Firaxis wants to remove "unfun"? Eliminate WORKERS!

[thestonesfan]

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.

Why have city radius constraints? Why not just increase the time/cost factor according to the distance for the city?

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.

So what's your reason to keep them? To increase micromanagement?

 

[Arathorn]

So I can't drag irrigation across 20 tiles, which is often valuable? Can I use workers from one area to improve another? In any real version of Civ, I can. In the proposals here, nope. You're screwed. Worker poitns are fixed to one area. Or worker points are just workers with all the same micromanagement but significantly less strategy as far as capturing/selling/buying/etc.

I can't understand why people play Civ, if not for the intellectual challenge. It's certainly not a thrill for the eyes (and never will be). It doesn't require fast reflexes (and hopefully never will). If you can't bother to think about how to use workers, why be bothered to think about anything at all?

If you fix the problems in the proposed system, how are you saving any management? Workers are a fundamental strategic part of the game. Their actions and how you choose to improve the land are CRITICAL. If that's gone, the game is no longer civ.

Maybe I should just add to my signature that "I really hope the developers don't listen to the majority in the Civ4 sub-forum." I don't know what game you guys want, but it sure as heck is not a strategy game.

Disgustedly,
Arathorn

 

[thestonesfan]

So I can't drag irrigation across 20 tiles, which is often valuable?

Why couldn't you? What about this system would prevent that?

Can I use workers from one area to improve another? In any real version of Civ, I can. In the proposals here, nope.

Okay, I officially propose that you can use workers from one are to improve another.

You're screwed. Worker poitns are fixed to one area. Or worker points are just workers with all the same micromanagement but significantly less strategy as far as capturing/selling/buying/etc.

I agree there needs to be some way to implement the concept of using captured civilians as slave labor.

I can't understand why people play Civ, if not for the intellectual challenge. It's certainly not a thrill for the eyes (and never will be). It doesn't require fast reflexes (and hopefully never will). If you can't bother to think about how to use workers, why be bothered to think about anything at all?

You'd still be thinking about how best to use your resources to improve the land. That's the underlying strategy concerning workers, and it wouldn't change.

If you fix the problems in the proposed system, how are you saving any management? Workers are a fundamental strategic part of the game. Their actions and how you choose to improve the land are CRITICAL. If that's gone, the game is no longer civ.

You save having to move them from square to square, and if you don't need anything done at the moment, you don't have to mess with idle workers.

And the decisions on how to improve your land will obviously not be gone.

Maybe I should just add to my signature that "I really hope the developers don't listen to the majority in the Civ4 sub-forum." I don't know what game you guys want, but it sure as heck is not a strategy game.

Disgustedly,
Arathorn

Oh, lighten up. People have differing opinions. You would rather have the Civ3 worker model, I found it a bit annoying. Not because I'm stupid, but because there are more entertaining aspects of the game.

 

[Longasc]

I think you should try considering that your opinion is not always right. Self-righteous argumentation is not needed in a forum that is meant to collect ideas that might be included in Civ4. As long as you cannot do this, you should try to argue in a less harsh way. Try constructive criticism.

Instead of being negative, think of possible solutions to the problems of no worker units. Take this as your intellectual challenge... convince others of better concepts and bring in interesting ones instead of this lamentations.

You should also not underestimate people at Firaxis - they will or will not listen to only a few ideas here and come up with their own ones.

I would really appreciate if you could value the thoughts of others more and show some more respect.

 

[thestonesfan]

I think you should try considering that your opinion is not always right. Self-righteous argumentation is not needed in a forum that is meant to collect ideas that might be included in Civ4. As long as you cannot do this, you should try to argue in a less harsh way. Try constructive criticism.

Instead of being negative, think of possible solutions to the problems of no worker units. Take this as your intellectual challenge... convince others of better concepts and bring in interesting ones instead of this lamentations.

You should also not underestimate people at Firaxis - they will or will not listen to only a few ideas here and come up with their own ones.

I would really appreciate if you could value the thoughts of others more and show some more respect.

Was this directed at me or Arathorn?

If it was directed at me, I apologize for seeming harsh, but I'm not trying to be. I'll try and lose the sarcasm.

 

[Longasc]

How could you feel spoken to? Feeling a little bit guilty? I think I must re-read the thread, hehe...

I meant Arathorn of course.

 

[thestonesfan]

How could you feel spoken to? Feeling a little bit guilty? I think I must re-read the thread, hehe...

I meant Arathorn of course.

Well, I thought you agreed with me, but since your post came right after mine, I wasn't sure.

No, I'm not feeling guilty, but I know I get a bit sarcastic at times.

