Warning: Automated workers can cause bankruptcy!

[Michl2602]

Additionally, when one gains railroad, does that benefit automatically benefit trade routes connected only by harbors?

yes, it does

 

[Beef Hammer]

Who uses automated workers?

 

[Mods]

I heard somebody say it before, but you should be able to select what you want in a tile and have an automated worker go there and build it.
It's the perfect balance between micro and automation

 

[Nicol.Bolas]

I heard somebody say it before, but you should be able to select what you want in a tile and have an automated worker go there and build it.
It's the perfect balance between micro and automation

very good idea,
makes me wonder, why those well paid take2 didn't come with it.

next step could be getting rid of workers completely
because of you think about it, they add nothing to game but more MM, and occasionall abuse of AI by early steal, or having to protect your workers.

the actuall distance movement management isnť so important and could be balanced out

 

[TopGearFanatic]

I didn't know anybody automated their workers.

 

[Aduitor Hadrian]

That's why you should manage your workers

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I heard somebody say it before, but you should be able to select what you want in a tile and have an automated worker go there and build it.
It's the perfect balance between micro and automation

That is the best plan... "planned tile improvements" that autoworkers will prioritize (over blank tiles)

 

[Uniform Sierra]

I always wondered how useful harbors were. Since you need 2 harbors (one in the capital, one in the city) to make a trade route, that's equivalent to 6 road tiles or 6 GPT. Then I look at trade benefits and it seems roads always provide more gold than harbors.

 

[Misotu]

Who uses automated workers?

Yes, I often wonder about this. What is it that people find so hard, time-consuming or boring about choosing which tile to develop next? It's one of the charms of the game as far as I am concerned

I hate it in the lategame Civ4 when automated workers start demolishing cottages they've just built to build farms. Then they demolish the completed farms to build cottages ad nauseam. At this point they have to be retired, that's just a job creation project...

Um. Well, the thing is that there is an option "automated workers do not remove existing improvements" (or something similar) which means that they do not do this - unless you are using them so early in the game that you haven't actually created many/any improvements yourself! In which case, yes, they might do that (certainly the AI does that) but you are creating an impression that's a bit inaccurate here for anyone who hasn't played IV. In fact, in CivIV, there is a huge range of automated worker options, and I recommend that people investigate them.

This would also remove the daft disjunct with Workboats and Workers that we have inherited from Civ4. Like how does a workboat instantly create an offshore platform, a fishery, whatever, while a worker takes many turns *and remain reusable afterwards*? OK, the boat destroys itself. In a way that is cool, means you don't have to manage it afterwards. But the boats are closer to the CTP schema, the workers are original Civ. I think it should go one way or the other, and I'd go with CTP.

Well I really don't have a problem with the way that it works sea vs. land in Civ IV. Very few sea tiles require improvements, and so it works fine to have a disposable workboat. I *loathed* the CtP system - boring, slow, option-reducing and not adopted for Civ IV or Civ V, for very, very good reasons.

Although I have to say that the workboat pillaging is an annoyance in IV - that doesn't seem to happen to me so far in V and if that is generally the case then hoorah, and that's an improvement.

The thing is that really Civ - any Civ - is not that great a game when you strip out workers and buildings and city management and all the other things that various players seem to find so tedious. I am a bit baffled by this. After all, there are so many really good war games out there with none of the micro which people find so objectionable. Why does every game have to be the same? There are very few games involving micro-management and the loving nurture of a civilisation/building/empire/assault team/whatever .... and yet it is not enough, apparently. Even this last corner has to be invaded and attacked by people who basically just can't be arsed to pay attention

Baffled. What, exactly, do people see in Civ if not a certain amount of nurturing and micro-management?

 

[Doctor Phibes]

Yes, I often wonder about this. What is it that people find so hard, time-consuming or boring about choosing which tile to develop next? It's one of the charms of the game as far as I am concerned

I don't have a problem with this. It's just the specific mechanism - i.e. workers.

Um. Well, the thing is that there is an option "automated workers do not remove existing improvements" (or something similar) which means that they do not do this - unless you are using them so early in the game that you haven't actually created many/any improvements yourself! In which case, yes, they might do that (certainly the AI does that) but you are creating an impression that's a bit inaccurate here for anyone who hasn't played IV. In fact, in CivIV, there is a huge range of automated worker options, and I recommend that people investigate them.

Fair point. I've forgotten a few things about Civ4, only just went back to it after Civ5. Workers still annoy me though.

Well I really don't have a problem with the way that it works sea vs. land in Civ IV. Very few sea tiles require improvements, and so it works fine to have a disposable workboat. I *loathed* the CtP system - boring, slow, option-reducing and not adopted for Civ IV or Civ V, for very, very good reasons.

Although I have to say that the workboat pillaging is an annoyance in IV - that doesn't seem to happen to me so far in V and if that is generally the case then hoorah, and that's an improvement.

