(Firaxis: READ) Railroad Movement in Civilization IV

[yoshi]

@Yoshi
It seems your main criticism against my rail proposal is the MM that would result from having workers trying to move around. Is there any reason you believe worker units are an essential featue for building tile improvements. Offhand, I have seen two other proposals which get rid of workers.

- ctp style public works (my choice)
- spontaneously grow with city

With PW, you can't destroy/capture Workers while they're building or prevent them from getting to the tile to be improved (a proven tactic).

PW would deviate from Civ's unit-based system (note that most non-city features in Civ are unit-related.

Having RRs grow spontaneously (when triggered by the building of an improvement in either city?) is the same: no tactical element and no units required.

So although this may seem minor, it's an important arguement against (6).

Adding a cost to the use of RR 'stations' (as I think you or someone else said earlier or in another thread) then moving Workers around would be too expensive. That is a solution as far as I care since why should workers get moved around so quickly at no immediate cost? But again, moving Workers around that way is a Civ standard, so I doubt they will change that.

(Note that its note just Firaxis deciding; many players have gotten used to these 'Civ standards' and don't want things changed. They already made a big deal out of the minor chages in Civ3.)

 

[rhialto]

With PW, you can't destroy/capture Workers while they're building or prevent them from getting to the tile to be improved (a proven tactic).

Perhaps attacking the workers is a proven tactic, but as a gameplay issue, workers are only good for the micro managers.

I consider this to be a good thing. Civilians would not normally place themselves in such dangerous situations anyway - notice the complete lack of infrastructure being rebuilt in today's big danger zone. Being able to order your civilians to work in danger zones is unrealistic.

You do of course still have the opportunity to destroy infrastructure while or even after it has been built. In that respect PW is no different from workers.

PW would deviate from Civ's unit-based system (note that most non-city features in Civ are unit-related.

The civ3 diplomacy and spy options also deviate from civ's tradition of unit based systems, yet it happened. Don't be so religious about units, it7s unseemly.

So although this may seem minor, it's an important arguement against (6).

Until you convince me that they made the right decision to remove diplomats and spies, I can't take your point seriously at all.

(Note that its note just Firaxis deciding; many players have gotten used to these 'Civ standards' and don't want things changed. They already made a big deal out of the minor chages in Civ3.)

Many players also had gotten used to diplomats and spies. Then they got used to the spy screen. There are other ways to do spy actions too if you like to design games.

 

[yoshi]

Perhaps attacking the workers is a proven tactic, but as a gameplay issue, workers are only good for the micro managers.

I consider this to be a good thing. Civilians would not normally place themselves in such dangerous situations anyway - notice the complete lack of infrastructure being rebuilt in today's big danger zone. Being able to order your civilians to work in danger zones is unrealistic.

Workers themselves represent infrastructure (remember that Civ's units are abstract representations).

Workers are constantly doing things even in the late game (namely switching from Irrigation to Mining based on requirements).

You're assuming that the player has a choice as to when and where to use Workers: if a rival is right next door, you can't just put everything on hold.

The civ3 diplomacy and spy options also deviate from civ's tradition of unit based systems, yet it happened. Don't be so religious about units, it7s unseemly.

Diplomacy mechanics have been a problem throughout the franchise (i.e. Civ2's embassy screen replaced Civ1's completely unit-based diplomacy and Civ3 replaced the units simply because, minus the 'sabotage' feature (which was a major exploit--hence, not a missed feature), diplomatic units don't play any role in military strategy and having them as units just adds unecessary MM. This was a logical move on the part of Civ3 designers (although one that should have been made in Civ2 IMO, as the problems were already evident in Civ1). Getting rid of Workers is not the equivilant for reasons that should be evident now.

There is aso the issue of Worker gangs (which will be significantly streamlined in this release--I just remembered having read this somewhere...I think; no specifics on Civ4 yet): massing them to build improvements faster (I'm assuming PW would not be instantaneous, which would give even more credence to the 'arguement' in favor of unit-based tile improvement.

(Also note that some players--not myself necessarily--actually like moving Workers around. Let's face it, people like seeing the cute lil' Workers slowly work'n on the RR all the live long turn.)

Getting back on topic, there is also another problem with (6) that I forgot to mention: units travelling alog RRs cannot be destoryed (as opposed to simply being 'intercepted' by blocking the RR line).

The movement modifier options (2,3,4,5,7) maintain this tactic.