 

[batteryacid]

I agree that the whole worker idea should be "reworked". the thing that is important with the worker management is simply the decision: do i want to increase production or population growth and do i need a road to this or that location to connect the city or trade. it must be possible to find a system where these decisions can be made without micromanaging EVERY SINGLE WORKER which really is boring- so with the decoupling between production/growth decision and the building of the trade network game complexity might be lost, but with the idea of some kind of overall tile working power depending on road connections , distance of cities and distance to presently worked tiles and the decision - mine or build road or irrigate -this part of the strategy can be preserved, loosing only the aspect of loosing workers to the allknowing ai. So in the game you see: some kind of sign (this tile is worked) and when you click on the tile you see the "working power" = x , you click the on the "work tile" button, with the tiles near this tile (including the presently worked ones) loosing instantly the "working power". This would enable the player to work tiles which are outside the city radius, with an increasing number of turns the farer away the tile is from your borders (like now, where you loose some turns moving your worker) and to work all tiles along a connection between two cities you want to connect. I hope my english is not too bad to be understood, and that this is a useful contribution to this discussion

 

[Arathorn]

I apologize if the tone was sarcastic. It wasn't meant to be an attack on any person. On the ideas, yes, but never on the people.

I don't understand. Workers are a pain to manage, but opening up the city build queue every turn and assigning worker turns all over the map, shipping them from one place to another, varying the count on each square each turn, and the like isn't? ??? Whether you call it a worker pool or a slave pool or public works or .... It's the same process, is it not? Except all the proposals I've seen make it look like MORE UI work, not less.

There's also the considerable loss in strategy, if you remove population drain for workers, give workers infinite movement (hey, I just finished a project near Seattle, now let me down by Miami -- definitely possible with worker pools), and lose capturing/disbanding/transporting workers during wartime.

I see a large number of problems added and no gain with the proposed system.

I would really appreciate if you could value the thoughts of others more and show some more respect.

I think I give the thoughts of others the value I deserve. I make no comments in most threads because I don't have anything to say. I say "I like it" to some ideas. I maybe say "I don't like it" more, simply because that's the way I feel. Have you ever considered that? How about respect for me and my ideas? Do you claim I shouldn't have the right to be disgusted?

Arathorn

 

[TedJackson]

I'll keep my workers, thank you.

As long as terrain improvements & road building are part of Civ then I'll happily spend the time nurturing my workers.

I'm afraid this idea gets a :thumbdown: from me.


Ted

 

[IbnSina]

I'm with Arathorn here. There are a few things I don't like about micromanagement in Civ, but taking it away entirely would remove most of the strategy with it. To the extent that you retain the function of workers, you retain the tedium associated with their management. On the other hand, if you don't like managing workers, you already have the option of automating them and playing at a low level. The worker system ain't broke - don't fix it.

Of course, Firaxis will do whatever it wants, regardless of what we say here (one reason I rarely even look at this forum). On the other hand, they want to sell games. If they take out the strategy in favor of more action and faster pace, they might sell to some folks, but not me. I already have a good game: Civ III.

 

[thestonesfan]

Why is moving a stack of workers around so absolutely vital to the game?

 

[TedJackson]

Why is moving a stack of workers around so absolutely vital to the game?

Because they are a simple, easy to understand metaphor for human toil.


Ted

 

[thestonesfan]

Because they are a simple, easy to understand metaphor for human toil.

Ted

A poetic pain in the butt, then.

 

[dh_epic]

Obviously you'd need a system for producing tile improvements outside the city radius. But that doesn't make this idea fall apart. The idea of taking more time, or costing more money to develop further outside the city radius (and within one's own borders) seems sufficient.

I think Arathorn is acting immature and ridiculous, but that's just my opinion. I'll try to address him in a rational manner rather than getting into "what Dan likes is good for Civ, what Dan doesn't like is bad for Civ".

I LIKE workers, I LIKE micromanagement, I LIKE playing at the highest difficulty levels.

But is a micromanagement game really compelling for a wide audience? Civ needs to grow as a game, and that means a new audience. There's a hardcore contingent who will play Civ 4 no matter what, barring any kind of crazy change (workers, perhaps, in thie category). But there is a whole world of people who have tried Civ (e.g.: stolen it) and then deleted it after they got bored.

Saying micromanagement is strategic and an integral part of the game solves nothing. It is a commitment to mediocrity -- a substitute for REAL strategy.

Eliminating workers, you no longer have to track down workers, or wait as your PC calculates their movements (even when they're automated, even when you turn movement animations off). The most efficient way to use workers, currently, involves finding them, clicking on them with your mouse, moving them with the keyboard, and then selecting what you want them to do.

The more efficient way with the new system could be done from the mouse without the keyboard, within three or four clicks clicks -- a drag and drop from the city square to another square, followed by selecting "road, irrigation ..." from a pop up menu. Or vice versa, drawing an improvement like a road or patch of irrigation (like using a paintbrush), then being prompted to to click on cities to allocate workers to the terrain improvement -- then clicking okay.

There is no doubt in my mind that this is an improved UI with a lower demand on micromanagement. And it paves the way for what Civ should really be about -- MACROmanagement. What's more interesting, coordinating 30 workers to find the most efficient path to improve your terrain, saving you 3 turns ... or coming up with the idea of a blitzkrieg -- sweeping half your troops in from one side, and half from another side?

Finally, I'll leave you with this.

If you can't bother to think about how to use workers, why be bothered to think about anything at all?

