Shield carry over

[Grogs]

If your workers have no instructions to build something, they do what workers worldwide do without instructions and goof off, essentially wasting the shields.

LOL, that's great. As a sometimes job foreman, I know it's all too true too. If you tell your workers 'paint that room' and go away for 8 hours, you'll come back to find a painted room (and nothing else) even if it only took them 3 hours to do. If you tell them 'paint that room and then move on to the next 2 rooms, you get significantly more done. )

I don't see a problem with the excess shields going from one type of project to another. The workers simply finish 'building' the swordsmen and then go start working on the library. You would definitely want to have the item queued though.

I think this would also make the game a little bit harder. Right now I don't think the AI has any problem at all building a 120 shield unit with a 59 spt city. A smart human on the other hand would either MM the city to 60 spt or change to a 100/110 spt unit. The carryover system would smooth things out rather than the very steep steps we have right now.

 

[searcheagle]

a compromise would be to modestly increase production costs, perhaps by 10 shields for later game items and 2-5 shields for earlier game units and improvements.

Not only would that not solve the problem, it would make it worse because you would have more incidents of wasted shields.

 

[rhialto]

There seem to be two issues on topic here.

Wasted shields from having a 59pt city build a 120pt unit. If excess shields are automatically rolled over to the next item in the queue, this issue is solved. We could assume that if the last item in the queue is a unit, it gets rolled over to another of the same unit. If you just built the last item in the queue, your workers goof off and waste the shields.

Wasted shields from changing production from X to Y. To be honest, I have no real strong opinions either way on this issue.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

As for changing production from X to Y (whether shields or tech) the best solution I can think of is to have multiple things producable at once, but with NO sliders since

Thing 1: 50% get in 10 turns, 100% in 5
Thing 2: 50% get in 20 turns, 100% in 10

In 20 turns with sliders
turn 10: T1
turn 20: 2 T1s and a T2

In 20 turns with switching from 100 to 0
turn 5 : T1
turn 15: T1+T2
turn 20: 2 T1s and a T2

The point is it is always better to switch unless there is some complex formula (which is bad because the micromanagement just gets more complicated)

The way I would see it, you have a queue

T1
T2
T1

If you decided to change your T1 (with 100 shields in and only 50 more to go) to a T3, then the T3 would start out with 0 shields and the T1 would sit waiting to be reactivated with its 100 shields still there)

So you would only be adding shields to one thing at a time (counting each shield individually, I add shields to this one thing until it is done or stopped, and then I start adding shields to the next thing)

But a city could have partially completed things (to fit Great Wonders in with this, they would have to be finishable as a small wonder.. so the 1st person to build the Pyramids gets the Great Pyramids giving a granary in every city... all other people who build the Pyramids get some other, lesser bonus)

Palaces might require some rethinking, but...Palaces could easily go for some rethinking.


Another bonus is that this would make 40 cost units (as well as 120) worth building in 59 output cities because you would produce multiple ones a turn (or them as well as something else)

Also if you Don't have something in the queue, the computer should do what it always does when you run out of units in the queue ask

(so if you put 1 Spearman in a 120 output queue, then at the begining of the next turn it would ask you what to build next with (spearman=0t, swordsman=0t,Library=0t, etc. because they would be equal to or less than the 100 shields that were left)...and if you chose one of the 0 turn options, it would Instantly produce and ask you what you want next..so you could tell the same city 6 times in the same turn that you want spearman...this would make it worthwhile to build workers in big cities (of course the population bleed would take more there)

 

[Commander Bello]

I'd guess that Grogs' remark is correct: if shields are just carried over, no micro-management exists AND it would help the wrotten AI to be a stronger opponent.

I say: implement carry-over!

 

[mhIdA]

Commander Bello
I give this suggestion keep in mind the conception of production of civ. Sorry but due my lack of english I don't completely understand the 'carry forward' expression
Althought I have a new concept of production that allow less MM, I guess.

In domestic advisor where policies such as science (libraries and universities) and economical (granaries, supermarket, factories), are showed in a slider we adjust the values to science improvs, economic and military by policies with lower (10%), normal (30%), higher (60%).
So a city with policies that have lower in military allocate 10% of city shields to military units, normal in science buildings allocate 30% of city shields to science improvs, and higher in economics allocate 60% of city shields to economic improvs.
If we change the options meanwhile, it simply adjust the shields allocated to every unit/improvs and rearrange priorities as in a qeue. If one left without shield to be completed that unit/improv wait until newers units/improvs be finish.
So sliders is more a matter of interface and qeue of the engine; I guess.

Military policy, should give by fallowed:
Suppose an armie that allow 10 units, with several combinations of units, but what is the optimal combination? If we have 5 levels of optimal combinations or options:
defensive (10 defensive units, 0 ofensive units),
less offensive (6 defensive units, 4 ofensive units),
neutral (5 defensive units, 5 ofensive units),
offensive (4 defensive units, 6 ofensive units),
agressive (2 defensive units, 8 ofensive units).
We only have to select in a military advisor 'build an army' and choose the option. To better understand how this mechanism works see my post on quote # 19.
So we only choose policies that imply how shields be allocated in city production, and merelly wait for units and improvs be built.

