Roads built by workers? Poll

[Lazy sweeper]

CIv VI had resources available empire wide. No need for roads.
Did you like resources to need to be connected by a road network or was it better Civ VI no roads innovation?
Then roads could only be built by traders, and only in moder times, workers could then build railroads, that would help movement.
But trade caravans in Civ VI also did not always follow your desired route for making a road.
Sometime they would go on water tiles to cut corners, and you would end up with no roads connections in maybe a very important
strategic point like a hill bottleneck where you would really want a road there...
Roads could not cross mountains, untill tunnels were available after military engineers where researched in industrial age... Civ III could build roads on mountains.
And even settle cities on mountains in certain scenarios, namely TEThurkan Tibet...
The Vanilla- base game implementation of roads are one of the most important thing that once implemented, there's no going back...
In Civ VI it was not possible to get roads back at any point, except for a workers mod to be able to build roads with infinite charges.
But A.I. did not know how to use it, because it was a mod, just one of the problem arised later.
Even railroads, A.I. did not know how to build late in the game, giving Human players a massive boost advantage.

So, poll is simple.
You want Roads to be able to be built from turn 1-50?
How these are going to be built is also important.
We want control over Roads, and walls, and trenches.
Or you might not.

 

[Nikolai II]

I'd like some kind of automated system to make the roads. Making roads in the older games were MM hell.-

 

[Leucarum]

Traders building roads was nice to reduce micromanagement, but it would be nice if you could tinker with the route a trader took a little bit, particularly having a toggle to allow or block travel over water, so that you could ensure roads actually got built!

 

[pokiehl]

Traders building roads was nice to reduce micromanagement, but it would be nice if you could tinker with the route a trader took a little bit, particularly having a toggle to allow or block travel over water, so that you could ensure roads actually got built!

Great idea. A little choice as to what route the traders travel would be great.

 

[GeneralZIft]

I don't understand why the developers removed the feature for the Builder to build roads. Besides the fact that the Civ6 builder has charges and the Civ5 worker just 'works'.
There is both a 'route-to' mode and a manual mode. The auto mode made this system literally one click.

And then there was the trade off between connecting cities by road, hence, deciding to throw money into a really long road that could get disrupted, or saving your money until it was safer.

Civ6's trader auto-road kinda binned all of that. Now the whole map just gets littered with roads very very quickly and it quickly becomes meaningless.
I miss manually telling workers to build roads towards strategically important areas to make military advancements very quick and easy.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I don't understand why the developers removed the feature for the Builder to build roads. Besides the fact that the Civ6 builder has charges and the Civ5 worker just 'works'.
There is both a 'route-to' mode and a manual mode. The auto mode made this system literally one click.

They were never removed. The charges to build roads just went to the Military Engineer. The problem is no really uses Military Engineers considering you have to have an Armory to build one in the first place and less charges than a builder.

 

[GeneralZIft]

They were never removed. The charges to build roads just went to the Military Engineer. The problem is no really uses Military Engineers considering you have to have an Armory to build one in the first place and less charges than a builder.

And those guys can build only 3 tiles too
Gimme a break

 

[shaglio]

None of the "pool" options fit my preference. I would like Traders to automatically build roads, but I also want Workers to be able to manually build as well. Sort of like the Civil Engineers in Civ 6, but earlier in the game instead of having to wait several Eras.

 

[Hakan-i Cihan]

I think that workers should be able to build roads with no charges (if the charge system will be in civ7). But roads need maintenance after x turns (~30/40 turns). If no maintenance has taken place, it will be not as effective anymore, but still better than if there was no road or the road is pillaged. With a repair charge roads can be maintained by workers again for x turns. Routes used by traders are auto maintained. After the trader route has ended it will be maintained for x turns, unless used by another trader.
Workers should also be able to remove roads (in owned/unowned territories) to help reroute trader routes. Roads by military engineers last longer before maintenance is required (1.5 - 2 times longer) and requires no charges.

So roads by workers are possible but would not be you preference especially later in the game. Early on you wouldn't need to wait much for the traders to connect your cities. Rerouting trader routes is also possible. Military engineers will be more useful.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

It's probably my nascent engineering brain, but I really prefer to be the one who controls where roads go. The choices that the caravans often make drive me bonkers. Roadways should be optimized for both speed and minimal bridging, as bridges represent a high cost in reality. Don't cross a river twice when you can do it once. Roads should also make an effort to avoid hazards that could block travel or injure travellers, like floodplains and volcanic fields. So, when I see a caravan cross three rivers upstream from a place where a single crosing exists, or skirting a volcano, or crossing a marsh or a flood plain unecessarily, it makes me a bit bonkers. Also, roads crossing deserts should beeline for oases where ever possible.

It's sort of nice that caravans perform that role and free me up to deal with other tasks, but I'm not really optimizing for play speed. I play on marathon anyway, so if the game takes a few extra days to complete, I don't notice.