The only way of keeping this tactic in (6) is to have something to interact with on RR: a train that moves along RR automatically.

This would keep the tactical nature of unit movement w/o having any movement modification taking place (i.e. can be destroyed en-route and movement is not instantaneous). The level of MM does not increase noticably but it adds complexity to the model (kind of like getting the partial effect of (5) but without the MM).

(Have units appear at point where RR is blocked if using the variation.)

 

[Commander Bello]

[...]
Diplomacy mechanics have been a problem throughout the franchise (i.e. Civ2's embassy screen replaced Civ1's completely unit-based diplomacy and Civ3 replaced the units simply because, minus the 'sabotage' feature (which was a major exploit--hence, not a missed feature), diplomatic units don't play any role in military strategy and having them as units just adds unecessary MM. This was a logical move on the part of Civ3 designers (although one that should have been made in Civ2 IMO, as the problems were already evident in Civ1). Getting rid of Workers is not the equivilant for reasons that should be evident now.

Please have another look at this statement and then - in combination with your statements below and my remarks to them - think about if workers don't share the same mis-conception as did the spies/diplomats.

There is aso the issue of Worker gangs (which will be significantly streamlined in this release--I just remembered having read this somewhere...I think; no specifics on Civ4 yet): massing them to build improvements faster (I'm assuming PW would not be instantaneous, which would give even more credence to the 'arguement' in favor of unit-based tile improvement.

Exactly this issue almost requires to get rid of the worker unit. Why?

Just because it causes major unbalances in the game, especially after C3C. With worker, you get all terrain improvements just for free. There are no costs when you build them, there are no costs when you use them.
The only "costs" you ever had was the time needed for a certain tile improvement, and of course the pop cost of that given worker. And the maintenance cost for the worker, if there are such.

Now, with C3C and the invention of "enslavement", out of a sudden you get "free" workers. O.k., let them be slower than your home-grown ones. Who cares? You don't have to pay for them and if they are not quick enough, you just stack them in unlimited numbers.
In C3C, the Mayans - if living on a large continent with no direct neighbours - are doing very fine as soon as they have their enslavement UU available. He will just foster the local Barbs and softly harvest them from time to time.
If there are neighbors, the player will almost HAVE to go to war. He would just prove to not have understood the game, if he didn't.
After that, a Mayan player can improve his lands like crazy at NIL costs. Nil, nada, nothing, no costs ever!

[...]
(Also note that some players--not myself necessarily--actually like moving Workers around. Let's face it, people like seeing the cute lil' Workers slowly work'n on the RR all the live long turn.)

Lot of players even liked to move their diplomats around and to transport them all over the world. They are gone, aren't they?
So, there is no reason why workers HAVE to stay....

 

[yoshi]

Bello, why are you using Civ3 features to justify your arguement?

The point is that tile-improving units are a core part of the game whereas diplo units are not and just get in the way. (I personally found it rather lame--and unrealistic--that diplo units in Civ2 could actually have an effect on the map (namely taking up a square and all its related problems), not to mention having to ferry them over to an enemy). The new system does all the important things the old one did (i.e. missions based on chance, spies can be intercepted). Replacing Workers with PW would imply significately changed gameplay.

Suffice to say, there will probably be tile-improving units in Civ4.

So really, (7) is the only one that can meet all the requirements (namely keeping with the simple RR system--and all it's tactics--yet limiting it without additional MM and not giving an advantage to faster units. The only thing it doesn't do is have a gold cost associated with it. Options (4,5 and 6) do (i.e. cost per square, cost per teleport, cost of train unit upkeep respectively) but no one has said gold cost is a necessarily missing element to RR movement. A tile improvement cost and Worker upkeep while building should be enough.

Option (6), though attractive, just implies too big a change.

(As for covering the map with RR: may not look great but that's the way it is.)

 

[rhialto]

The point is that tile-improving units are a core part of the game

You have only your opinion to back this up. Several variations on the 4X (expand, exploit, and two others I forget) game model exist which happily contradict your opinion.

 

[Commander Bello]

Bello, why are you using Civ3 features to justify your arguement?
[...]

Because somewhere in this thread YOU have been the one who claimed that cIV would be based on Civ3.

Not to be confrontative, but I get the impression that you turn your own arguments back and forth, just how it seems to fit best in the given moment.
Additionally, you always bring examples which immediately turn against your own proposals/statements.