NOTES: - The waste or corruption not entirelly disappear due type of govern and gameplay, what's quite realistic since economies aren't 100% efficient.
- The game played by choices or policies could be an way to give involving traits, since this is a reflect of first, and traits isn't a question of all or nothing.

Cities should be allow build several things by turn.

 

[rhialto]

I think cities should be able to build several things per turn, but only one at a time. No multiple uild queues please. All that does is double the number of things you need to manage. Plus I'd rather have a spearman in 5 turns and another 5 later than two in 10 turns.

 

[sir_schwick]

I am with rhialto, multiple builds should be simple, not multi-tracked. Your shilelds would be colored silver until they were being used to complete or work on a project.

Spoiler EXAMPLE I :

Your city produces 100 shields per turn.

No production is allocated so the sheilds in the city window are silver.
You decide to build a Cruise Missle(60 shields).

Now there are still 40 unallocated shields, so the icon for the Cruise Missle(will be completed) is there along with silver rather than blue shields.
You decide to build a Temple(60 shields). You only add 40 shields to that project, but all the shields are allocated. The production box is about 2/3 full, but all shields are blue now.

 

[rysingsun]

Not only would that not solve the problem, it would make it worse because you would have more incidents of wasted shields.

the compromise i had in mind was to have shield rollover and at the same time slightly increase production cost. no shields would be wasted and average production level would remain unchanged. the advantage is the reduced micromanagement.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

You know, it also occured to me that part of the problem with 'shield carry-over' is that shields have NO OTHER FUNCTION within a city-besides their use in the building of units and improvements (and, later on, 'wealth').
Instead, players should be able to allocate unused or unwanted shields (and food, btw) for local and international trade-and for conversion into abstract 'consumer goods' (which give income based on the cities 'Wealth') Under such a system, any shields which you 'lose' from production might go back into your 'general resource pile'-which can be turned into 'consumer goods' or traded for use by other cities.
Anyway, its just a thought.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[rhialto]

I don't think teh trading shields idea is good. All it means is that the shields will get sent to another city to either build stuff with or convert into 'wealth'. For most of the game, shields represent to a huge extent the actual labour involved in producing stuff. It's only towards the late game when the manufacturing side starts to become more significant than labour. Given that, until modern times, the only realistic way to export manufacturing potential (shields) is to literally export the people who do the work.

That's the realism criticism. On the gameplay criticism side, I can't help feeling the only in-game use would either be to MM production across cities, an issue which is resolved anyway once you have production carried over to the next item in the build queue, or to help rush wonders. And on the wonder-rush side, I think being able to export shields from your empire empire to your wonder city will be a little unbalancing.

Shields have only one use in civ3. That isn't necessarily a bad thing.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, my hope is that there will be SOME differentiation between 'raw' shields and 'refined' shields. 'Raw' shields would represent things like wood, stone and metals. These can easily be 'traded' between nations-though they are not worth very much. You could then transfer shields from the 'raw' column to your 'refined' column-with the 'conversion rate' dependant on how many 'labourers' and 'production' improvements you have. You can then transfer refined shields to your production queue-with whatever is left over earning you income per turn, or being tradable to other cities or nations.
As for the MM issue, I can see two easy ways around this: (1) is to grant bonuses/penalties to players based on how often they change their individual city settings. Corruption could help with this, as the city's % crime/corruption level would determine how many shields you lose EVERY TIME you move them from one column to another-or one city to another. (2) make the settings % based, then allow for a provincial/national setting on the amount of shields/food you allocate to each area (trade/refining; production/trade).

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[rhialto]

@Aussie Lurker
I'd like to see some differentiation too, but I have a feeling that it would end up being a horrible mess a la Victoria, which has far too many resource types for normal people to bother with. The alternative is to have just two items "raw shields" and "manufactured shields", but that is essentially so abstract that nothing is gained.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I think that something IS gained by something even as abstract as 'Raw' and 'Refined' shields (though perhaps Raw resources should be defined by a symbol like a saw log or a lump of ore or something). They can help to define how much of your production are in the form of raw materials-and how much is in the form of your 'human-resources'. This might lead to a situation where a city produces large amounts of timber and stone, but where they lack the man-power to refine it effectively (or suffer from too much crime/corruption). Thus, they send it to a large industrialised city for refining.
Of course, another major difference that can result from even an abstract system is that raw resources are worth NOTHING within the city they are generated in, and are worth only a small amount in domestic and international trade. Refined resources, OTOH, are worth a great deal more.
A compromise position could be this: raw resources are 'abstract' when they are within a city (i.e. stone, wood and metals can be equally 'refined' for use in production). However, where the TYPE of resource becomes important is in TRADE. For instance, lets say you have a city thats SURROUNDED by forests. Over 80% of the 'raw' resources it would send would be either 'Timber' or 'Forest Products'. Thus, the trade screen would show your 'shields' divided up according to 'where' they came from. Then, how much they are worth would depend on how short other cities or nations are of that specific resource.

