What the Heck is Micromanagement anyway? And what can be done about it?

[Khan Quest]

A lot talk in the forum is about getting rid of Micromanagement, but what is it? The example that comes to mind is pollution, which most say they don’t like (at least in its present form) and that Firaxis will fix it. But what about it don’t you like? I’d like to see a thread where people cite specific details about what the consider micromanagement to be, and if possible pose to solutions for discussion.

Firaxis: Not to sound whiney, I just want to discuss the micromanagement aspects of the game. If we didn’t think the game was so great, we wouldn’t be here. Brown-nosing done,

I’ll go first…

Workers

When a new a game starts and I have a settler and a worker, this first worker is fun. He is immediately put to work on the best tile available, and in a few turns I see the benefits – one of my three vectors increases 50 to 100%! (E.g. two shields now instead of one). My worker continues to work the land with a few new assistants linking cities to iron, luxuries and each other.

By the time I have ten or so workers and/or several cities the work starts to become a chore. The tedium increases until Railroad is discovered. Then its fun again – Linking cities by rail, especially if war is raging; getting that production boost to key cities, perhaps the one building Darwin’s Voyage.

After the key cities are R/R’ed, and most the empire is linked, the tedium begins anew.

Pollution
I don’t mind the concept: As industry in your empire escalates unchecked, some tiles become super-fund sites. Its just the Whack-a-mole (as someone else so eloquently put it) clean-up is tedious. I always got the impression that the designers simply added pollution to give workers something to do late game.

Aside from the inefficiency, automating workers is OK except when they rush into newly acquired territory to improve tiles, only to get captured the next turn. Once an entire land mass is owned then automation is fine.

Conclusion
Using workers is fun when both their actions have significant impact and number of tasks to assign per turn is low.

Solutions
Some of this has been suggested before.

Group workers.
Allow workers to be grouped and used as a single unit. They could be somewhat amorphous: A group of six workers is ordered to build a road in a grassland. The player then is prompted with the option of doing something with the other three. If a worker stops in a tile with other workers, it could be automatically grouped. When an improvement is ordered, workers with the least movement left perform the task.

Add a self-preservation feature to workers.
They would stay far enough away from enemy borders to be out of reach of their fastest known unit. If they are working on a project and at the end of a turn and a barbarian is within range, you get prompted to move or protect them.

Military Units

Since it is rumored that Firaxis is going to significantly change the military I don’t have much to say.

Military activity is arguably the most fun part of the game. The only time it gets tedious for me is stack Vs. stack. I’ve played where the AI has sent in several stacks of 10 - 20 infantry, which required me to pound them with even more artillery, each turn.

Conclusion
Since military activity always has a significant impact on the game, it is always fun, except when the number of troops become overwhelming.

Solutions
Amorphous grouping as described above would help. I’d like redline his stack of defenders with my stack of bombardiers (and have any left over units available for other activity) then attack en masse with a stack of attackers.

City Management

Perhaps the complaint I’ve seen most is about managing the happy/unhappy ratio. I also find this tedious and often would rather adjust a few rioting cities after the fact, than to check each city at the end of each turn.

With small empires of just a few cities, watching when a city has one or two turn left until production is complete or growth will occur is good. As the empire grows, I am less and less likely to watch.

I think the AI does a very good job of suggesting the next production item. But sometimes it will ask me to build an aqueduct in a city whose population can never grow, or to build other improvements in cities whos corruption is so high and growth so slow as to never be worth the trouble.

Solutions
I’d like to see some sort of warning before a riot, whether it is with a message “Sire, a mob is gathering outside the palace” or happy/neutral/sad face above a city.

Tough luck if I don’t want to manage the production and growth of a city. This is what gives some players an edge against the AI and ought to be retained (any dissenting views?)

The AI could analyze the available and potential growth and production of city in deciding what to build. Maybe at easier levels this could be some sort of tutorial. A newbie clicks on a temple for production and a display explains that with a library already built, no regional cultural competition and six luxuries, the benefit (happiness & cultural) is rated a score of 3 (out of ten).

As suggested before, there could be build/management menus with items such as “copy city-name”, “fast growth”, “heavy production”, “military outpost”, “user-defined 1”.

Empire Management

Another big micromanagement complaint I’ve seen is having to open communications with each civ each turn to monitor tech level.

