Firaxis wants to remove "unfun"? Eliminate WORKERS!

[dh_epic]

This is a crazy idea I had. I think it's actually a good thing, but I might be talked out of it. In fact, I might grow less enthusiastic about it as I type it out.

But it's there in the title. Remove workers. Why? Because it contributes to a lot of unnecessary micromanagement. Especially at that point in the game where your workers spend a lot of time waiting around, until you get a chance to clean up pollution.

What would be that different if you clicked on a city, and then clicked on a square near the city to build a road? This would slow down production just as much as a worker unit, and when they were done they’d just as easily contribute to the city as if you had a worker unit join the city. When you go to examine your city, you’d notice another specialized “worker” pop-head to show you that some of your population is building roads and irrigating and such.

The micromanagement difference is negligible. But there are fewer units cluttering the map-interface, and less tedium in building and moving around units. I think the lack of clutter and easier interface could simplify work enough to make way for new concepts!

 

[dh_epic]

I think the lack of clutter and easier interface could simplify work enough to make way for new concepts!

I figure I'd add to this outside of the original post to encourage the idea along.

TRADE ROUTES:

Now you could draw a trade route between cities. Trade is slowed when you build a trade route through nasty terrain, improved with roads, improved drastically with railroads, and very fast by ocean (like in real life).

Why build trade routes in this way? Caravans in Civ 2 were really strategic and interesting, but took too long. Automated trade-routes in Civ 3 were great, but offered little in the way of strategy. Drawing a trade route would multiply the amount of money you make between two cities, and even higher for trading outside between two civs. This gives people a reason to cooperate with their neighbours, opening up an alternate strategy.


COLLABORATING ON TRADE ROUTES

Why should you have to do all the work? Establish a trade route between Venice and Memphis, across the Mediterranean. Rome funds half the cost of the trade route, and Egypt fronts the other half. In fact, if Egypt wants to trade with the Celts, they could either build an long (expensive) trade route around the continent… or they could build the route THROUGH Rome, assuming they both have trade routes with Rome. This allows Rome to get really rich as a middle man, much like real life economic strategy!


CORRUPTION AND TRADE ROUTES

Suddenly you have an international economy, and that creates international issues (meaning WAR for all you non-political types). If Rome is experiencing lots of corruption, nations near it will get pissed off. “We’re making less money than we should off this trade route, what gives?” This could be a cause of tension, and even war. Rome has to get its act together, or else.


PIRACY AND TRADE ROUTES

Or imagine Carthage being at war with Rome. Instead of attacking a Roman city away, they start to block the sea route between Rome and Egypt. Suddenly Rome and Egypt are making a lot less money, not to mention the Celts who are getting agitated. Either they get pissed off at Rome and take matters into their own hands, or they actually side with Rome, and build a navy to help mutually protect their trade route!



By doing routes without workers, you can have a specific line of trade that people can exploit strategically, without all the tedium. Plus workers can’t build in the ocean. With the worker-less production method, this all becomes possible.

Not to mention other routes. Electricity? Phone? Internet? Just throwing those out there, not sure what it would do for gameplay.

 

[MSTK]

I think workers are an integral strategic part to the game.

They act as citizen placeholders When my cities get to 12...

...

Well, off of exploits, if you don't need a worker, just integrate them.

 

[Arathorn]

The difference between well-managed workers and poorly-managed workers is at least a difficulty level, maybe even two. Worker moves are THAT important and doing them right is one of the more important strategy elements of the game. At almost no point are workers peripheral to the functioning of the empire -- they ALWAYS have a roll to play.

Removing them removes a critical part of the strategic gameplay. Heck, one of the 4 X's is even eXploit, which is largely dependent on workers.

Add in raids to capture workers, slaves, industrious benefits, etc. etc. and I absolutely LOATHE the idea of removing workers. They're integral.

Arathorn

 

[Dreadnought]

I agree. Workers are a important part of the game. Why remove them?

