Let's get rid of workers . . .

(1) Tiles improved to increase food: For tiles are improved to increase food, there are many inflection points - i.e., a tile can be worth working initially, not worth working a few turns later, and worth working again a few turns after that.

Let me illustrate with a simple example: say you are working a grassland, which produces 2 :c5food:. The next tile you plan to work is also a grassland. Once improved, the grassland will produce 3 :c5food:. Also - at standard speed, it takes 6 turns to build a farm.

With those conditions, it makes sense to improve the grassland if you are 12 or greater turns away from the next population point.* (The last think you want to do is delay a population point, because the additional yield from the next tile is greater than the additional yield from the improvement). So if growth is 14 turns away, you want to improve the tile. If growth is 11 turns away, you're better off waiting until you obtain the next population level.

*(Because by not working the grassland, you are forgoing 12 food [2:c5food: per turn * 6 turns]. The improvement provides 1:c5food: per turn, so it takes 12 turns to "make up" for this deficit).​
emphasis is mine. well i disagree. you overvalue population in the sense, that pop has value in itself -> therefore you choose to wait 10-12 turns or whatever for the pop to grow only to have the pop work a tile that will just support itself. what's the point?

the force behind city growth is not food yield, but food surplus. from this point of view, improving a 2 :c5food: is a no-brainer decision because the mentioned tile goes from 0 surplus to 1(!!).

simple example:
the terrain is nothing but grassland 2:c5food:
food to size 2 = 20 (f2). food to size 3 = 30 (f3).
a size 1 city -> produces 4 food, eats 2 = 2 surplus.
therefore turns to get to size 3 -> 20 / 2 + 30 / 2 = 50 / 2 = 25 turns
turns to get to size 3 if choosing to farm a grassland tile from turn 1 -> 6(to build the farm) + 20 / 3 + 30 / 3 = 6 + 7 + 10 = 23 turns.

note:
IF f3 / 3 - f3 / 4 > 6 then the player will increase growth(e.g. decrease turns to grow), if upon reaching size 2 immediately starts on the second farm

conclusion:
improve ASAP. first to improve should be "workable" tiles with minimal yield(their opportunity cost is less). hmm... after a certain point diminishing returns will kick in, but the impact of improving/leaving as is will become marginal as well. :dunno:

probably will be fun in the beginning while morphing into tedious MM late game(as is now with workers). this is not the macromanagement system i want. :(
 
the force behind city growth is not food yield, but food surplus. from this point of view, improving a 2 :c5food: is a no-brainer decision because the mentioned tile goes from 0 surplus to 1(!!).(

Well - that's exactly right, and your conclusion follows if we follow my preferred method of allowing tiles to produce some yield while they are being improved. Under this case - earlier improvement is always better.

Trais, among other commentators, would prefer a tile being improved to produce NO yield, and that was the system which I was analyzing in the post you quoted. Under this case an improving grassland tile has a -2 :c5food: "surplus", NOT a 0 :c5food: surplus.

I think you can follow my original post (or walk though it yourself) from there.
 
Well that would be true assuming that you want to (a) maximize food and (b) that you have grasslands. Tweaking which resources are worked and what your goals are really change the math behind it.
True, my assertion was based of a somewhat generic assumption.

The ultimate question is would this be fun? That's really a subjective call at this point. Personally early on the game, I'd prefer to focus on building military/wonders (depending what victory condition I'm going for). So even if it wouldn't slow down the game as much as with workers, it would still be slower than not having workers build improvements and you don't lose the tile yield. With higher yields there are more units and building decisions, so what you lose from the whole "timing improvement game" you make up in other areas, by sooner real military conflict and faster expansion (two things which are the core of the game and directly relate to victory conditions).
There are many other ways of speeding up the early game, which do not rely on taking away choices from the player. Your original suggestion took player choice completely out of the equation, at which point I'm really left with the question of why do we have any tile improvements at all.

Not having any cost to improving a tile (which was your second suggestion) means that basically all choice about improving an area is/can be made when a city is founded, which sounds boring to me. (Although this is probably what you will ended up doing later in the game, when the impact MMing the decision becomes fairly small, but then there are plenty of other things to think about.)

This becomes particularly relevant if you want to use the same system for other tile improvements like roads, forts, and chopping forests. (For example, if while chopping a forest you would also get the yield the tile, it would become either overpowered or the extra production would be so small that it is hardly worth it.)

Like I said - I never dismissed the idea of improving tiles having no yield out-of-hand. I just doubt that the net benefits outweigh the net costs - and I think our discussion has done a good job at outlining those.

I'm not married to any particular idea, either. Discussion of pros and cons is always good.
 