Haggling for the amount of gold when trading is fun early on, but late game when the amounts are in the thousands, it gets to be pain if you try squeeze out every last gold coin (like I always do).

Some have complained of having to adjust the sliders when 1 or 2 turns of research are left. To me, this only needs to done every several turns, and the effect is a significant gain in gold. I say leave this one alone.

Eight leader heads are all you can see at one time. It’s a hassle to switch through all civs to see their disposition and treaties.

Solution
Others have suggested some sort running update of tech levels and other world happenings (“Your Supreme Greatness, Paris has fallen to the Greeks”), be it a newspaper, advisor briefings, or whatever.

I have also read suggestions that you only get a limited number of tries when haggling. This would be very unrealistic. Such agreements are negotiated by bean-counting bureaucrats, irregardless of disposition all the time. Look at current rife between U.S. and North Korea. Talks have always been ongoing at some level.

I know it would require additional or less detailed graphics, but seeing all the leaders at once is a necessity.

 

[dh_epic]

On workers, I'd lean towards getting rid of movement points. Give them infinite movement, within your borders.

Workers can move anywhere within your culturally defined borders instantly. Automating workers really just makes them work on the next most important square of real estate, no matter where it is. (Assuming they don't have to, say, cross an ocean.)

For any job that you'd want to take outside your borders (e.g.: in enemy territory or neutral territory), there are multiple solutions. You could make a "battle engineer" unit who moves like traditional units. Or tie some engineering functions into other units -- like how Roman Legions in the Rise of Rome scenario can build roads. Or permit workers to leave your borders if they "piggyback" or are "escorted" by military units.

The whole issue of moving workers around only leads to more micromanagement as the game goes on, and more processing time. It also leads to pointless, mechanical thought, in a game where the player should be focusing on big creative vision.

 

[GeZe]

Worker Management:
I saw a preveiw of Empire Earth II and saw this great idea, I know its for an RTS, but it would work with Civilization really well also.

One of the consistent demands of RTS players has been to somehow reduce the ridiculous amount of micromanagement peasant/resource gathering units always seem to require. Various solutions to this problem have been tried -- most notably the "idle citizen" alerts that always seem to show up just when you're in middle of a crucial battle. Mad Doc, unsatisfied with any of the previous solutions, and worried that the large size of their maps would require the player to control dozens of citizens, instead decided to just do away with micromanagement altogether. Instead, you can use a "citizen manager" screen to run your economy form a macro level. Rather than telling individual citizens to "go here and mine that," this screen lists every resource in the game and how many citizens are working on gathering them. If you need to change, simply pick them up from one resource and drop them down on another. Their "real" counterparts will then shift themselves around on the map.

 

[GoodGame]

The worst micromanagement is the type where the player fights the interface, or even a cooperative AI, to get stuff done.

Basically like having to tell the same city to build the same unit every time.

From Rise of Nations, fighting the cooperative AI as to where the next city goes.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Maybe not much help, but SuperPower 2 lets you decide whether to palm off control to the computer in 3 key areas-Economics, Military or Politics. Any area you want to palm off is then managed by the computer-leaving you more 'resources' to deal with the other aspects.
As to workers, I still say that workers should be attached to cities (permanently), and that you move them around at the 'empire level'.
For instance, say you want to build a mine in the city radius of city A. You click the square and it will bring up a 'public works screen'. You click on the terrain improvement you want-paying the PW cost in the process-then adjust the number of workers you want to assign to the project-out of your nationwide pool. The more workers you assign, the less time the project takes to finish.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[dh_epic]

GeZe you raise an excellent example.

There will always be people pushing for the status quo. Most people who do well with the way things are will be against change. The idea you quoted on RTSes is brilliant. Stop micromanaging workers when they're idle, and simply macromanage them at a higher level. How could anyone be opposed to it?

I'll tell you how people could be opposed to it. People who say "but what about all the strategy involved in being able to manage your time effectively? You shouldn't punish players (me) who is organized enough to synchronize all their work perfectly!" To these people, micromanagement isn't just a skill, it's the entire point of the game.

I hated a lot of RTSes BECAUSE the emphasis was put on who can micromanage the best. For me, the best games were against people who weren't micromanagement machines. The best games were when we both got off to a relatively similar start, and with relatively similar sized armies, one person outsmarts the other with a more creative and intelligent strategy.