 

[BuchiTaton]

It's probably my nascent engineering brain, but I really prefer to be the one who controls where roads go. The choices that the caravans often make drive me bonkers. Roadways should be optimized for both speed and minimal bridging, as bridges represent a high cost in reality. Don't cross a river twice when you can do it once. Roads should also make an effort to avoid hazards that could block travel or injure travellers, like floodplains and volcanic fields. So, when I see a caravan cross three rivers upstream from a place where a single crosing exists, or skirting a volcano, or crossing a marsh or a flood plain unecessarily, it makes me a bit bonkers. Also, roads crossing deserts should beeline for oases where ever possible.

It's sort of nice that caravans perform that role and free me up to deal with other tasks, but I'm not really optimizing for play speed. I play on marathon anyway, so if the game takes a few extra days to complete, I don't notice.

Some points:
1- Should not we expect Firaxis to make a better job at pathfiding for a >8 newer game?
2- CIV abstracts a lot of things, for example we lack more elevation variations that games like Humankind have so...

a) Upstream tributary rivers are usually smaler, we can suppose sometime is easier to build varios smaller bridges than a bigger one.​

b) Marshes is understable to be avoided since they are difficult to cross all the time but floodplains and close to volcano areas are not a constant problem, that is why those areas despite their problems are commonly populated because their benefits worth the risk, so if people dare to farm and live there cross them is the minor of their problems.​

c) Introduction of Camels as a special resourse would be a nice chance to make desert+oasis traversing a strategic element.​

 

[Markus5]

Workers to improve tiles.
Civil engineers to build civilian infrastructure.
Military engineers to build military infrastructure.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

For starters, let's admit that early in the game, 'road' is an Abstraction. At best it is a marked ford through the river, trees cleared from a path through a forest, camp sites marked over a prairie, steppe, or savannah. No pavement, no bridging, not even a lot of 'improving' of any part of the route. Most of the traffic is people on animals or foot and pack animals.

The number of modern-identifiable 'toads' before the Industrial Era you can count on the fingers of one hand: Roman paved roads, Persian traces with stage-stations, Chinese foot and pack paths through mountains, Gaulic paved and surveyed roads between their towns, Mayan and Incan paved/raised/improved passages between towns. But note that, again, only the Gaulic and Roman roads were built for wheeled traffic (although the Mayan raised 'white roads' could have handled wheeled vehicles if they had had draft animals to pull them)

And 'trade routes' were NOT the same thing! Trade was by Caravan of pack animals, and no caravan master with any sense would follow in the tracks of a previous caravan, because there would be no fodder/feed left for his animals after another bunch of animals had eaten their way over the country. Trade Routes on land are better conceptualized as a wide network of trails to provide feed for more than one caravan a season, and if you had any choice in the matter, as much of the route as possible was by river or sea, because boats/ships were more than an Order of Magnitude more efficient at moving bulk cargo.

So, I'd keep the Traders Built 'Roads' mechanic from Civ VI, but with better pathing to make as much as possible of the route by river/coastal routes, (with a Major Bonus if the entire route is by sea, because that increases the amount carried by Tons) BUT while the routes laid down would remove maluses to movement from Forest or Rainforest, they would not provide any Bonus to movement - you still aren't getting any pavement or smoothed surfaces, no bridges, no amenities besides a camp site.

Roads with all or some of those would have to be Built by Builders, 'Engineers', and some units (numerous societies used conscripted workers/soldiers for Mass Labor going all the way back to Sumer and Akkad) but possibly reduce the Charge cost/tile of Road to 1/2, so that a Builder can complete most of a road between two cities - but longer roads will require multiple Builders. Remember, that great Roman road network around the Mediterranean took centuries to build, using lots and lots of Legion labor as well as smaller road networks already built by others like Greeks or Gauls.

Later Roads should require Engineers - amateurs no matter how numerous do not do well trying to build durable surfaces out of reinforced concrete or asphalt with proper underbeds, grades, drainage, and the occasional Bridge or major Engineering Effort like deep cuts or tunnels. Again, it took the Germans several years to get their first Autobahns built in the 1930s, and the Soviet Union's first major Highway effort, a 600 km route from the border to Moscow, was still unfinished after almost 5 years of work from 1937 to 1941. Require, say, an Engineer plus a Resource (like a manufactured Resource like Concrete, or a natural Resource like Stone) for each tile of 'modern' (post Industrial) Road/railroad (railroads, as now, requiring Steel resource expended for each tile of build)

Finally, because there was far more Trade between cities and other on-map Entities than the game has ever represented, I'd make every Trade Route/path and Road serve the additional function of 'unrecognized trade' - goods moving Unseen to reinforce the city with Resources, Amenities, Production points, Food (BUT not much food at all unless the route is over river/sea, allowing easy movement of Bulk Goods like 100s of tons of grain)

So you could still get a lot of advantage from Trade Routes no matter how they wandered over the map, but for really efficient movement of Units you'd have to Invest time and effort in road-building - as actually happened in Classical and later polities like the Roman, Chinese, Mayan or Incan realms.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Workers to improve tiles.
Civil engineers to build civilian infrastructure.
Military engineers to build military infrastructure.

