Grouping Workers

[binhthuy71]

I like CiV's 1UpT model for military units. I do not love the inability to group Workers.

Yes, you can get modest increases in Worker efficiency by building the Pyramids (Does anyone other than Egypt actually build the Pyramids?). IIRC, there are a couple of other ways to boost Worker efficiency in CiV but I've never pursued them because they are a waste of hammers or SP's (Other than the seemingly mandatory Liberty tree).

My point is that if you are willing to pay for Workers one way or another and you're willing to pay the ongoing maintenance cost for each one of them then there are already opportunity costs for building them. The ability to group Workers in CiIV was simply a way to cut down on micromanagement and that's all. That ability didn't seem to me to be a game breaker in IV and I doubt seriously that it would break CiV.

I encourage contrary opinions and solid arguments against my position on this.

 

[Mercade]

The ability to group units is directly related to the ability to stack them. Since there is no stacking in Civ5, there also is no concept of grouping in Civ5. Introducing it for workers alone would require a lot of work for a specific purpose. However, I do see merit in the idea of grouping workers to make the production go faster and less micromanagement.

A solution that could easily be created is the "Team Worker" unit. This unit would be twice as costly as the regular Worker and also have twice the output. I'm not decided at which tech this Team Worker would become available; maybe Machinery or Engineering. There could be an upgrade path between them, or not.

It could then also be made possible to (irreversably) merge two Workers into a Team Worker. Selecting a Worker and giving the Merge command would launch an attack type arrow to point at another of your workers within range to merge into a Team Worker. But even without the merge ability, having a Team Worker unit would reduce micromanagement.

 

[Gort]

To be honest, it's a bit silly that civilian units are limited by 1UPT at all. Even if more than one couldn't work the same tile at a time, which makes a sort of sense - sometimes manpower isn't really the problem, rather things like engineering and supply - it would be nice to be able to move them through each other - there's no real reason a great general can't walk past some workers.

 

[binhthuy71]

The ability to group units is directly related to the ability to stack them. Since there is no stacking in Civ5, there also is no concept of grouping in Civ5. Introducing it for workers alone would require a lot of work for a specific purpose. However, I do see merit in the idea of grouping workers to make the production go faster and less micromanagement.

I figured that the inability to group Workers and the inability to make non-combat units transparent to each other was part and parcel of 1UpT. You're right; breaking 1UpT for non-combatants would be a tall order with a high probability of breaking something else.

I like the idea of being able to merge Workers but that might be a tall order as well. I note that in CiV you can no longer merge a GG with a unit and that too may be a consequence of 1UpT. I don't write code (Too old, too dumb) although it seems to me that one way out would be for the Worker unit to have an upgrade path for gold with the upgrades becoming available with the discovery of certain early game techs. I suggest early game because that's when Workers deliver the most bang for the buck. After I've built railroads my Workers get sent to heaven and I don't build another one unless I get Aluminum, Uranium, etc. Having to pay gold for a Worker upgrade would allow some tweaking to maintain game balance.

 

[Sefren]

One way to to fix the worker problem is to get rid of them. Have tile improvements go through the city management screen like buying tiles.

 

[binhthuy71]

One way to to fix the worker problem is to get rid of them. Have tile improvements go through the city management screen like buying tiles.

That's an interesting idea and it would substantially reduce micromanagement chores. I think that it would take some hefty re-balancing to make it work. In the early game, when tile improvements are the most critical you don't have much money. Absent increasing starting cash, the pre-expansion phase would be agonizingly long - particularly if you get a less than ideal start. Moving on, the more tile improvements you have, the more GpT you generate. It would be possible under your scenario for a civ to REX and run away from everyone else in the game if its start possessed some lucrative resources.

 

[Becephalus]

Yeah workers are a concept that has persisted well past its usefulness. You should be able to purchase or produce tile improvements. Possibly both.

I have no idea why they kept workers in civ5.

 

[Sefren]

Well it could be based on time not gold. Each city could do 1 tile improvement at a time. The time being the same as a worker now.