I like Civ the way it is, fortunately. I don't think it's as far backwards as a lot of RTSes. But we can do better.

 

[Hamshore]

I like to be able to manage workers around a city - that way you can maximise what you want that city to do (grow fast / lots of shield) etc - having some form of high level slider style control would remove that - but telling a worker what to do each time it finishes something else is borrrrrrring - and I don't like the automation functions (except irrigate / road to).

So how about the ability to stack worker orders (as can be done with city build) - i.e. clear this jungle, then road this square, then irrigate, then move to these hills, then build mine etc. It would mean you could plan worker actions and then let them get on with it?

 

[sir_schwick]

A graphic display of net happiness on the map and domestic advisor would be useful. The computer projects how many extra Happy faces you will have for next turn. If there would be no net happy faces, then a yellow question mark would appear there. Extra unhappy faces(disorder basically) would also be displayed here. You could easily check which cities will need happiness improvements in the future.

 

[Luthor_Saxburg]

1. City Management
An overall city management display is needed. It already exists for culture, but I would like to have one "advisor" where I can see ALL the buildings in the city, ALL the units, ALL the resources in the radius, if it has river or not, etc. And one we could also change things. So if I wanted to sell the granaries in all the cities, I would go to this view and just delete it from there!

2. Communication
I agree with Khan Quest. Being able to see all Civ's is a MUST, including all visible information (number of cities, resources that is within their boundaries, government type, technologies that they have, most advanced unit, etc)

3. Research
Apart from slower research, I think you should be able to pass the extra research points to the next research OR transfer it into money.

 

[dh_epic]

I do agree that there has to be better ways to display information on your empire. I think that this would do a lot to reduce some of the time wasted in between turns as you dig and dig and dig for a city that can do what you need in the time you need it, or cautiously search for a crisis, or an opportunity, or so forth.

 

[Slax]

Problem : micromanaging science rate, and worked tiles to minimize the lost beakers and shields upon completion of tech or build.

Possible Solution: carry over some portion of lost beakers and shields to next tech or build.

 

[sir_schwick]

Problem : micromanaging science rate, and worked tiles to minimize the lost beakers and shields upon completion of tech or build.

Best Solution:
Carry over all shields and flasks . To prevent abuse, excess sheilds can only survive one turn, that way you cannot build something really cheap in a 60 spt city and accumulate 300 shields in the excess pool. Also, if you would have that dilemna, there should be a query to where to send the excess shields.

 

[Dida]

They should get rid of workers entirely. I hate them, crowding my maps, takes so long to move around, take so much CPU power just to determine where the automated worker should go the next turn. They are stupid, and serve no purpose.
If you allow them to have infinite move, to be able to pop up anywhere within the player's border, then they are the same as public work system, where the player only put down where the project is going to be worked at, and some 'imaginary' workers will work on it.
I personally like the public work system much better, giving the player the ability to decide where exactly improvements are going to go, and yet at the same time minimized the need for micromanagement. Also solves the problem with infinite road/RR sprawl. Because tile improvement with workers are free, the only cost is the building of the worker unit themselve. With PW, each tile improvement will cost some product from you, making tile improvement more valuable and selective.

 

[Gregski]

My hope for worker management:

1. Enable worker groups (treat many workers as one superworker)
2. Ability to set them tasks in a sequence (build road, then mine, then move to tile 2, build road, build mine, then...)
3. Ability to add interrupt conditions like if there is pollution, clean it up then resume work
4. Ability to assign military units to guard workers

In a way micromanagement is good, the problem is when you have to keep remembering what you wanted to do.

 

[Dida]

There are just too many things to manage in civ, worker management an unfun and unnessceaary addition to an already overwhelming management problem.
Placing down PW tile improvements, and the abstraction is that some citizens from your empire is going to work on it. You have paid for their labor and raw material by using resource from the PW pool.
How many emporers and presidents would personally direct some construction crews, and be constantly telling them where to move and what to work on?
Plus, what is the worker unit? We can say that a bomber unit represents a bomber squadron from real life air force. Then, what does a worker unit represent? True, we have the army engineer corp, however, they only perform a few construction work, and never get themselves involved in such project like irrigating farm. Civil and many military construction works are done by contracted citizens, not some government owned units. So PW system not only reduces micromanagement, but is also more realistic.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I've said it before, and I will say it again!