Trias, among other commentators, would prefer a tile being improved to produce NO yield, and that was the system which I was analyzing in the post you quoted. Under this case an improving grassland tile has a -2 :c5food: "surplus", NOT a 0 :c5food: surplus.
huh?

let's limit ourselves to a size 1 city. it is working two tiles: the city tile(2f2h1g) and a grassland tile (2f). 2f + 2f = 4f (income). 1 citizen "eats" 2f (expenses). 4f - 2f = 2f (surplus)

next i switch the worker's task from working the grassland tile to improving the tile(farm due in 6 turns). the food surplus goes from 2 to 0.

i have no clue how you arrived at -2 food surplus. -2 food per turn is the opportunity cost of not working the grassland tile.
maybe you assumed that the city tile does not yield any food?:dunno:


regardless, the discussion must go on (workers must leave!)

the biggest issue with my proposal(city itself builds the tile improvement. while it is being built, the city does not receive yield from that tile) is that most of the time the player exchanges a lump sum of some yield(food, hammers, etc.) for a gain in that yield's output. imho it's a no-brainer decision. exchange 12 food for +1food/turn! why would i not want to do that ASAP?
exchanging a lump sum of one yield type for an increase in another type per turn are a lot more interesting in the decision-making aspect -> therefore why not make it so that building farms requires hammers and building mines reqs food (not unlike improving a grassland tile 2f to 2f1h)?

in other words:
say a farm costs 12 hammers and takes 6 turns to build(2h/t). so while the farm is building the city will loose 2 h/t. these 2h are taken from the hammers that the city had accumulated. likewise for mines(the food(2f/t) is subtracted from the "growth box". i can see this system working, but i don't think it's going to be fun.
 
regardless, the discussion must go on (workers must leave!)

the biggest issue with my proposal(city itself builds the tile improvement. while it is being built, the city does not receive yield from that tile) is that most of the time the player exchanges a lump sum of some yield(food, hammers, etc.) for a gain in that yield's output. imho it's a no-brainer decision. exchange 12 food for +1food/turn! why would i not want to do that ASAP?
Well, you are not quit taking in all the factors of equation yet. Lump sum cost for a longer term per turn bonus, is not (a priori) a bad mechanic. It is the basis of basically any investment mechanic in the game.
1) pop=science: Delaying growth also means that you have less science yield. (If there are trade routes in play then also pop=gold.)
2) Tiles may have additional yields besides food, this increases the lump sum costs of the improvement. For example, the opportunity costs for a farm on a riverside grassland are 12 :c5food: + 6 :c5gold: (+ any :c5science: and :c5gold: due to delayed growth)
3) There maybe other "good" unimproved tiles around to work that would also add to surplus, which may shift the balance to growing first.

I think that the gist of your argument actually is that, with this mechanic, if your are going to be working marginal tiles, then it is best to improve them ASAP. If you are working tiles that are already good, then the opportunity cost of improving them increases, which might tip the balance in favour of waiting, for example, until you cannot work any other "good" tiles by growing.

exchanging a lump sum of one yield type for an increase in another type per turn are a lot more interesting in the decision-making aspect -> therefore why not make it so that building farms requires hammers and building mines reqs food (not unlike improving a grassland tile 2f to 2f1h)?
Well this is already the case with the proposal at hand for other improvements. For example, the opportunity cost of building a mine on a hill are 6 :c5food: and 6 :c5production:.

in other words:
say a farm costs 12 hammers and takes 6 turns to build(2h/t). so while the farm is building the city will loose 2 h/t. these 2h are taken from the hammers that the city had accumulated. likewise for mines(the food(2f/t) is subtracted from the "growth box". i can see this system working, but i don't think it's going to be fun.
Some possible issues:
1) This cost seems somewhat intransparent. How would this cost be communicated to the player?
2) Is the tile still improved by working it? If not, how many tiles can be improved simultaneously?

Replying to your earlier post as well:

conclusion:
improve ASAP. first to improve should be "workable" tiles with minimal yield(their opportunity cost is less). hmm... after a certain point diminishing returns will kick in, but the impact of improving/leaving as is will become marginal as well. :dunno:
You seem to bypass the fact that you want to be working "good" tiles in the first place. If there are good tiles to work, you do not want to waste time improving marginal ones.

probably will be fun in the beginning while morphing into tedious MM late game(as is now with workers). this is not the macromanagement system i want. :(
Exactly, what MM are you envisioning late game here?

Once you've reach the point that the only new tiles you are going to be working, start out as marginal and should be improved ASAP (the typical situation for most cites during late game), the only interaction needed from the player is selecting which improvements should be build in what tile. Then as the city grows, it will pick one of the new tiles to work, which it will start improving first. This seems about the minimal interaction you could require of the player, while keeping the player in control of what improvements get build.
To further reduce interaction needed from the player, cities could be fashioned with the option to build tile improvements automatically as the city AI sees fit. (Similar to the current automate worker option.)

To me this is the kind of behaviour you would want from a tile improvement mechanic. The whole thing can be automated if one wants, but in the early game the player has the option of making the choices himself for a better result. As the game progresses these choices become less relevant, and can be safely left to the AI except for some specific cases. (Much like the citizen work assignment currently.)
 
I think each tile improvement should be built from the city view, like a city improvement, using the prod of that city. No workers needed, they're annoying.
 
i have no clue how you arrived at -2 food surplus. -2 food per turn is the opportunity cost of not working the grassland tile.
maybe you assumed that the city tile does not yield any food?:dunno:

That was talking about tile surplus, not city surplus. I was just correcting your previous statement that "from this point of view, improving a 2 is a no-brainer decision because the mentioned tile goes from 0 surplus to 1(!!)."

The mentioned tile goes from 0 when worked and not improved, -2 while being improved, and +1 after improvement. This can delay growth (if, for example, the next population point is 1 turn away).
 
Top Bottom