Looks like Civ 6 is done: Kevin called April "final game update"

[Republic of San Montuoso]

I'll be fine with no harvesting, I don't like the current implementation, but as we said, there are other methods than the build queue to place improvement (local or national) you could use the same method for resource harvesting.

Also, the whole "without builders, what will happen with harvesting?". You answered "well, it can be done in the queue" and it has been asked "so you'll spend production to gain production? How does that works?"

Except that's what you do with builders. You spent production building onen to then get production by harvesting. It's just "use production to gain production" with extra steps.

One thing that could be done, for harvesting, could be a "project" in the build queue, that when finished enhance the production of one tile during 10 turns (like +5 production), and after those ten turns, the resource is harvested. You don't chop an entire forest that quickly, it requires time after all, especially if you want to use the wood to produce something. You can chop a forest quickly (hem *Amazon* hem) but you'd gain no production out of it, since the methods are rather... unproductive, to say the least.

 

[Gedemon]

Yes, but in that case workers can be used to transfert production from one city (where the builder is created) to another (where you harvest).

But then there are other possible ways to transfer production to a new city, some already implemented.

 

[Linklite]

Yes, but in that case workers can be used to transfert production from one city (where the builder is created) to another (where you harvest).

But then there are other possible ways to transfer production to a new city, some already implemented.

In GalCiv3 you can build ships that provide one off production to their targets. Simulating a engineering crew with supplies I guess. A similar thing could be done here.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

Yes, but in that case workers can be used to transfert production from one city (where the builder is created) to another (where you harvest).

But then there are other possible ways to transfer production to a new city, some already implemented.

Sending trade routes in your empire is like transferring production from one city to another, with the bonus of not loosing production in the sending city.

 

[Kwami]

Yes, but in that case workers can be used to transfert production from one city (where the builder is created) to another (where you harvest).

But then there are other possible ways to transfer production to a new city, some already implemented.

You can also transport production through time. You can make builders now, knowing that you'll need them in 15-20 turns to chop out a wonder or walls or whatever you're needing. It's a strategic decision to produce a builder, then more decisions about how to use that builder. Harvesting from the production queue is way less flexible and feels really lame to me.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I still like my idea (shocking I know lol). You could use a citizen to work the tile to build the improvement or chop the tree. It takes a few turns; so you would have to measure the tradeoff between having the citizen working the tile, or building/chopping the thing while not being productive otherwise.

This is all based on the premise that builder/worker must be replaced with something. Adding something new to the production queue is just so blah to me.

 

[DWilson]

What if you still built builders, but they 'recharged', gaining additional charges over time even after running out. Rate of recharging increases over time, as does maintenance.

 

[Datgingah]

What if they increased the overall cost of builders, but made it so if a citizen worked a tile for 25 turns it would slowly improve naturally into what the builder would make.
This way you have the option to immediately get better yields at a cost, or wait for them to come in

 

[Gedemon]

You can also transport production through time. You can make builders now, knowing that you'll need them in 15-20 turns to chop out a wonder or walls or whatever you're needing. It's a strategic decision to produce a builder, then more decisions about how to use that builder. Harvesting from the production queue is way less flexible and feels really lame to me.

Personally I don't like harvesting at all, especially immediate harvesting, except maybe for forest. I'd prefer if resource depletion was not so much streamlined, and I don't see it happening in a production queue either. "Overusing" it by choice as proposed by a few people seems way more interesting IMO.

 

[bbbt]

I'd also argue the current implementation of builders is likely the hardest version for the AI to use as well. Production queue or gold approach would be the most straightforward for the AI, though I'm sure a lot of players like being able to capture builders from the AI/barbarians.

Of course that's sort of another subject: i.e. designing game mechanics with a mind to what the AI can use vs designing 'ideal' game mechanics and then trying to make the AI use them.

I think finding the balance of the 'weight' of decisions is actually pretty tricky. For me personally, I'm not a big fan of the 'slider' from 1-4, which is too streamlined for me (I prefer the game not to feel just like a UI over the old text game of Hammurabi). I prefer Civ 5's policy trees and 6's policy cards to that, but the policy cards to me have gone a little too far the other way.

 

[pokiehl]

I'd also argue the current implementation of builders is likely the hardest version for the AI to use as well. Production queue or gold approach would be the most straightforward for the AI, though I'm sure a lot of players like being able to capture builders from the AI/barbarians.

Huh? The AI doesn’t have trouble with builders (and didn’t have trouble with workers in 5)

And suggesting the AI could use a queue better is unfalsifiable conjecture.

 

[bbbt]

Huh? The AI doesn’t have trouble with builders (and didn’t have trouble with workers in 5)

And suggesting the AI could use a queue better is unfalsifiable conjecture.

The AI doesn't have issues with it's workers/builders getting captured by barbarians, which wouldn't happen with a queue or gold purchase approach?

 

[pokiehl]

The AI doesn't have issues with it's workers/builders getting captured by barbarians, which wouldn't happen with a queue or gold purchase approach?

No? Sometimes I lose builders to barbarians too. I don’t see it happening to the AI excessively.

 

[Pfeffersack]

No? Sometimes I lose builders to barbarians too. I don’t see it happening to the AI excessively.

They might lose some more than a human, but I agree that it is for sure not the main problem of the AI here - if they would priorize improving ressources more (and I'm not only talking of the luxury ressources problem with the C&M mode here; even without it it could do be better, especially wih the strategic ones) and abstain from sometimes mindlessly clustering their lands with forts or energy improvements, I think that part would be in a pretty good shape overall. So I don't think the current woeker system itself is a problem for the AI.

 

[Gedemon]

Huh? The AI doesn’t have trouble with builders (and didn’t have trouble with workers in 5)

And suggesting the AI could use a queue better is unfalsifiable conjecture.

Just visualize the decision tree, for the AI it's simpler by a very large margin.

I agree it may not look like a big issue, but it's one of the multiple design decision that could help the AI.

 

[pokiehl]

Again, unfalsifiable claim and speculation. Don’t know what more debate there can be.

 

[Gedemon]

Again, unfalsifiable claim and speculation. Don’t know what more debate there can be.

I'm sorry, I can understand difference in opinion, but this is purely technical, factual.

Of course the player fun come before the AI performance, there is a balance to keep in the game, and that particular change (removing builders) can't be justified purely by that, but you can't deny that one mechanism is simple and another is complex for the AI.

 

[pokiehl]

I'm sorry, I can understand difference in opinion, but this is purely technical, factual.

It’s not factual. It hasn’t happened so you have no results to prove that to me and AFAIK (correct me if I’m wrong) you aren’t a professional game developer who works on AI so I don’t think your opinion has much more weight than mine here since we are both coming from the place of “non-experts.”

 

[Gedemo]

at the end of the live stream the guys just said: good afternoon! ... to me that doesn't sound like a goodbye speech.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Man, I really don't want this thread locked. I want to talk about whether or not there might be new content coming.