But how do you define them?

Roads were for both Trade and movement of military Units. In fact, the Roman roads were optimized for the movement of` men on foot, not wagons full of trade goods.

The German Autobahns of the 1930s were for easy movement of military units - the average German couldn't afford a private car, so civilian traffic was almost non-existent on them until long after the war.

And finally, most of the early American railroads were surveyed and many construction teams managed by Military Engineers - trained at West Point, hired away from the Army by the railroad companies.

I agree that Civil Engineers would be a nice addition to Civ VII, but exactly what they and Military Engineers and Workers are allowed to build/assist would have to be defined specifically: 'civilian' and 'military' are just too generic to use as definitions.

 

[Vandlys]

[...]

So, poll is simple.
[...]

It is? I want to select multiple, and some options I don't even understand fully

"Yes: I want roads and be able to build them, and builders orders automatizations"

"... and builders orders automatizations" Does this mean if you select this you want to be able to let builders automatically improve tiles and such? Or just roads? Or both?

I want rivers, navigable. I also want roads. I want to be able to build them myself. I also like them to be created by caravans.

What do I pick?

 

[Lord Lakely]

Traders building roads can stay, but it would be nice if you could decide what path the traders themselves took.

Maybe make it so you can add waypoints on the route.

Railroads on the other hand - should be built by Workers at all time. Military Engineers were a bit too fiddly and bloated micro, so assign their portfolio back to the workers/builders proper.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Traders building roads can stay, but it would be nice if you could decide what path the traders themselves took.

Maybe make it so you can add waypoints on the route.

Railroads on the other hand - should be built by Workers at all time. Military Engineers were a bit too fiddly and bloated micro, so assign their portfolio back to the workers/builders proper.

The reason for the use of Military Engineers as railroad builders, I suspect, is because the building of railroads involved engineering and surveying precision not required by ordinary roads at the time, and aside from Great Engineers that are just not easily available, Military Engineers were the only other 'engineers' in Civ VI to represent that.

Also, as posted. the majority of the early American railroads were built with Military Engineers. Specifically, US Army officers trained at West Point in engineering (without much distinction between Civil and Military Engineering) and then hired away from the US Army by the railroad companies.

 

[Lord Lakely]

The argument against that is that it creates more clutter. Especially since Engineers require an Armory to be built as well.

One could argue that all Builders should be automatically "upgraded" to Military Engineers after a certain point in the tech tree.

 

[Krajzen]

I would be kinda fine (though I don't insist) with builder units being removed entirely and tile improvements being entirely handled via city production, or if you fancy some separate city subsystem ("public works" of CtP). Civ6 was already a step in this direction with the construction of districts from the city itself and roads from trade routes, so why not push this move to its logical end, given that worker units are kinda redundant in themselves, abstract/arcade, and almost no game mechanics interact with them anyway.

Meanwhile subjecting the entire tile improvement process to city economy mechanics would enable devs to get creative with it. Now you can get truly crazy and give one civ the ability to build two farms at X, or transfer % of city science to speed up tile construction etc.

Or even better: let's tie tile improvement process to population growth and pop units ("unstacking pops"). When a new pop unit becomes peasants they build farm and are located on this tile, while some other pop goes to a tile with resource to extract it and specialize in it, and then you send some other pop unit to build mine and become miners, and then you use another pop for public works to make a road etc.

The potential of interesting game mechanics becomes enormous - you handle those pop units and public works differently in despotic monarchy, feudal monarchy, empire, communism, free market democracy etc. And then you add civ unique ways to handle pops and tiles, such as Incan "central planning".

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The argument against that is that it creates more clutter. Especially since Engineers require an Armory to be built as well.

One could argue that all Builders should be automatically "upgraded" to Military Engineers after a certain point in the tech tree.

The question is how much 'clutter' or detail is Too Much. That will have, I think, a different answer from each player.

The problem for me is that Military Engineers were specially-trained people requiring special training facilities and dedicated resources to produce them. Simply maically getting All construction workers promoted to Engineers strikes me as Too Much Of A Good Thing for nothing, while requiring Advanced specialized structures like Armories to produce the Military Engineers strikes me as Appropriate.

On the other hand, increasing the productivity of Workers across the board from Unseen Improvements like power tools, powered vehicles, and Specialist Supervision (trained architects, civil/military engineers, construction specialists, etc) is something I think needed. Right now you can add Charges to your Workers with policies, but the general increase in productivity from better tools, powered applications, and more distributed Knowledge should also contribute to that. As in, perhaps a Cross the Board increase in Worker Charges from 3 to 4 or 5 in the Industrial Era, with another increase in Atomic Era (heavy construction mequipment, application of electrically-powered tools, etc)

That would make it much easier to use 'regular' Workers to build both advanced Highways and/or Railroads in the later game by applying the 'extra' Charges to such construction.