placed near mountains/forests/rivers and don’t have very difficult conditions to place (the exception being canals, but they are basically useless anyways)

Sorry I don't understand this part.

My problem is that your suggestion to add the ability to make cities from other cities directly is unnecessary when you end up still needing to have the settler in the game in order to have the option to settle cities on far islands or continents.

 

[Naokaukodem]

It makes sense from a strategy standpoint, since they become targets in war in order to weaken your opponents while gaining more resources in developing your empire, therefore increasing options in warfare without overcomplicating it.

Nobody ever declares war to steal builders. Settlers, yes, especially early. Anyway the builders you may mostly get in times of war have only 1 charge left. (generally)

If they have no strategy in placement and can be built instantly, why can’t we just build the buildings directly at that point without building a district? In addition, what is hard about building districts in their current state, considering that most just need to be placed near mountains/forests/rivers and don’t have very difficult conditions to place

Because as I specified they are limited by the size of the population. You cannot build every district in every city, so you have to specialize more or less. + they can be pillaged.
...
What's hard, I don't know, might be their cost : they inflate quickly letting new cities with eons needed to build a single one. They take up a usable tile. They are delaying your decision of building actual buildings. Not talking if the place you want to place them has a feature like woods or bonus resources. (delaying yet more your decisions because you need a builder or accept to waste it) (not even talking about iron spawning where you wanted your campus)

My problem is that your suggestion to add the ability to make cities from other cities directly is unnecessary when you end up still needing to have the settler in the game in order to have the option to settle cities on far islands or continents.

The cost between the two should be high, so that you want to build cities in the queue first, but Settler only once your city is big enough AND you have found a nice spot far away. (need scouting before)

 

[Something12]

Nobody ever declares war to steal builders. Settlers, yes, especially early. Anyway the builders you may mostly get in times of war have only 1 charge left. (generally)

So? Still increases strategy and needing to move your units isn’t very annoying personally.

Because as I specified they are limited by the size of the population. You cannot build every district in every city, so you have to specialize more or less. + they can be pillaged.
...
What's hard, I don't know, might be their cost : they inflate quickly letting new cities with eons needed to build a single one. They take up a usable tile. They are delaying your decision of building actual buildings. Not talking if the place you want to place them has a feature like woods or bonus resources. (delaying yet more your decisions because you need a builder or accept to waste it) (not even talking about iron spawning where you wanted your campus)

on the pop size limit, just make it so you choose a line of buildings first and the amount of building “trees” would be limited by pop, but the pillaging part is a valid reason to keep districts even in your form of them.
On the inflating cost part, this is generally a problem with all cites past medieval era in doing anything without the golden age dedication that gives like +4 population on cites centered on a different continent, this isn’t a district problem because this also applies to units due to new units costing more production and other units starting off with a high production cost or having inflating costs the more you make them (builders, and settlers)
The useable tile part is still a thing with your system and I don’t really find to be a problem, and there is nothing stopping you from just not going out of your way to get a builder to chop before placing your district, but the strategic resources blocking districts are indeed annoying.

 

[Naokaukodem]

So? Still increases strategy and needing to move your units isn’t very annoying personally.

That's not just moving them. It's having to build them + move them that wastes yet more time. It's not a question of being annoying by itself, it's a question of slowing down the gameplay. (if it were like in Civ5 where workers are permanent, I would see this less as an issue. Let's say it's the way Civ6 does this that let me this impression of all slowness, because you have to rebuild builders soon anyway and begin over all the loop)

on the pop size limit, just make it so you choose a line of buildings first and the amount of building “trees” would be limited by pop

I think it would be too confusing that way, and one could hardly see the point. Also, districts are a nice graphical touch too.

On the inflating cost part, this is generally a problem with all cites past medieval era in doing anything without the golden age dedication that gives like +4 population on cites centered on a different continent, this isn’t a district problem because this also applies to units due to new units costing more production and other units starting off with a high production cost or having inflating costs the more you make them (builders, and settlers)

Yes this is also a builders and settlers problem (that I do not like either). But this is also a district problem.

The useable tile part is still a thing with your system and I don’t really find to be a problem,

Yes but it's not only that, it's yet a part of what making me hesitating building districts when they take time to build. I wouldn't be so hesitant if it was instant. If nothing else, I could wait the very last moment to generate them. (in the state the tiles become useless the time you start to build them, up until they are 100% achieved)

and there is nothing stopping you from just not going out of your way to get a builder to chop before placing your district

That's precisely that, "going out of my way", it slows down everything and makes things less fun to me.