As an rhetoric/intellectual exercise, this may be nice and - as far as I am concerned - you are welcome to do so.
Nevertheless, I see you in a rather weak position as far as your argumentation in this thread is concerned.

Again, this reply is not meant to be aggressive towards you. It is just a statement about how I interpret your argumentation. And, I relate this just to this single thread and the related topic.

 

[yoshi]

You have only your opinion to back this up. Several variations on the 4X (expand, exploit, and two others I forget) game model exist which happily contradict your opinion.

I'm talking about SM's Civ franchise, not others (but for the record, look how they turned out).

It's not my opinion, it's just the way it is. Civ fills a unique niche in the market so it's highly unlikely that they'll change the format that much.

The only reason why they would change it is if it fell into the "un-fun" category and players were fed up with it. This is not the case.

Open a poll on just that question if you want and find out for yourself. If you get a majority vote for PW over Workers, then I'll agree with you entirely--even if Firaxis doesn't go with PW, as player opinion is more important since they're the ones who are willing to give up large chunks of their lifespans to this game.

And my initial arguement was that moving Workers around via RR is pretty standard in this franchise (i.e. has never been messed with since day one).

With that in mind, it seems highly unlikely that they would change things to accomodate this new system which is already stretching things (at least in its present state where moving Workers around--and automating them to do so FTM--implies too much MM).

Because somewhere in this thread YOU have been the one who claimed that cIV would be based on Civ3.

Yes, BASED on Civ3, not a copy of it.

Not to be confrontative, but I get the impression that you turn your own arguments back and forth, just how it seems to fit best in the given moment.
Additionally, you always bring examples which immediately turn against your own proposals/statements.

So I'm a flip-flopper now am I?

I bring up examples that seem to immediately turn against my own proposals/statements, but they don't actually contradict:

I say Workers will stay. Why? Not "un-fun" (not strategic, unbalancing and just tedious to players). Past decisions have been made according to this standard.

I may want something else but that's what the poll is for: you tell Firaxis what you want, let them figure out the mechanics. They do with it what they will.

My point about option (7) is that it is the simplest by far and thus has the best chances of getting in. Why do I care? Because I don't want infinite RRs and if there's no change, I'll be stuck modding in a faster version of Road to replace RRs, which isn't the equivilant for the aforementioned reasons. (Granted, even if there is no change, it'll still be nice to be able to mod in more 'road' types.)

You guys need to read (or at least re-read) Firaxis' mission statement again I think.

 

[dh_epic]

Workers ARE unfun, unstrategic, and generally tedious to players. Kill them.

At the end of the day, you need to rig every single poll you create with a "GIVE ME MORE MORE MORE" option, because that's usually the option that the most fans take. I bet if you took a poll, there'd be a huge proportion of people who would be excited about having workers do twice as many kinds of tile improvements (a third kind of road, a second kind of irrigation and a second kind of mine). Not to mention that you'll have a hard time finding any popular support for "less".

So yes, there'd be a lot of people who'd be disappointed if they removed workers.

But that's what happened to spies, diplomats, and caravans. And people learned to deal with it quite well. In fact, it's almost as if BECAUSE they decided to do it, people thought it was a good idea after the fact. (I wasn't around for the Civ 2 to Civ 3 transition, but I'll bet you there was some wiseass who said "get rid of caravans" and had three quarters of the forums exclaiming that caravans are awesome.)

I'm not saying they WILL get rid of workers. But I will say that there's very little good reason not to. Even the current fan base would deal with it pretty quickly.

 

[yoshi]

Workers ARE unfun, unstrategic, and generally tedious to players. Kill them.

But...I gave you the reasons why they are NOT those things.

They are strategic because:

- can be captured/destroyed/interrupted (risk causes them to stop working)
- have work rate (varies with units/tech/govt.)
- must be maintained (can be lost)
- must be transported (can be lost at sea; represent transfer of materials)
- must be built (has effect on production)
- can be bought/sold

They are tedious because:

- you have to give them orders (although they can be automated)

They are un-fun because:

dh_epic says so.


The AI can use RRs to move Workers around just as well as you can using a movement-modifiying model.

Caravans can't be automated because there are too many unexpected situations to deal with.

Why would they take workers out of the game if there is no need to? Where marketing is concerned, leaving them in is more profitable than tkaing them out.

So, they will probably be in--unless I missed something--and that means that unless option (6) includes some feature than makes Workers automatable without any significant increase in MM, then (6) is not as attractive as an alternative.