I love complexity. But before you get all indignant, the whole anti-complexity movement comes from none of us. It comes from the casual players, and has been communicated through Soren as a goal. He's made it abundantly clear (at least that's my impression) that he will not add ANY complexity to the game until complexity has been reduced in another, "unfun" part of the game.

I encourage you to think of a more unfun part of the game to eliminate for this purpose.

 

[sealman]

I encourage you to think of a more unfun part of the game to eliminate for this purpose.

I can come up with:
Corruption
Culture Flips
The Palace Improvement Screen
The City View


I am sure if I had time I could come up with more. While managing your workers is not the 'funest' part of the game, it is an essential element and should not be replaced until a better system is put in place. And no offense to dh_epic, but I just do not think that this idea is it.


(note: I am not advocating, at least in this thread, about getting rid of the above mentioned aspects of the game, I was just listing things that I do not find fun)

 

[troytheface]

Perhaps the ol chess analogy that some use here could be a good model, i mean the "terrain" is fixed and the pieces and their moves are limited..in other words after a awhile it is a very simple game to play, yet within its simplicity there is a myriad of tactical/stratigical options-but even the lowly pawn (whom i will equate with a worker") can make it across the board to become the strongest piece ....there is no such option for the worker-so perhaps the "complexity" or redundency that a game maker is trying to avoid in order to reach a broader audience could actually be due to a lack of this units ablity to upgrade into "the strongest unit on the board"- (Napoleon was from the working class, as was Leonardo Da Vinci and Michealangelo , Hitler, Stalin and scores of other men who achieved a noted place in history. ) Workers are basically slaves with no future in store for them other than running around cleaning pollution-now i don't know what in the hell i was talking about, oh yeah, the worker, that can build airports and roads ect. is weaker than a pawn in chess-its list of chores and duties does not make all that "simple" yet its ultimate fate does not make it all that complex-the worst of both worlds...getting rid of them altogether is an option and may indeed help in simplifying the game, but would it add to the "fun"? I would think that the ol "less is more" notion would help in simplifying while at the same time amplifying playability and "fun". In other words , less workers with better options in so far as a future. If a worker was unable to join a city and was a little more pricey.....
On another note, i notice that sarcasm is a real hard sell in computer script
remember replying to one poster that i have no ideas, i get them all from www.newideas.com and the response t...rn is the most "unfun" element i come across.

 

[KefkaTheMad]

I've just always wanted to be able to queue up worker actions. I think that would keep all the micro, but allow you to not worry about ordering workers every turn.

I realize that the negative might be that it increases the save game size, but by the time Civ 4 comes out, we'll all have faster computers to handle it.

As for new players, I feel that Automate worker does a good enough job of keeping the game moving quickly. I tell casual players to just use automate and it works reasonably well. An updated AI in Civ4 would be all I'd need. (I.E. more options such as prioritizing railroad networks to connect all your cities)

 

[sir_schwick]

I agree with the worker-less camp, and I have a couple ways to deal with extra-city improvement.

All settlements would have a different number of Municipal Workers:
1/2/4 for Town/City/Metropolis
Improvements and technology would add workers.
Technology would improve worker rates.

If not used for any construction, they will not cost any maintenance. When they work locally, they use 1gpt. When used outside their local duristiction they cost 2gpt. When used oustide your borders, they cost 4gpt.

Some stuff concerning where they are defined as being.

Local: Any square in or touching the cities cultural border.
Nation: Any square in or touching the national border.
Extra-national: A military unit must be able to reach the square within 1 turn(physical presence required).

How are improvement assignments made?

You would click a button(hotkey avaliable) to open up a small bar with the Improvements listed. An improvement type(Road, RR, Irrigation, Mines, Reforest, Deforest, Pollution) would be listed. Those could be selected by click or hotkey. Numbers would also appear on the right side of the Improvemehnt box, this would be your avaliable worker pool. It would rea dlike this Local Workers(National Workers). THe local worker number would be dependant on where your cursor was.

Whenever you had the cursor over the square, it would have different colors indicating what status the terrain improvement and worker situation.
Red: Cannot comply. No workers avaliable, not right conditions(irrigation w/o water).
Green: Local rates/labour.
Yellow: National rates/Labour.
Orange: National labour/ international rates.
Green,Yellow, or Oragne striped with Red: Corresponding rates, but you will destroy anohter improvement.

You would simply left click and the job would be assigned. Of course you could also manually change worker origin and such with right-clicks, this is jsut a less time-consuming way to do it.
There would be a limit on how many workers per square to simulate more moderate growth in cities.

Of course the costs may seem a bit high, but it will prevent civilization from having advanced road systems in 3000 BC. I always found that a bit unrealistic, even though I used that to hurry my early game rushes.

This system still lets you prioritize and micromanage improvement, on any square. It also eliminates worker to population exploits(feeding small cities from the river cities). Of course then a migration option should be allowed for cities that are much larger then local cities.

 

[Chauliodus]

Remove workers and you remove a very big fun aspect for me. Sure their a pain in the Modern Era but their fun when your building your empire.

It sucked how you "bought" tile improvements from cities on Call to Power.