 

[Something12]

That's not just moving them. It's having to build them + move them that wastes yet more time. It's not a question of being annoying by itself, it's a question of slowing down the gameplay. (if it were like in Civ5 where workers are permanent, I would see this less as an issue. Let's say it's the way Civ6 does this that let me this impression of all slowness, because you have to rebuild builders soon anyway and begin over all the loop)

Pretty much everything makes the game slower, but builders and settlers not being able to just teleport is good for strategy and doesn’t really slow the gameplay in my experience, it would feel incredibly weird if they could just teleport away whenever I get a unit close to them, and is infinitely less annoying than other game mechanics (rock bands)

Yes but it's not only that, it's yet a part of what making me hesitating building districts when they take time to build. I wouldn't be so hesitant if it was instant. If nothing else, I could wait the very last moment to generate them. (in the state the tiles become useless the time you start to build them, up until they are 100% achieved)

I find that most of the time one of 2 things
1. There is a useless spot with no yields to place it
2. I will probably not have enough pop in the city to work all the tiles before the game ends, and most tiles are worse than if i just placed a +4 district there

I do not find this to be a problem in my experience, since you have up to three rings of tiles to work. In addition, I don’t understand how building a district that builds instantly that gives nothing and needs you to build buildings is different than building one that takes time but gives yields at base without buildings in terms of making then tile feel useless while your building the district/buildings.

That's precisely that, "going out of my way", it slows down everything and makes things less fun to me.

It’s not like you will lose if you place a district on a forest without chopping it first.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Pretty much everything makes the game slower, but builders and settlers not being able to just teleport is good for strategy and doesn’t really slow the gameplay in my experience, it would feel incredibly weird if they could just teleport away whenever I get a unit close to them

Seems you didn't get me here. It is the build + move that I feel is redundant, not just the one or the other. I'm just proposing to keep only one of them, here the build part. As I said improvements could be done by city queue (and it's an idea that have been seen elsewhere), as to cities from queue it should also prevent forward settling as long as two civs are not too close from each others, but in that case it's whoever build it first who win. (with still the risk to be declared/conquered). + it would be more logical to build cities from queue if it is for a close or very close city.

In addition, I don’t understand how building a district that builds instantly that gives nothing and needs you to build buildings is different than building one that takes time but gives yields at base without buildings in terms of making then tile feel useless while your building the district/buildings.

Because most of the time your districts will have only 0 or +1 adjacency bonus, and you have to wait yet another chunk of turns to get your buildings. Redundant, slow, not engaging at all. Boring as hell.

It’s not like you will lose if you place a district on a forest without chopping it first.

Who knows ?

 

[Something12]

Seems you didn't get me here. It is the build + move that I feel is redundant, not just the one or the other. I'm just proposing to keep only one of them, here the build part. As I said improvements could be done by city queue (and it's an idea that have been seen elsewhere), as to cities from queue it should also prevent forward settling as long as two civs are not too close from each others, but in that case it's whoever build it first who win. (with still the risk to be declared/conquered). + it would be more logical to build cities from queue if it is for a close or very close city.

Your solution ends up being more redundant when you add a ability to make a city from a city while also having settlers, this wouldn’t improve the game, it will just add more features that really don’t need to be there. in addition I do not look forward to needing to take 30 turns to build one farm.

Because most of the time your districts will have only 0 or +1 adjacency bonus, and you have to wait yet another chunk of turns to get your buildings. Redundant, slow, not engaging at all. Boring as hell.

Your suggestion doesn’t exactly fix the problem of feeling like the tile is useless while you are building the buildings, in fact if you use a certain view point you could say that your suggestion is still slow, boring, and not engaging at all.

Who knows ?

Clearly not the ai, considering that they place their cities in prime spots to be lost to loyalty pressure.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Your solution ends up being more redundant when you add a ability to make a city from a city while also having settlers, this wouldn’t improve the game, it will just add more features that really don’t need to be there.

Redundant ? Not in the way I put it. As to being useful, I think it would fulfil its goals. (fasten the game and make it more fun) You don't think so ? Fine by me.

in addition I do not look forward to needing to take 30 turns to build one farm.

?

Your suggestion doesn’t exactly fix the problem of feeling like the tile is useless while you are building the buildings

No, but it fixes the problem of feeling the tile is useless while you are building what is pre-required to build the buildings... and again, it's not really only about that.

