Should we have builders (at all)?

[anandus]

So what do we know?
1. Builders build improvements
2. Builders do not build roads
3. Builders have limited amount of charges
4. Districts are built in the city screen

Which made me wonder why we have builders at all instead of building improvements, just like districts, in the city screen. It would make more sense and simplify things.

I know in one of the screenshots there's a military airfield outside city borders, for which you probably would need a worker (if the screenshot isn't doctored too much).

Then there's also China's UA to let a builder help with wonders.

But those things could be easily replaced with something else (eg. a general could build an airfield).

So I'm wondering if having builders is actually a necessary thing or if it's actually a desicion that unnecessarily overcomplicates things and clutters the map.

Your thoughts?

 

[stealth_nsk]

Several similar games like Warlock don't have builders. They seem to loose something. It's not rational thing, just immersion. With builders you really "feel" the landscape.

I hope with the new builder system they don't loose it.

 

[Ryika]

I think the Builders in Civ 6 are a good thing. They come with 4 charges, so there's some planning involved if you want to use them efficiently, if cities built improvements they'd just build them at the exact moment you need them, which doesn't bring anything to the table but instead would only mean looooots of micromanagement. I think the new system sounds like it could strike a very good balance between having to make some decisions and not forcing you to permanently babysit workers and constantly think about what you planned to use them for next 5 tuns ago. Instead they now come in bursts, which is nice.

Not sure how the word "overcomplicates" found its way into your post, the system doesn't seem very complicated at all to me. As many things in Civ it seems to be easy to learn, hard to master. I wouldn't want Civ to become a game where sending around a few workers here and there is deemed "too complicated".

 

[anandus]

Not sure how the word "overcomplicates" found its way into your post, the system doesn't seem very complicated at all to me.

Maybe "overcomplicate" is the wrong word and it should be "more complicated". It just are extra steps.

With builders:
1. Build builder
2. Move builder to the right spot
2. Build improvement
Without builders:
1. Build improvement

And I'm not saying it would be "too complicated" that way, but having to do unnecessary extra steps just makes you click more without adding strategic depth.

But maybe stealth_nsk is right and having builders adds to the immersion?

 

[Haig]

anandus I get what you are saying, but I think having a builder/worker adds another layer as you need to decide will you use the build "uses" to make a sawmill or repair those bombarded districts, so it adds more tactics in my opinion.

Also you need to protect them/capture enemies builders which again is a choice "do I need to direct my military units to these jobs".

Although sometimes it's good to remove something, like I don't miss transport boats at all even though originally I was not happy about losing them.

 

[Ryika]

Well, it's a bit more complicated than that:
1. Open City Screen
2. Choose Improvement
3. Place Improvement

Workers also add the element of being able to build workers in a city that has good production/time to build a worker to allow other cities do different stuff, a system where Cities build improvements directly would not allow for that.

Unless of course you do it like in Warlock and have a separate Improvement Queue, but that again would in itself already add another element of complication. That sort of complication that doesn't have decisions and choices attacked to it but instead just consists of micromanagement.

I definitely prefer workers.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Also, builders are a way for developed cities to use their production to improve lesser cities.

 

[Haig]

Also, builders are a way for developed cities to use their production to improve lesser cities.

I don't understand what you mean by this?

By the way is there any info do we get to send production and food by trade routes?

 

[stealth_nsk]

I don't understand what you mean by this?

By the way is there any info do we get to send production and food by trade routes?

You'll want to use high-production cities to build improvements for all cities, including low-production ones. If improvements are built by the city itself, each city will have to do it itself.

 

[AriochIV]

I think building things with workers is fun, but it can get tedious, so perhaps builders will hit the right mark.

 

[Tantor]

Maybe "overcomplicate" is the wrong word and it should be "more complicated". It just are extra steps.

With builders:
1. Build builder
2. Move builder to the right spot
2. Build improvement

I think this is what you do when you play CIV. If you just hit a button and everything happens instantly, why do you need to play just one more turn......?

 

[Callonia]

I'm pretty worried because I like being able to place roads exactly where I want them to be. Its damn important function. Its that or suffer horrible river with no bridge that you need to cross for thousands of years until you finally can afford a city in that direction. -.-

 

[stealth_nsk]

I'm pretty worried because I like being able to place roads exactly where I want them to be. Its damn important function. Its that or suffer horrible river with no bridge that you need to cross for thousands of years until you finally can afford a city in that direction. -.-

As far as we know, only initial roads (called "Ancient Road") are built that way. It was mentioned better roads are available once military engineers are discovered, so it's likely you'll be able to decide where to build them. I guess Romans have some ability to build "normal" roads earlier.

 

[Westwall]

Several similar games like Warlock don't have builders. They seem to loose something. It's not rational thing, just immersion. With builders you really "feel" the landscape.

I hope with the new builder system they don't loose it.

This is kind of why I'm lamenting the loss of workers.

I always thought little dudes running around building things were one of the things missing from games like Endless Legend.

Everything just felt so static and kind of dead.

With the loss of workers, I really hope Civ 6 has other ways of making your empire look alive and thriving.

 

[stealth_nsk]

This is kind of why I'm lamenting the loss of workers.

I always thought little dudes running around building things were one of the things missing from games like Endless Legend.

Everything just felt so static and kind of dead.

With the loss of workers, I really hope Civ 6 has other ways to make your empire look alive and thriving.

They aren't totally removed. Builders will still move here and there

 

[GoodSarmatian]

When they said cities will be unstacked and have districts, I was worried for a while that wokers would completely disappear and all improvements would be built by the city itself. I'm glad they're still there in some form. The most important reason for builders is that they allow you to get a new city going. You can train builders in high production cities and improve the terrain around new settlements. If cities had to build their farms and mines like buildings it would take much longer for them to become productive.

 

[chaosprophet]

@anandus One difference between having builders instead of cities building improvements, is that they can build it anywhere, even outside a city radius and even outside borders. Maybe you already want to prepare the terrain for an future city, and some improvements aren't for cities and may be beneficial even outside borders like fort and apparently airfield in CiVI.

Maybe they could give cities the ability to build outside your borders (only tile improvements), but that would bring some problems to the table like it being ridiculous if a city could build an improvement anywhere, and if not too limiting if there was an fixed range.

 

[AriochIV]

The most important reason for builders is that they allow you to get a new city going. You can train builders in high production cities and improve the terrain around new settlements. If cities had to build their farms and mines like buildings it would take much longer for them to become productive.

Key point.

 

[Hajee]

Hmm, this could be interesting for a mod to try to make. Take way the builders, and make the farms and mines etc act like the districts, you have to build them through the city and chose the tiles much like the districts are going to be.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well there are a few ways to do improvements

1. use a unit (city can be supported)
-just time (civ1-5 workers)
-consume worker (builders, GP, workboats)

2. use some resource directly
-local resource like production (districts)
-delocalized resource (ie gold/"public works"-Call to power)