Why not just forget moving Workers around via RR teleport? and have them use Roads? Because micromanagers will have an advantage as they will take the time to calculate the cost-benefit of spending gold RR-teleporting over moving the workers around via roads.

Why not just remove Worker's ability to teleport? Removes the effect of being able to move Workers around the map quickly in the later game.

Why not just get rid of Workers entirely and save a headache? Becasue of the reasons I pointed out above.

The question is: is option (6) so MM-heavy that it would interfere with normal gameplay (with Workers)?

Eliminate the cost factor (i.e. pay no gold when using RR--athough a nice additional feature) and manual use of Workers would be less of a hassle as you wouldn't be prompted each time but the GoTo order would be a pain in some situations. Getting the AI to use this model effectively (efficiently) would be difficult.

Combine the Worker problem with the other strategic factors I mentioned earlier and option (6) seems like a less viable option.

Again, it's a significant deviation from the original format only to increase MM rather than minimize it, and that would seem to contradict the franchise's direction up to now. Add to that Firaxis' new 'strategy' and the odds against something like (6) being considered are low. (Firaxis' reps talk about 'adding/removing,'while this is more like 'adding and adding some more.')

But then, I could be wrong. (Just note that most realistic player predictions concerning Civ3 were right on (i.e. would be Civ2 but more streamlined). The only reason to second-guess Civ4 is that the engine is significantley different, thus allowing for--though not assuring--greater innovation than was seen in Civ3. Also note that they removed a lot fo stuff from Civ3 that was in Civ2 that had little to do with an improvement in gameplay but rather some odd decision-making on the design end.)

Option (7) adds a limit but doesn't increase MM or remove anything else. But virtually no one voted for it so I guess it's out as a player favorite, which is all that really matters (the discussion is more for it's own sake). Eh.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Easy solution Yoshi, have a national labour pool. You still build workers in your cities, and they still cost population, but they are NOT attached to a specific city. When you start a new infrastructure project, you pay a PW cost and then assign the number of units you want to said project. The more workers you assign, the quicker the job gets done. If your infrastructure project-in progress- gets overrun by an enemy, then there is a good chance that 1 or more of your assigned workers will get captured and transferred to the enemy's national labour pool-as slaves (or PoW's if they have outlawed slavery).
Said units can be traded or reattached to any city-the only difference is you do NOT have to move them anywhere-which is un-fun because those of us who are NOT obssessive-compulsive say so !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker

 

[dh_epic]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. What you talk about as strategy is nothing more than repetitive mechanical challenge.

- can be captured/destroyed/interrupted (risk causes them to stop working)

Same thing with spies and caravans and diplomats. And how hard is it to keep your workers from being captured? I'd say that if you're micromanaging, it's 99% certain you can protect them if you care to. And if you're automating, your odds sharply decrease. Therein lies the problem -- the game favors those who are disciplined micromanagers, not creative strategists.

- have work rate (varies with units/tech/govt.)

You don't need workers to have work rates. Note that city productivity and scientific research have rates that also depend on techs and government.

- must be maintained (can be lost)

If you think that "accounting" is the same thing as strategy, you have another thing coming. Accounting is the EXACT OPPOSITE of strategy. Accounting is a series of mathematical calculations that can be optimized. Strategy is much more creative than that.

- must be transported (can be lost at sea; represent transfer of materials)

If you consider transportation one of the most creative, most exciting decisions that players can make, then your priorities are plain wrong. You're not boasting about a great strategy game, but a great economic simulator. This is more accounting. And I might add that you had to transport caravans, spies and diplomats.

- must be built (has effect on production)

This is the only example where players have a real choice. Nobody would choose to let their workers get captured, or choose to go bankrupt. But this is a real choice about priorities -- will I divert production to infrastructure at home, or will I support a larger military? Civilization IS about where you put your building priorities, so these small decisions add up to form your overall strategy.

However, you don't need to have little worker units dancing across your screen in order to give players a tradeoff. Dozens of people on these forums have suggested alternate schemes, the most simple being that you build a worker which is added to your labor pool, rather than an individual unit. Which brings me to the next point --

- can be bought/sold

Your labor pool could still be used in trade negotiations, without the little units dancing around.

So you might retort --

"What is strategy? Isn't it all subjective? What I think is good is strategy, and what you think is good is strategy!"

