Should we have builders (at all)?

[Cyon]

If they would remove the builders I would prefer a system where farms, pastures and plantations grow by themselves and you the player had inderect control like a gardener in a garden that could replace some improvements for a cost by the norm was that they grow by them self.

Rulers in Mesopotamia didn't decide where a farm was build and not but he did decide where a irrigation dyke was dug which would encourage new farms.

But that would be a very different more simulation styled game.

I think tyne 3 times usage builders is a good solution

 

[dexters]

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?

Builders convert production into improvements and units of work to be done

Workers convert a small amount of production/gold into infinite labour
It's antithetical to have a slave workforce running around from 4000 BC to the present in an advanced government that may have outlawed slavery.

I guess we can argue this has always been a Civ abstraction, but the new mechanic seems to satisfy the realism angle while possibly providing a new / acceptable gameplay mechanic. So I'm down with it until I'm not (possibly on release day)

 

[LDiCesare]

CtP public works system was quite good imo.

 

[Seek]

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.

Agreed, this is my worry also. Getting rid of workers/builders altogether would be a travesty imo.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Agreed, this is my worry also. Getting rid of workers/builders altogether would be a travesty imo.

I think it would also throw off balance.

Without builders and say building from the city view. You'd have to decide if you are going to build a library or build two farms to support your growing nation.

More time could therefore end up being spent on building landscape improvements and not enough on actually building up your infrastructure in the "city"

 

[BearMan]

I just wanna add that I have had the same thoughts.

Maybe the new interface could make builders absolete and streamline building improvements in the city surroundings. I also hope some lategame things in Civ5 like archeology; art; turism and the world congress get better interface 2.

 

[dexters]

I just wanna add that I have had the same thoughts.

Maybe the new interface could make builders absolete and streamline building improvements in the city surroundings. I also hope some lategame things in Civ5 like archeology; art; turism and the world congress get better interface 2.

We aren't quite there yet with builders/workers.

Some people still can't get over not having physical spy units and or physical trading units they can move manually.

Removing builders and have people point and click builds on the terrain via the city screen or some other menu function is likely still a bridge too far for many long-time fans.

We may get there if some other mechanic is made more complex to compensate for removing the busy work of builders/workers

 

[AriochIV]

Workers convert a small amount of production/gold into infinite labour
It's antithetical to have a slave workforce running around from 4000 BC to the present in an advanced government that may have outlawed slavery.

Workers aren't slaves; we pay for their upkeep the same as any unit.

 

[dexters]

Workers aren't slaves; we pay for their upkeep the same as any unit.

My personal take is we'd need to pay a lot more for them to not be considered slaves given they can work every turn of the game into perpetuity and the labour isn't quantified into a unit. They aren't fed, whereas a population point needs food. Their input to output ratio just don't gel with the rest of the game mechanic.

I know Civ3 abstracted slavery by making you pay no upkeep for captured workers but halved their working speed, but that merely becomes a matter of magnitude. Actually since they cost no gold, you can't even place it in a fraction to calculate any reasonable number.

 

[Ryika]

But they don't work during your opponents turns. Imagine an 8-Player Game and let's ignore City States and Barbarians... that's 1/8 of the day, a 3-hour workday, or a 1-day workweek. Sounds pretty humane to me.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

My personal take is we'd need to pay a lot more for them to not be considered slaves given they can work every turn of the game into perpetuity and the labour isn't quantified into a unit. They aren't fed, whereas a population point needs food. Their input to output ratio just don't gel with the rest of the game mechanic.

I know Civ3 abstracted slavery by making you pay no upkeep for captured workers but halved their working speed, but that merely becomes a matter of magnitude. Actually since they cost no gold, you can't even place it in a fraction to calculate any reasonable number.

Soldiers don't eat either, are they also slaves?

You seem to be thinking too much about this. By your logic every unit is a slave unit.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

My personal take is we'd need to pay a lot more for them to not be considered slaves given they can work every turn of the game into perpetuity and the labour isn't quantified into a unit. They aren't fed, whereas a population point needs food. Their input to output ratio just don't gel with the rest of the game mechanic.

I know Civ3 abstracted slavery by making you pay no upkeep for captured workers but halved their working speed, but that merely becomes a matter of magnitude. Actually since they cost no gold, you can't even place it in a fraction to calculate any reasonable number.

By that argument ALL of your units are slaves (except maybe Great People/settlers that get used up)

I assume the gold maintenance pays for their food and supplies and cable tv bills

 

[dexters]

By that argument ALL of your units are slaves (except maybe Great People/settlers that get used up)

I assume the gold maintenance pays for their food and supplies and cable tv bills

And I assume the units are high abstractions and the individuals in those units join them grow old and retire. The people with workers is unlike military units that defend or attack but otherwise dibt produce output, workers produce labour.

In some civ games they even cost population. So I tend to see their labour as essentially free due to their infinite output and low maintenance cost

 

[m15a]

And I assume the units are high abstractions and the individuals in those units join them grow old and retire. The people with workers is unlike military units that defend or attack but otherwise dibt produce output, workers produce labour.

In some civ games they even cost population. So I tend to see their labour as essentially free due to their infinite output and low maintenance cost

You can believe that when you play, but it's still head canon - it's just like saying that conquering a civ is genocide. You can imagine it that was, and maybe derive that story from the mechanics and story elements present in the game, but it's not in there. (Unless it is in Civ VI and we don't know about it yet)

 

[dexters]

You can believe that when you play, but it's still head canon - it's just like saying that conquering a civ is genocide. You can imagine it that was, and maybe derive that story from the mechanics and story elements present in the game, but it's not in there. (Unless it is in Civ VI and we don't know about it yet)

Yeah I'd be fine if the old worker mechanic stayed in, but from what we know, the new builder abstraction seems to make more sense. So for me it's a nice to have type thing and fun discussing this.


My gripe with old worker mechanic isn't IMHO resolved by them costing upkeep. That is because they produce infinite labour. Soldiers don't and they even have to heal up after attacking/defending. And half the time they sit there and do nothing other than provide deterrent so one could say the actual individuals within those units could be technically be not at their posts but in bases back in a city somewhere, only those unit designations are stationed. The individuals only report to duty once the unit is engaged. Workers on the other hand you can work non stop for every turn of the game , which is why stealing workers has always been a really powerful early game exploit.

 

[jjkrause84]

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?

Why bother playing the game at all?

Actually moving the pieces around is the game. Without it it might as well be pen and paper.

 

[m15a]

Actually moving the pieces around is the game. Without it it might as well be pen and paper.

Deciding where to move the pieces, and seeing the result, is the game. (Making decisions that don't involve moving pieces is also the game.)

Clicking on things, by itself, is not fun for most people. And writing things out and doing the required calculations is even more of the less fun stuff.

 

[SilverKnight06]

I think it's nice. (Look in another post related to this)