 

[thestonesfan]

Ditching workers has merit. I don't know why people think they are so much fun.

How about a system where you right click on a square, and a number of options pop up, such as "Build road". You make the selection, and workers come out of the city to work on it, at a nominal cost and for a certain amount of time. That way, no "idle worker" annoyances, and no worker-capturing, which is something I find excrutiatingly bothersome.

Workers are an easy "unfun element" to get rid of.

EDIT: I realize I'm pretty much restating dh_epic's ideas, so all the props go to him.

 

[Chieftess]

Ditching workers has merit. I don't know why people think they are so much fun.

How about a system where you right click on a square, and a number of options pop up, such as "Build road". You make the selection, and workers come out of the city to work on it, at a nominal cost and for a certain amount of time. That way, no "idle worker" annoyances, and no worker-capturing, which is something I find excrutiatingly bothersome.

Workers are an easy "unfun element" to get rid of.

Because you could right click all 20 tiles. Workers are like a speedbump for progress so that you don't build up growth/production too quickly like that.

 

[MSTK]

Who ever said that workers were fun?

 

[Mojotronica]

Ditching workers has merit. I don't know why people think they are so much fun.

How about a system where you right click on a square, and a number of options pop up, such as "Build road". You make the selection, and workers come out of the city to work on it, at a nominal cost and for a certain amount of time. That way, no "idle worker" annoyances, and no worker-capturing, which is something I find excrutiatingly bothersome.

Workers are an easy "unfun element" to get rid of.

I agree with this -- good ideas and well-presented, dh_epic!

 

[thestonesfan]

Because you could right click all 20 tiles. Workers are like a speedbump for progress so that you don't build up growth/production too quickly like that.

You would pay on a per tile basis, and you would need enough citizens to do the work. It wouldn't be much different than using workers, it would just eliminate having to mess with them between jobs.

 

[Bibor]

Make cities produce wokers every X turns.
Worker cannot be disbanded.
Workers can be transformed into units (by training them).
Wokers cost money. When they merge with map tile, they still cost money.
Worker can "merge" into city, or any map tile (counts as irrigation, mining etc.).
Opposing units can pillage improvements thus capturing slaves (your ex workers).
Workers can be replaced by foreign workers (slaves).
Slaves don't cost anything.

but, now you have excess workers.
What to do with them? Merge them into cities?
The city gets crowded, people get unhappy. Build a colloseum, recruit them to army, whatever. After disbanding the unit, you get a worker again. You can't just "disband" the worker. It's - there. Costs money.

Like in acient rome. Before the "agrar reform" by Grakho, the main problem was that workers (in the fields) were replaced by (cheaper) slaves. Wokers moved to Rome, with no job, no food and no place to live.
That's why the idea of "giv'em food and games" was born, not because nobility liked to watch a jew buthchered by a tiger who's diet was yogurt and green salad for 2 weeks.

-kirby

 

[MSTK]

Well, apparently the Firaxis approach to problems is: "If there was that problem in history, it's okay in the game!"

 

[thestonesfan]

The concept of a standing worker force is flawed. If the king wanted something done, he hired/ordered citizens to do it, and when they were done, they went back home.

 

[microbe]

We need worker groups so that you can move workers into a group and manage as a whole. But not remove them.

 

[troytheface]

Perhaps the opposite approach may add to the "fun", where workers are given more options...instead of conscripting maybe arming workers somehow(might be kinda of fun having some kind of worker army that u send to the front) ...or a spy option that "frees the wokers" and they revolt (ancient)...or maybe- if u don't give workers a break -...they go on strike(modern)- or maybe even have it where you click on a worker to build something and you get a message "refuses to work" ..... or work that was poorly executed - a few workers are interesting, but i agree that later in the game i just automate...
Perhaps the idea of less units (amount not variety) would simplify things while at the same time adding to the value of that which is created-

 

[cramerthegr8]

They should do what they did in Call to Power and have public works instead.