Strategy involves making high level decisions that sometimes work and sometimes don't, depending on how other factors come together. It's up to the strategists to read the signs and predict what their opponent's plans are, and to try to come up with an effectve counter-plan. For example:

Unstrategic plan: I'll build 100 X's really fast and overwhelm my opponent with sheer numbers. I've perfected my understanding of the timing and can eliminate any wasted time. I will have 100 units by the time my opponent has 50.

Strategic plan: I'll attack from the north by land, and from the east by sea, and send a few ships to distract him on the west.

One of many necessary conditions for a strategy is that you could execute your plan perfectly, but see it fail because your opponent was that smart. Your opponent ignores your ships to the west because he had a suspicion those ships going further East were the real action.

Many of the things you've talked about are basically no more than accounting and calculating. Efficiency calculations are not a strategy. They're something anyone can do at any time, and in a Turn-Based Strategy game they lose nothing by being this precise except their own time and energy. Someone who can build 100 units in the time most people build 50 can be said to have a skill, but that skill has nothing to do with strategic decisions.

(As a side note, this is the thing that makes most economic-model suggestions worthless -- rewarding micromanagement rather than opening up a new strategy.)

In conclusion,

Workers should be eliminated as they are unstrategic. And being unstrategic, there are many functions that are mechanical and repetitive, and thus tedious and a waste of players' valuable time. Admittedly, fun is subjective. But they weren't enough to save caravans and spies -- not the crux of my argument, but an example of how micromanagement has to be dropped in favor of larger ideas.

If they can drop caravans and still have trade, or drop spies and still have espionage, then they can drop workers and still have public works.

 

[Own]

i think railroads should allow 6 moves per movement point, and a higher tech road-type thing (subway for example) give 9 moves per movement point.

 

[rhialto]

@Own
Let me know if you find a long-distance subway will you?

 

[yoshi]

Easy solution Yoshi, have a national labour pool. You still build workers in your cities, and they still cost population, but they are NOT attached to a specific city. When you start a new infrastructure project, you pay a PW cost and then assign the number of units you want to said project. The more workers you assign, the quicker the job gets done. If your infrastructure project-in progress- gets overrun by an enemy, then there is a good chance that 1 or more of your assigned workers will get captured and transferred to the enemy's national labour pool-as slaves (or PoW's if they have outlawed slavery).
Said units can be traded or reattached to any city-the only difference is you do NOT have to move them anywhere-which is un-fun because those of us who are NOT obssessive-compulsive say so !

That's not bad. One con though is that you can't block passage to Workers (I think I forgot to mention that before--not a big con but still something less than you can do).

Time to get to the square is also not taken into account. For this, you would have to add something like a delay based on the fastest calculated route to the target square).

There is also the the fact that in Civ3, Workers will move to the nearest city when an enemy unit is near. If you make quick raid though, you can capture them before they get a chance to run. In your case this is automated, so there is not stretegy involved. (I suppose you could increase the chances of Worker capture based on unit movement--faster units have higher chances.)

Even so, this is still quite a bit better than plain PW though (for reasons that I will address in my reply dh_epic's post).

Therein lies the problem -- the game favors those who are disciplined micromanagers, not creative strategists.

Debatable. I don't think a civ defending its infrastructure can be considered to be MM. It's possible that Civ4 will automate this as they've put emphasis on Worker functions.

You don't need workers to have work rates.

You do if you want to have multiple Worker types (i.e. faster ones and slower ones). How would you do a better job of representing this using cities?

Worker rates still apply where Aussie's proposal is concerned so that's better than just plain PW.

Accounting is the EXACT OPPOSITE of strategy.

The strategy doesn't ie in maintenance itself but rather the effects of not being able to afford it. (PW implies upkeep--if you can't afford PW, you can't build--but it leaves out the details like taking the time to move a unit al the way over to the square only to lose it because you can't maintain it.

If you consider transportation one of the most creative, most exciting decisions that players can make, then your priorities are plain wrong.

Not creative or exciting but still strategic: implies the time and effort it takes to move all those materials and manpower over to the other landmass.

You can also sink ships carrying precious Workers so there is risk involved (many players like that sort of stuff).

Civilization IS about where you put your building priorities, so these small decisions add up to form your overall strategy.

Your labor pool could still be used in trade negotiations, without the little units dancing around.

Yes, worker pooling deals with this but you are talking about Public Works, which involve no Workers.