The thing is that really Civ - any Civ - is not that great a game when you strip out workers and buildings and city management and all the other things that various players seem to find so tedious. I am a bit baffled by this. After all, there are so many really good war games out there with none of the micro which people find so objectionable. Why does every game have to be the same? There are very few games involving micro-management and the loving nurture of a civilisation/building/empire/assault team/whatever .... and yet it is not enough, apparently. Even this last corner has to be invaded and attacked by people who basically just can't be arsed to pay attention

Baffled. What, exactly, do people see in Civ if not a certain amount of nurturing and micro-management?

Well, I guess tastes vary. I'm happy with micro-management too, it's a vital part of the game, it's just the specific mechanism I dislike, namely workers. For example, it could be argued that Civ4 automated some things that CTP didn't. Tile improvements in CTP offered upgrades as you went up the tech tree, so there was continually an issue of allocating public works to new improvements or deciding to do upgrades.

In Civ4, the only upgradeable improvement is the cottage. And that upgrades automatically. (Of course, it could be argued that when windmills/watermills etc come along, you are faced with similar upgrade decisions if there is an existing improvement on a prime tile for one of these.)

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of cottages automatically growing upwards to towns. Just to point out that both games involve micro-management, just different mechanisms. All of Civ4's and Civ5's improvements could be implemented using a public works scheme instead of workers.

 

[Wir0s]

Who uses automated workers?

Me at the end of the game, once u achieve that point when gold is not important anymore... I let the workers who still alive work at his own.

But until that point, totally agree, not a good idea.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I always wondered how useful harbors were. Since you need 2 harbors (one in the capital, one in the city) to make a trade route, that's equivalent to 6 road tiles or 6 GPT. Then I look at trade benefits and it seems roads always provide more gold than harbors.

1. Trade route benefit is only based on population not type of connection

2. 2 harbors=6 roads for 1 trade route.
3 harbors=9 roads for 2 trade route.
4 harbors=12 roads for 3 trade route.
5 harbors=15 roads for 4 trade route.
6 harbors=18 roads for 5 trade route.
7 harbors=21 roads for 6 trade route.

3. Harbors trade routes give the railroad bonus.

 

[arkham4269]

Of course while it might make sense economically to link cities via harbors (especially w/small continents style maps where almost every (if not all) cities can be on the coast, it does put you in a bit of a bind in regards to moving units around quickly.

Personally I believe all river tiles should have either a production or gold boost to simulate the ease of moving materials and goods up and down rivers (and later canals which cannot be simulated well in a game of this type)

My biggest beef is how certain AI Civs can manage to build and conquer vast territories, rarely build a road, rarely do more than build farms and get away with it. Too often I have issues trying to keep an empire of 5-6 cities going without my citizens screaming about this or that.

That and the fact that it seems if a Civ has a civ-specific unit which requires a resource, shouldn't that resource be available (at least one tile) due to Civ-specific start bias? Too often I want to keep my empire small but the ONE critical resource I need (usually iron) is someplace far away causing me to have to either expand or build long road networks.

 

[Tokahfang]

Too often I want to keep my empire small but the ONE critical resource I need (usually iron) is someplace far away causing me to have to either expand or build long road networks.

You realize you don't have to connect resources by road anymore, right? Just build the improvement over them in your culture.

 

[arkham4269]

You realize you don't have to connect resources by road anymore, right? Just build the improvement over them in your culture.

I do, however the the Civ V AI has reverted to Civ III mode and if I'm not careful, they'll build a city right between parts of my empire. Even when I tell them not to do it. I mean once again the diplomacy needs to be beefed up. I really want to be able to tell a AI Civ if they do A) then B) (in this case war) will result.

 

[trueblue]

Dudes, i repeat, automating workers has been a bad idea in any incarnation of the series.

 

[Polish]

Agreed, I never automate workers.

On the subject of workers v workboats, I guess that the time spent creating the single use workboat is what you pay instead of taking turns to develop the sea resource. The land workers you take the time to build can be used over and over again, so it takes time to develop the resource or tile. Comparing them is really comparing apples and oranges. The different uses have never bothered me. The idea of reusable workboats is another whole discussion.

 

[b.dorrell]

Manually controlling workers can get to tedious, and even error prone when you miss tiles that should obviously be developed.
I would like to see more automation options.
A simply option would be to prevent workers from leaving the current zone of control they happen to be in. This would stop automated workers running/swimming madly between two or more disjoint zones.

I more complex option for the programers amongst us would be to have tweakable AI scripts for workers.

 

[cman2010]

very good idea,
makes me wonder, why those well paid take2 didn't come with it.

next step could be getting rid of workers completely
because of you think about it, they add nothing to game but more MM, and occasionall abuse of AI by early steal, or having to protect your workers.

the actuall distance movement management isnť so important and could be balanced out

take2 cant comeup with anything usefull.