 

[dh_epic]

The difference between well-managed workers and poorly-managed workers is at least a difficulty level, maybe even two.

This is the exact problem I have with Civ. Or, moreover, since I play at deity level, this is the problem most of my friends have. Introducing them to Civ, they NEVER get to this high a level.

Why?

It's not because they don't like challenge. It's because they're not obsessive (like me) about micromanagement

Seriously, go out and tell someone that the secret to beating the computer at the highest difficulty level in a game is in the fine details of how you move and prioritize your worker units. ... this in a game that's supposed to capture the excitement and strategy of our world's history.

You won't find many of them willing to try it out. The only people who ARE willing are the hardest of the hardcore on these here forums.

Workers are like a speedbump for progress so that you don't build up growth/production too quickly like that.

Agreed. You shouldn't be able to pump out roads instantaneously. Think of it more if you had a city with 8 units, you could allocate 4 of those units to build infrastructure... thus leaving only 4 units to build the town's improvements. Once the infrastructure is done, the town's production fires on all cylinders again. The speedbump aspect is still there.


And lastly,

I recognize that there IS a strategy to how workers are used currently. But when you get passed hardcore civ fans like us, it's relatively boring compared to the concepts it could open up.

Soren, in his presentation, eluded to simplifying Civ 3 and removing unfun elements... not because he just wanted to take stuff out. The makers of Civ 3 seem to believe there is a good level of complexity there, and too much more will ruin the game. Hence, to add new cool concepts, it's worth sacrificing the more boring concepts and simplifying them.

Seriously -- imagine your favorite new feature idea for the core Civ 4 game. Now if I told you that to add that new idea and all its complexity, you had to simplify workers ... would you say it was worth it?

I know my answer.

 

[Longasc]

I agree with dh epic.

You all cry: Reduce Micro Management

But you are against removing workers, because they are "integral part" of your strategy. :cough:

There were some reasons given why and for what workers are needed.

I could imagine a worker pool and a slave worker pool for every city, so you would have less units running around. Or a mechanized robot worker pool later.

The problem is things like airfields, outposts and so on - this is easier done by a unit. How can one build a long road if his workers are restricted to city tile radius?

Worker management is really a challenge, but it is pretty easy once you have mastered it. Then it becomes a chore. Even with automated workers and railroads.

Around 100-150 workers at least running around on a huge map!

Let the government type decide how much a road costs, how long it takes, how much a city can build per turn depending on size.

Be open to new ideas, some sound not really interested in discussing them. I think dh epic's idea touches a real "unfun" problem and it worth discussion. Let's think about it.

I imagine this solution:

Let cities produce roads and irrigation, this would slow the progress of growth. It would then be a trade off between not only buildings and units, but buildings/units/tile improvements. Irrigation should only be possible in city radius, but building roads along already built ones in a wider radius. The same would apply to outposts and airfields to name some options.

May be that cities of a huge size have more workers and they are quicklier finished with their job, or they can road 3 tiles at a time or so.

We do not really see our citizens, but we can see our workers and have the fun of MMing them. I like dh epic's idea, it has greater potential than all those C3C 2.00b style ideas.

 

[bob rulz]

there is something extremely lacking in your strategy dh epic.

If the tile was not in a city radius then you couldn't improve it.

Simple as that.

Workers are needed no matter what. There are ways that you could make it so it doesn't have to be in the city radius in your strategy, but still, reducing micromanagement in something that everybody uses (workers) reduces micromanagement skills in your empire, city management, war, etc etc (not to mention in other games as well). Micromanagement is something that is shared and is similar in every strategy game and every aspect of every strategy game.

 

[Longasc]

bob - why not increase the worker radius for certain actions? tile improvements like irrigation/mining only in the close vicinity, roading and such things in a larger radius. Worker Outposts to increase this even further would also give outposts now a real sense.