Strategy involves making high level decisions that sometimes work and sometimes don't, depending on how other factors come together. It's up to the strategists to read the signs and predict what their opponent's plans are, and to try to come up with an effectve counter-plan.

Definitely no arguement there but you're talking aout large-scale strategy and this is small-scale strategy; tile improvement and RR movement are small-scale strategy but their overall effects contribute to large-scale strategy.

But they weren't enough to save caravans and spies -- not the crux of my argument, but an example of how micromanagement has to be dropped in favor of larger ideas.

I've given reasons to think otherwise above.

Don't confuse streamlining with larger ideas: the point is to reduce MM while not reducing strategy. Most of the things I've said above don't have Diplomat or Caravan equivilants. (An example of a reduction in strategy is the fact that the new trade system in Civ3, though better than that of Civ2 due to less MM, failed to make sea-based trade routes visible, thus reducing the strategy of intercepting enemy trade.)

 

[dh_epic]

Yoshi, I was not making the case for any specific alternative -- public works, or worker pools. I was speaking of abstractly.

(Of course, you quickly put words into my mouth when you could, and dodged points elsewhere, leading up to your big "thus your major point is invalid". And you're the only person I've seen complain that noboby reads your posts. Do you ever put two and two together?)

The major point being that you don't need the preserve the current worker system in order to have some of their few strategic benefits. That is, you can have roads and irrigation, you can have differing work rates, buying and selling work, diverting more energy to building up a larger/faster work force... without having fine control over individual worker movements as we know them now. Heck, you can even have capturing.

The only thing I'm focusing on eliminating is fine control of jiggling around little units. Efficiency calculations should NEVER be the most important part of any strategy game. The idea of a new worker system is to normalize movement-efficiency for all players, and let them focus on bigger strategy. At the very least, I'm talking about infinite movement for workers, and a new interface for managing them.

Be that as it may, I'm not just putting my faith behind "infinite movement" but behind those who are asking for change and believe it's possible. The finer points are almost irrelevent, except when someone who is adverse to change begins crusading against it with minute arguments like "without individual worker movements, you can't buy and sell units!" And ultimately, when their argument is demolished using a counter example, they retreat ultimately to "I like workers don't eliminate them "

As it stands, though, I will agree that they went a little too far in the Civ 3 trade route system. Time and safety are irrelevent in Civ 3, whereas they were in Civ 2. But that does not make the case for Caravans, but something else that's the best of both worlds. You'll see that a worker-compromise is possible, if you open your mind.

Or if you're still having trouble, we can start from this: workers with infinite movement. Feel free to criticize.

 

[yoshi]

Yoshi, I was not making the case for any specific alternative -- public works, or worker pools. I was speaking of abstractly.

The CtP-style PW system and city-based worker pools are two different models. One implies most of the functions of workers only you don't have to control their moves to the taregt square, the other is an abstract concept that implies city production applied to the target square. The effect may seem similar but they are not the same thing. Be specific next time.

(And please stop with the little side comments about how I keep contradicting myself; it's getting old. I'm not contradicting myself and I'm not putting words in your mouth: I'm just replying to your arguements. If you disagree, then give objective reasons--)

Anyway, my initial comments about workers related to option (6) and how this was an arguement against it. But this is turning into more of a discussion on a tile-improvement model rather than an RR model.

 

[slightlymarxist]

I agree Workers should be gotten rid of. Only military, explorers and settlers should have to be represented by units moving around on maps.

I think they eliminated workers in that awful Other Franchise (Call to Power), but they messed up that game by having Lawyers running around instead, "suing" cities.

As for Railroads, mebbe let ground units in cities with a Train Station "re-base" to other cities on the same continent with a Train Station. Sort of like an early Airport which of course poses the question what Airports should do...

 

[dh_epic]

My points revolved around "why workers need to be changed" -- rather what change I want. I never talked about that. Next time, try not to confuse me with other people and their proposals.

But yes, I'm talking about a system where you throw movement out the window, but still maintain many of the elements of workers -- capturing, trading, creating more workers... I think we have some agreement there, no?

 

[rhialto]

I agree Workers should be gotten rid of. Only military, explorers and settlers should have to be represented by units moving around on maps.

I wouldn't go that far. I'd say any unit whose *primary* function is to interact with another civ in any way is good. Having non-military units to interact with other civs with helps remove the emphasis on war as the only means of interaction with the other civs.