Clearly not the ai, considering that they place their cities in prime spots to be lost to loyalty pressure.

?

 

[Something12]

Redundant ? Not in the way I put it. As to being useful, I think it would fulfil its goals. (fasten the game and make it more fun) You don't think so ? Fine by me.

?

No, but it fixes the problem of feeling the tile is useless while you are building what is pre-required to build the buildings... and again, it's not really only about that.

?

I find the game is already too fast when my army is outdated by the time I finish upgrading it, and I don’t understand how it would make the game more fun or “faster” when all it does is just add completely redundant features by having 2 things both settle a city, but you do you.

No, but it fixes the problem of feeling the tile is useless while you are building what is pre-required to build the buildings... and again, it's not really only about that.

It is still useless while you’re building the buildings, I do not see a difference at all.

?

Costs tend to balloon on basically everything, which goes back to newly founded cities past the medieval era taking 10 years to do anything in general

 

[Malexander]

It doesn't make sense that in Civ6, compared to Civ5, you have to build a commercial hub or harbor + a market or lighthouse AND then a trader to get any trade route going.

It doesn't make sense that in Civ6 you have builder charges but you still have to lose time to move those builders around.

To some extent, it doesn't make sense that for getting to build a library, you have to build a campus before, compared to the other games of the franchise. This slows down the game, make barriers for some players (like me) and no one get benefit from it.

It doesn't make sense that you spend so much time on building settlers and have to move them manually afterwards. It's boring.

So instead here what I propose :

- District construction is instantaneous. They do not have any adjacency bonus. Buildings have to be built, are more relevant and maybe even they contribute even more to the generation of great people when specialists assigned to them.

- Either go back to slow but permanent workers, either go for a more direct improvements system.

- Traders doesn't need any building to be built, only the commercial hub placed. (then keep the pop limit for districts)

- Cities can be built directly from the queue of another nearby city. The max distance from this city is (workable range) times 2 +1, in Civ6 and Civ5 it would be 3x2+1=7 tiles. The minimum distance is 1 (tiny villages on the tile, not touching each other) or 2. Later cities can join up and form suburbs/"great" cities/Megalopolises. Territory is claimed only when the city is completed, so you cannot start unfinished cities to claim territory. Cities can be built near foreign civs ones as long as they are not in their current territory. Cities are like wonders, if the AI build a city near or in the exact same spot than you during its turn 1 turn before you, the production is lost and you get some consolation prize in the form of gold or production. You can still build "Settlers" and send them as far as you want, but as you can imagine it's more expensive and takes more time, and is more dangerous or even more costly (needs escorts). Barbs scouts are alerted when they see a settler.

- Ports count as districts. They can be placed anywhere instantaneously on your territory at the cost of another district. Navies would be less boring to make. You may have to buy tiles to do so though.

- Gold should be used more often to underline its value. = everything is cheaper and you get more gold from trade routes. Production should be mostly used for infrastructure, like roads, forts, claiming territory by building cities (cities can't be bought), wonders, traders (cannot be bought either), units maintenance, etc. not to mention you can still build everything with production, that would just be an oppotunity choice vs. gold because eventhough you would use gold more often, you have a finite amount of it. (GPT) Some might think that gold and production would be too interchangeable and redundant, but that's just because before everything was expensive so production was generally preferable, but in fact it always has been that way. (remember the Shields upkeep cost of units in Civ2) Now we need a good balance between the two, because if you buy too many units with gold for example, you may lack production to build everything that exclusively needs it. Also, it wouldn't feel ok to have virtually infinite amount of gold, i.e. have more income than you can spend it.

I know everything is not perfect in those suggestions (especially the gold part which I nearly scrapped) but maybe you have better or more refined ideas on that topic, whereas you got inspired or had the ideas before.

Thx for reading and sorry for the loud thinking (did this in notepad before posting i

 

[Malexander]

Workers into Traders

One solution to hasten the gameplay process would be to allow workers to transition into traders after a trade route (road, rail, etc) has been established between cities and tech requirements are met.

Workers would have charges initially until certain era / tech / culture advancement has been discovered. Establishing a trade route would cost one charge and consumes the worker. When workers become permanent they can still be transformed into trade routes but doing so would consume the worker. At later stages the player can avoid building workers for trade routes by building a trader unit that establishes a trade route between two points in the map.

