So, Builders or Workers

[Xyriach]

Builders are an obvious concession to the limitations of 1upt that work out to be rather poorly balanced and bring an unwelcome level of micromanagement. (And this is from someone who never automated their civ 4 workers!)

They are? Why? Military units and Builders/Workers can occupy the same tile...so I don't see how they're getting in your way?

 

[Lord Shadow]

Builders, hands down. But the reason they're better has less to do with themselves than the game around them: construction around cities is much more important now, and a more thoughtful process, with wonders and districts in the picture. Workers just wouldn't work (pardon the pun) as their automation would get in the way of said constructions. Another major function of workers was laying down roads, which is an automatic mechanic in Civ6.

So with automation and most manual road building off the table, what would you be arguing for? Builders with unlimited charges? Builders who take a bunch of turns to build a single improvement? I'm sure there will be mods giving builders unlimited charges. Do try them out: my guess is it'll make them exceedingly boring, as the game doesn't require you to maintain armies of them to maintain your infrastructure, and you'd never need more than 4-5 in the entire timeframe.

Thats a general problem with escalating cost, they shojld balance them all.
And i agree it doesnt make any sense that you can build a builder in ancient era with x production while in the modern you need 3x and they do exacty the same so why on earth would they cost so much more when you ahve much better technology they should cost much less or do much more stuff.

So you'd say building an ancient mine or farm is the same as building their modern equivalents? It balances out, and besides, if you keep your economy and infrastructure in shape, the builder's cost escalation isn't really an issue. Particularly because you don't need many in the later eras.

 

[mnf]

I like Builders because I've always hated having to wait ages for my improvements. Think of the limited charges of Builders as the materials required for building your infrastructure. It makes sense. With the city unstacked, each tile becomes more useful as you build infrastructure. Building infrastructure is not only just labor but requires materials. So each Builder carries this much material, and when the materials are spent, you have to build those materials again. That's basically what Builders feel like.

And with roads removed and close to half the land not needing improvements, there's a lot less micro management. A lot more strategic decision-making, yes, but that's what we play this game for, isn't it?

Builders with unlimited charges?

Might be an interesting twist if Builders get unlimited charges but you can only train a new Builder on every 10th pop in your empire (the first one can be trained at 1 pop) or something like that. Although that may be too overpowered, since Builders work instantly. So maybe you can only have 1 Builder, period. Make it an unique ability for some civ to have an extra Builder capacity. Or make it the Pyramid benefit.

 

[Staal]

Thats a general problem with escalating cost, they shojld balance them all.
And i agree it doesnt make any sense that you can build a builder in ancient era with x production while in the modern you need 3x and they do exacty the same so why on earth would they cost so much more when you ahve much better technology they should cost much less or do much more stuff.

I think if they become trivially inexpensive the player no longer has a decision to make as to when to build them. Right now, improving terrain must be balanced directly with other production plans.

 

[Nixalo]

Why not both?

Really Builders with charges are better for Civ VI. There is less to micro on the civilian side.

Workers could only work if they start off slow and there is a way to speed them up with techs/wonders/corps.

 

[ddd123]

I think if they become trivially inexpensive the player no longer has a decision to make as to when to build them. Right now, improving terrain must be balanced directly with other production plans.

But they dont cost that much, if they would cost 5 turns I d agree but they still cost 2 turns, which is not that much, and since production is capped at 1 still in modern era wasting 1 turn is a lot considering how much production you might have, so you couldnt produce them in crap cities and you should waste 1 great turn on a big city even if they costed 1 turn, which is kinda of a choice anyway with how many things there are to build.

 

[bite]

as much as I like the workers sticking around, they insta build of builders is just so handy

 

[smartcanuck1988]

Builders for sure. Makes you prioritise improvements and a nice plus is that if you see a barb/enemy approach you can just use up the last charge and not risk losing that builder.

 

[WiseGreen]

I like the general concept of builders, but until I get used to them they feel too taxing in the early game. I'm always feeling I need more builder actions than I have the production or time for until Serfdom's available, specially once I got my first wave of expansion. I'm always thinking "crap, this builder has only one charge left, but I really need that woods chopped so I can start a district, but that city is running out of housing so it needs a farm, omg that horse has been waiting forever now to be connected".

 

[Staal]

But they dont cost that much, if they would cost 5 turns I d agree but they still cost 2 turns, which is not that much, and since production is capped at 1 still in modern era wasting 1 turn is a lot considering how much production you might have, so you couldnt produce them in crap cities and you should waste 1 great turn on a big city even if they costed 1 turn, which is kinda of a choice anyway with how many things there are to build.

I don't understand what you mean. You are saying (1) they only cost 2 turns in a developed city, (2) expensive in undeveloped city, (3) there is a choice... so what is the problem? If you are building all your builders in an important city you will not just be using 2 turns, but multiples of it depending on how many builders you need. So there is a significant choice whether you are waiting longer to build one in (2) or many in (1), and in the latter case you are not building something else that you desperately need.