Lets see if I can come up with an example:

Lets say you have city A: In its city radius are 2 forested squares, a hill square, a mountain square and a plains square. In all, these produce 15 'raw material' shields, which appear in a seperate box. At the bottom of this box, it tells you what % of these shields are of each resource type (Minerals, Stone/Clay/Rare Earth, Timber, Natural Fibres, Hydrocarbons etc.) In the case of this city, around 30% would be Timber, 40% might be natural fibres, and the remaining 30% might be Stone/Clay.
Now, lets say that your city had NO other sources of Stone/Clay, then any stone/clay that left their city would make more money than, say, its timber-unless timber was non-existent too! How much of each resource ends up traded would depend on the %'s I mentioned above. So, if you sent 10 of your raw shields to the central trade area, then 3 of them would end up in the timber queue, 4 would end up in natural fibres, and 3 would end up in stone clay.
The same 'supply/demand' equation would also apply to international trade though, once it ended up back in a city's 'raw resource' box, it wouldn't make much difference anymore.
Another thought I had was that especially rare food and raw resources could act as 'pseudo-luxuries', in that they boost a city's happiness by a certain % for a few turns after they first arrive-if that makes sense.
On a final note, I think that if you have specific raw resources, the best thing to do is to keep it simple and broad. i.e. don't indicate EVERY single mineral-just leave it at MINERALS. Same with Timber, natural fibres, hydrocarbons etc.
Anyway, sorry for the VERY long post, and I hope that it all makes sense.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

I haven't read all but I don't see this shield-not-carrying-over thing being a big deal. I wouldn't mind having shields carried over, but I don't see any real problem - either you ignore the problem, don't micromanage to achieve the highest possible productivity, and play at a level where the AI doesn't get other bonuses, or you take advantage of the AI in this department to fight him at a higher level and hopefully enjoy the extra micromanagement it brings.
This way both casual players and micromanagment freaks get to have their fun. It seems like a part of the game for many is about finding out the most effective way to manage your civ, whether it'd be on a higher level, RNG(?), or shuffling food or shields.
Some likes to play a 'worldsimulator' and some to defeat a set of rules.

 

[MeteorPunch]

I really like the idea of multiple builds. You could implement it by city size:

Town (size 1-6): 1 build possible
City (size 7-12): 2 builds possible
Metro (size 13+): 3 builds possible

This way you could build a worker with a few extra shields, or get started on the next infrastructure project. Although I can't really think of why one would need 3 builds with the current production values .

 

[rhialto]

I can't think of any good reason why you'd want two separate build queues.

And yes, I've seen the dual military/social build queue system in GalCiv. I don't think it really adds that much to the game. It removes an important opportunity cost decision from the game too.

 

[searcheagle]

You know, it also occured to me that part of the problem with 'shield carry-over' is that shields have NO OTHER FUNCTION within a city-besides their use in the building of units and improvements (and, later on, 'wealth').
Instead, players should be able to allocate unused or unwanted shields (and food, btw) for local and international trade-and for conversion into abstract 'consumer goods' (which give income based on the cities 'Wealth') Under such a system, any shields which you 'lose' from production might go back into your 'general resource pile'-which can be turned into 'consumer goods' or traded for use by other cities.
Anyway, its just a thought.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

YOu may have missed the easiest option yet. Rather then changing surplus shields into traded shields, Turn the surplus shields into Wealth. It requires no big concept changes either.

I can't think of any good reason why you'd want two separate build queues.

Well that would be alternative way to get rid of excess shields. Have the excess one go into a different construction. However I see no reason why to give the larger cities more queues.

 

[sir_schwick]

While I did find unit/building dual queues useful in TW, I agree that it does not work for Civ. The simplest solution is simply to allow people to keep adding new build orders for that turn until the shields are used up. With color coding shields silver and blue, tis visually easy to sort out.

 

[Timko]

I think carry-over shields is good. I don't like switching though. How useful is a half finished temple to a spearman? How about simply retaining half finished things instead?

E.g. Start building a temple at 10spt. 5 turns in you realize you are about to be attacked and nead a spearman. You either a) gamble, or b) switch to spearman wasting 50 shields plus the extra 10 shields you would have produced that turn.

Wouldn't it be better to START building a spearman that turn, with 0 shields in the box, and later return to the almost complete temple.

And the same should work for science too. Say you want a monopoly on Feudalism to trade, but someone gets it a few turns before. You should be able to switch to Engineering and come back to Feudalism later. It would also be nice if in the science advisor screen it showed how much research had gone into each tech, e.g. by filling up the tech box in green.