1) You build workers still, but they are automatically assigned to a 'national labour pool'.

2) Captured workers/citizens/units of another civ can be made into 'prisoners', or added to your national 'slave pool'.

3) When you build infrastructure (mines, farms, roads rail etc), you pay a cost out of your PW budget for that job, and the job takes a SET # of turns.

4) In order to reduce the length of time an infrastructure project takes, you assign workers from your national labour pool-more workers=less time.

5) If a square containing an infrastructure project is overrun by an enemy unit, then there is a % chance that some or all of the workers on that project are captured.

6) Workers in your pool cost a certain amount of gold and food per turn, based on your national wages and rations setting. Slaves cost no gold and half rations to support. In addition, you can increase the 'work rate' of either your slaves or your workers, but this will make them unhappy.

So, workers as a unit are retained, but the boredom of moving them arround and giving them tasks every other turn is all but eliminated!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[dh_epic]

I'm with Aussie on this one. You build workers -- so those who take the time to build more of them reap the benefits of an infrastructure much faster. And the workers do appear on the tiles they're working on, so the enemy does know where to find worthy slaves.

BUT -- workers move anywhere within your borders instantaneously. No more movement-points micromanagement. You literally point and click and an improvement (road, mine, irrigation) is queued up for your worker pool to handle it.

Besides less micromanagement, the most important side effect of this:
<b>There becomes less of a difference between automation and doing it yourself.</b>

(Right now the main reason you micromanage workers is to plot safer, more efficient paths than the AI. No more paths reduces much of that need, too.)

 

[Dida]

Your model would have easily be simulated by having a 'rush' feature on PW system. To build some tile improvement faster, the player can specify in how many turns he want the improvement to be done, or simply click the 'Rush' button. Some amount of gold will be required to do this. If a square containing an infrastructure project is overrun by an enemy unit, then there is a % chance that some or all of the raw material (represented in the form of PW points) will be gained by your enemy.
Therefore, having worker unit in additon to PW in the way your just say is completely unnesscarry. It adds nothing to the game, and yet is more complicating then it needs to be.
However, I would support Sea engineer and Army Engineer type of unit, which is used to build highly sophisticated and not public work style construction, such as a naval base, airbase, deep sea drilling platform or for any construction work on enemy terroritory.
By getting rid of worker units from the map, it will certainly clear up the map greatly, reducing the amount of units that will be present at any given time. By eliminating the need for the CPU to determine 'where and which worker unit to be sent to work on what', it will undoubtly speed up time between any two turns and attribute to enhanced system performance. By freeing the player from having to rely on 'automation' in the late game (when amount of workers becomes overwhelming to manage manually) it enables the player to take personal control of tile improvement within his empire, and yet w/o too much micromanagement. Just like a national leader, the player would decide where to build what improvement, and set the deadline for completion, but do not give out task and instruction to individual construction crew.

 

[Dida]

Aussie_Lurker's idea of worker is similiar to the way CTP handled Caravan unit. The player builds a caravan, but instead of getting an unit, he gets a 'point'. The amount of trade route he can set up is limited by the amount of caravans he has.
So the amount of PW work that can be worked on, (or speeded up) is depending on the amount of worker point we have? This is completely unrealistic.
First of all, as I said, the worker unit itself doesn't make any sense. Unless they represent slaves, I can't imagine what the worker unit can represent. Countries don't build worker units, they are citizens who's willing to work on the governmental project, not some government owned units.
Secondly, there are always enough worker to work on all governmental project at once, unless the country has ridiculously small population. To limit the amount of PW project that can be worked on is ridiculous. This doesn't add any depth to the game, it simply add a thing for the play to build, which can be easily simulated.
By making the player pay extra gold for rushing a PW project, it effectively simulates the effect that if the player want to build his project quickly, he simply spends more money to hire more worker to work on it.

 

[rhialto]

I think PW system is teh best idea. However, we can add worker units to that. A worker unit can do the following:

1 - build certain specialised improvements (forts, airbases, radar towers, etc)
2 - allow construction of regular PW on the tile they are on. They cannot move for the duration.
3 - rush any PW construction within your borders.