 

[binhthuy71]

Well it could be based on time not gold. Each city could do 1 tile improvement at a time. The time being the same as a worker now.

I like that!

 

[Becephalus]

Well it could be based on time not gold. Each city could do 1 tile improvement at a time. The time being the same as a worker now.

Another good idea. These are some good ways to streamline the game.

 

[Mercade]

Well it could be based on time not gold. Each city could do 1 tile improvement at a time. The time being the same as a worker now.

I don't like one tile per city at a time, because now you can improve multiple tiles in a city based on the number of workers you're willing to throw at it. Improvements taking X turns to materialize (as with workers) is a good idea.

Essentially it'd be like having imaginary workers who you can assign to improve any tile under your control. However, there are various game concepts that you'd do away with:

1. Production it costs to make the worker in the first place.
2. Time needed for workers to move around between tiles/cities.
3. Ability for workers to be captured/killed.

That's a lot of simpliciation to add.

 

[binhthuy71]

I don't like one tile per city at a time, because now you can improve multiple tiles in a city based on the number of workers you're willing to throw at it. Improvements taking X turns to materialize (as with workers) is a good idea.

Essentially it'd be like having imaginary workers who you can assign to improve any tile under your control. However, there are various game concepts that you'd do away with:

1. Production it costs to make the worker in the first place.
2. Time needed for workers to move around between tiles/cities.
3. Ability for workers to be captured/killed.

That's a lot of simpliciation to add.

After some reflection, I have a couple of additional thoughts. The production cost of an early game Worker is trivial and could be added in to the time per tile for improvements. The opportunity cost of building an early game Worker (As opposed to building a Warrior, Scout, Work boat, etc.) is non-trivial and would require a better mind than mine to properly factor in but I think that it could be done in a way that preserves game balance.
On the other hand, if you're a fan of the Liberty opener then you get a "free" (You're trading the possibility of another SP for him) Worker. If you, like many of us, make it your business to wipe out Barb camps then you are likely to garner a captured Worker from a CS or another civ for your efforts. Because Barb-captured Workers are strictly an early game phenomenon and keeping them carries no diplo penalty you get a Worker or Workers just for doing something that you would do anyway. I think that obviating that, along with obviating Worker stealing, answers your #3. You're still on the hook to defend tile improvements and that takes at least as much effort, to my mind, as defending Workers.
Doing away with game concepts in Civ is either a feature or a bug, depending on your point of view. Between CiIII and CiV the game has done away with such game concepts as Pollution, Corruption, Espionage, Religion, fatal bombardment, the Stack o' Doom, Colonies, Random Events, Vassal States, etc., etc. And those are only the ones that I can dredge up from my faulty memory. The changes to Wonders during that interval are too many for me to recall.
I'm pleased that this thread has moved toward questioning the place of Workers from my original gripe about not being able to group them. That is great. In my opinion, CiV is not perfect but it is perfectible. That's important to me as a three decade strat sim gamer because I truly believe that CiV is the end of the line as far as PC-based Civ games go. That's sad for me but there's gold in other hills and I don't blame any company for going after it; people have to eat.

 

[Fluffball]

There is one issue i see with removing the worker unit and replacing it with a city management idea and that is how do you improve tiles outside of your city border/radius? Roads are the most common example.

TBH the only tweak that is really needed is that civilian units should be able to pass through other civs units, at least in your own borders, which is one reason i am careful with selling my open borders as a couple of units using your roads can add a significant travel time to civilian units when traveliing through your own lands.

I wouldn't be against stacking civilian units because stacking them has little impact on the fun of the game.e.g. say you build roads in 12 turns and have 3 road tiles to create. You can use 3 workers on a single tile to make each tile take 4 turns or can put one worker on each tile and allow them to work singularly, either way it takes 12 turns to build 3 road tiles.

 

[Sefren]

Since Roman Legions get this ability. You could just make road building a promotion when you have iron.