Making the builders not scale would mean you can build them quickly anywhere, removing the cost/benefit decision or timing from the player. Builders are not the most expensive things in the world but there is no reason to make them trivially inexpensive.

 

[Staal]

as much as I like the workers sticking around, they insta build of builders is just so handy

And I personally feel the aesthetic appeal of the new design is invaluable. Comparatively workers feel tedious. Sometimes by the time they were finished with an improvement I would have forgotten what I wanted them to do next.

 

[WiseGreen]

And I personally feel the aesthetic appeal of the new design is invaluable. Comparatively workers feel tedious. Sometimes by the time they were finished with an improvement I would have forgotten what I wanted them to do next.

This was specially bad in BERT, when the midgame improvements (biowells, academies) could easily cost a worker 12+ turns, without even taking wood chopping/marsh draining time into account.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

What they need is a "Builder lens" that shows
Unimproved resources in your territory
Pillaged tiles in your territory
Unimproved regular tiles in your territory
(With the OPTION to come up automatically whenever you select a builder)

 

[CultureManiac]

Workers have been a standard feature or Civ for years, so I was hesitant in accepting builders, especially the way they provide 'instant' improvements. It seemed a bit cheesy and too quick. However, I'm realizing now that after those three builds, your unit is gone, and if you want to improve more tiles, you need another builder. No more build/buy/steal workers and then improve until there's nothing left to improve. In addition, the pace of land development feels about the same over the course of the game, and you aren't left with a whole bunch of workers that you either park or delete in the modern age. I'm slowly coming around to liking builders.

 

[smartcanuck1988]

What they need is a "Builder lens" that shows
Unimproved resources in your territory
Pillaged tiles in your territory
Unimproved regular tiles in your territory
(With the OPTION to come up automatically whenever you select a builder)

First, I agree. I think this is a great feature. I echo the emphasis on OPTION to turn it on (and similarly the settler lens and religion lens should be optional when selecting their units).

Second, have you tried strategic view? I am forced to use that view to play my games and I find it easy to see unimproved tiles. Pillaged tiles have a clear "fire" sprite on top of them so I can see quickly what is pillaged.

 

[Roald Amundsen]

Worker priorities Are one of the things I enjoyed the most in previous entries. The New simplification of builders degrades the game greatly in my opinion. Then again I never automate my worker Force until really late in the game when there is nothing left to do but some odd and really unimportant business.

Actually i also liked when settlers were doing the work. It made for some really tough descicions. Do i build the road on my way to found the New city? Do i have time to build this mine in my capital frist? What about that detour to irrigate by the river? That was good game design!

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Workers have been a standard feature or Civ for years, so I was hesitant in accepting builders, especially the way they provide 'instant' improvements. It seemed a bit cheesy and too quick. However, I'm realizing now that after those three builds, your unit is gone, and if you want to improve more tiles, you need another builder. No more build/buy/steal workers and then improve until there's nothing left to improve. In addition, the pace of land development feels about the same over the course of the game, and you aren't left with a whole bunch of workers that you either park or delete in the modern age. I'm slowly coming around to liking builders.

The improvement needs that evolve during the game ("Triangle" farms, Neighborhoods, etc.) help this a lot too. I'm not sure if I like builders or that what they are doing is so much more interesting.

 

[Mustakrakish]

For me builders require more micro because:
-every decision is much more important
-It's not like you send a bored worker with your new settler, you probably have to buy one builder at site, then you have 3 charges, likely you forget about when your new city would need an other
-questions like: do keep one of them with just one charge in case you need to repair/remove an improvement to make place for a district or use it up to get the improved tile..

As i said they do increase the strategic options, make decisions more important, but I1m not sure that these are the type op decisions which I want to worry about when i have 10-20 city big empire. At that point most of my workers were idle/automated in previous civs and when i needed them for a new city they were available.

...which is good? You're stating good reasons FOR builders and then say you don't want them You're not making a good case for yourself, sorry if we'll have to agree to disagree... A LOT

 

[Lord Shadow]

Also, let's not forget there's wonders and policies which increase builder charges and reduce their production cost.

 

[Big J Money]

I honestly can't decide.

Workers: I love that early game of spreading farms everywhere I want them, and planning where all my mines will go and what is the perfect order for building them.

Builders: I love the instant gratification of placing improvements, and the ability to simply count out 'okay I need 5 improvements, so that will be 2 builders'.

They're really two different units for two different games. Builders definitely make the game more challenging for me, since I don't assume I'll get every improvement that I want. I still haven't done any testing on whether it's better to go straight for production hexes, or the classic Civ approach of starting with food and transferring over to production with a larger workforce.

Edit: Nor have I done any analysis on the benefits of chopping to see how valid it is to chop your way to a city rather than a slower growth with improvements.