Merchants could be a specialized trader unit that could be used enhance an existing trade route to include branches to other nearby locations for better yields for all cities / regions in the trade route network.

In addition:
- roads would always increase production in a worked tile
- traders would be faster to build than workers
- building railroads and upgrading units would reserve one corresponding free resource (iron, copper, etc) for the duration (making resources more important and thus trading with other civs)
- naval tech improvements would increase worked sea tile yields and production

 

[Naokaukodem]

I find the game is already too fast when my army is outdated by the time I finish upgrading it, and I don’t understand how it would make the game more fun or “faster” when all it does is just add completely redundant features by having 2 things both settle a city, but you do you.

It would make the expand part more fluid and haste it, since you would build cities from queue constantly. (again, Settlers would be way lot more expensive, and they are not "redundant" since they would serve to create colonies, however they work in the game) It would obviously fasten the game and make it more fun IMHO, being "redundant" in your weird way having nothing to see with it, by the way... in a word, it would kickstart the early game a little bit, where everything is slow now.

It is still useless while you’re building the buildings, I do not see a difference at all.

I already answered to this. 1. It feels yet more useless when you have to build a 0 adj. bonus district : you have to wait the district + the building. Here you just have to wait the building as usual. 2. It's not only about that.

Costs tend to balloon on basically everything, which goes back to newly founded cities past the medieval era taking 10 years to do anything in general

If you are refering to the builder cost itself, yes it can be that way for starting cities mid game if you don't bring a (or several) builder(s) along with the settler, and don't have this building is the government plaza or something. And I agree that it's annoying, and that's precisely this kind of things that I want to counter. Yet I don't know what it has to do with settlers as settlers and builders are two separated units.

Workers into Traders

One solution to hasten the gameplay process would be to allow workers to transition into traders after a trade route (road, rail, etc) has been established between cities and tech requirements are met.

Workers would have charges initially until certain era / tech / culture advancement has been discovered. Establishing a trade route would cost one charge and consumes the worker. When workers become permanent they can still be transformed into trade routes but doing so would consume the worker. At later stages the player can avoid building workers for trade routes by building a trader unit that establishes a trade route between two points in the map.

Merchants could be a specialized trader unit that could be used enhance an existing trade route to include branches to other nearby locations for better yields for all cities / regions in the trade route network.

In addition:
- roads would always increase production in a worked tile
- traders would be faster to build than workers
- building railroads and upgrading units would reserve one corresponding free resource (iron, copper, etc) for the duration (making resources more important and thus trading with other civs)
- naval tech improvements would increase worked sea tile yields and production

I appreciate the idea but it would depend on how roads/railroads work. I would reject everything that makes them covering the whole map, as that concern has been taken in the last two iterations. (not that I, personnaly, do mind - I mean, I don't mind the spaghetti roads, I think they even add a touch of "human vs. nature" / industry)

 

[Something12]

It would make the expand part more fluid and haste it, since you would build cities from queue constantly. (again, Settlers would be way lot more expensive, and they are not "redundant" since they would serve to create colonies, however they work in the game) It would obviously fasten the game and make it more fun IMHO, being "redundant" in your weird way having nothing to see with it, by the way... in a word, it would kickstart the early game a little bit, where everything is slow now.

It is redundant in that we don’t need 2 different ways to settle a city when settlers do it just fine, and I don’t see how it would make the game “more fluid” or somehow “kickstart” the early game when it could easily just be achieved by having settlers make the cities, in fact I say it might make the game less fun if the surrounding lands around your capital suck since now you have to settle your second city in a bad spot just to get to actually decent places to settle cities in a good spot.

I already answered to this. 1. It feels yet more useless when you have to build a 0 adj. bonus district : you have to wait the district + the building. Here you just have to wait the building as usual. 2. It's not only about that.

The tile is still useless unless you build a building, no matter if we use what we currently have now or your suggestion so I do not see the point, and your only other reason is that it makes the game easier, which is something that in my opinion doesn’t need to happen.

If you are refering to the builder cost itself, yes it can be that way for starting cities mid game if you don't bring a (or several) builder(s) along with the settler, and don't have this building is the government plaza or something. And I agree that it's annoying, and that's precisely this kind of things that I want to counter. Yet I don't know what it has to do with settlers as settlers and builders are two separated units.

My argument there was based off of you saying that improvements could be done from the city queue and your general want of getting rid of civilian units everywhere, not on your suggestion for settlers.