How long do you take.....?

[morgan]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

Hello

A difficult one to answer this but I tend to automate my workers and still
at times find that the game takes a phenomenal amount of time to play to
completion, usually with me losing but that is another story.

But having read that some players manually assign tasks to their workers I
am wondering with that sort of micro-management how much longer does this
add to your gameplay, in time...? I have tried to play a game using manual
control and apart from not being very good at prioritising the tasks for
them I am amazed at the considerable time spent doing this and I soon tire
of it.

For those that enjoy the micro-management how much does this, when you have
the skill to understand what you are doing, improve things over and above
automating the workers..?

--
Regards

Morgan

Hard drive problems...
www.flyinglizard.freeserve.co.uk

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

I have never automated my workers - they never do what needs doing that
way!

I don't find that it adds too much time to the game - Micromanaging
cities is much more time consuming. Even with *huge* team of workers,
on any given turn only a few of them are going to need managing. I
like to have my guys work in teams, so they get things done faster.
With 9 workers, you can fully upgrade a city area in just a few turns
(depending on your era, obviously.)

Also, you can more directly target the needs of your civ - I've noticed
that the automated workers often will spend years roading and
irrigating desert, because it's closest to them, while cities nearby
are starving because of lack of irrigation.

Worker management is one of the keys to this game. I think you'll find
you do much better by not automating your workers.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

I use a mix and match strategy. I start with 100% manual control, and
quickly automate more and more. I am often at about 98% automation by
the time I'm 30% through the game (except when connecting cities with
railways).

> But having read that some players manually assign tasks to their
workers I
> am wondering with that sort of micro-management how much longer does
this
> add to your gameplay, in time...?

I usually group workers in 2 or 3 stacks of about 8 and:

1. connect cities by roads/railroads (stacks of 3 for plains/grassland)
2. build mines in my 2 to 5 largest cities that will produce wonders,
or expensive units.
3. irrigate cities that really need food
4. build mines in cities that really need production
6. repeat 1,3, and 4 each time a new city is built

Once these objectives are met, I 'Automate Without Altering' (Shift+A)
workers for the rest of the game; interrupting their automation only to
respond to emergencies, or -- at times -- to develop new cities,
especially if they are border cities that need to be producing slow
ground units.

> I have tried to play a game using manual
> control and apart from not being very good at prioritising the tasks
for
> them I am amazed at the considerable time spent doing this and I soon
tire
> of it.

With C3C and the stack-move ability (shift+J), it's not so bad manually
moving workers, and it VERY worth it. This is how the pyramids were
built, right?

> For those that enjoy the micro-management how much does this, when
you have
> the skill to understand what you are doing, improve things over and
above
> automating the workers..?

It makes a tremendous difference, because of the stupidity of worker AI
that others have pointed out. With the compromise I have laid out, I
think you only spend an hour or two more per game managing workers.
Course that's probably wishful thinking

 

[daran]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 20:45:34 -0000 Morgan <morgan@home.net> wrote in message
<cpd1tj$dne$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>...

> Hello
>
> A difficult one to answer this but I tend to automate my workers and still
> at times find that the game takes a phenomenal amount of time to play to
> completion, usually with me losing but that is another story.
>
> But having read that some players manually assign tasks to their workers I
> am wondering with that sort of micro-management how much longer does this
> add to your gameplay, in time...?...

I don't know, because I never play without micromanaging everything.

My games last over 100 hours.

> --
> Regards
>
> Morgan

--
Daran

The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that
English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words;
on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them
unconscious and riffle their pockets for new vocabulary. -- James D. Nicoll

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On 10 Dec 2004 13:32:13 -0800, Kalea <kalea@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I have never automated my workers - they never do what needs doing that
> way!

Well, I do later in the game, but at first I'll usually have 'em
connect roads from city to city, top priority. Then I'll let 'em
go on their own for a while, until I get railroads, and then they all
get drafted to make the main artery from end to end, and then branch
out to the rest of the cities on that continent. After that, they're
on their own again. Eventually, they all hang out in the cities,
drinking and playing cards, until pollution shows up for them to clean
up.

> I don't find that it adds too much time to the game - Micromanaging
> cities is much more time consuming. Even with *huge* team of workers,
> on any given turn only a few of them are going to need managing. I
> like to have my guys work in teams, so they get things done faster.
> With 9 workers, you can fully upgrade a city area in just a few turns
> (depending on your era, obviously.)

What I don't like about automating them entirely is that they'll only put
two workers on a square. So, you have 32 jungle squares each with 1/16th
of it cleared per turn, instead of getting 2 cleared per turn if you
stack the workers. Takes same total time, but doing it with bigger stacks
gets workable land earlier.

> Also, you can more directly target the needs of your civ - I've noticed
> that the automated workers often will spend years roading and
> irrigating desert, because it's closest to them, while cities nearby
> are starving because of lack of irrigation.

Yeah, that's a wish for civ4, that the workers automation would be
smarter. If this city has a pop of 2, don't work all the squares around
it while ignoring squares around a city of 16.

> Worker management is one of the keys to this game. I think you'll find
> you do much better by not automating your workers.

I'll try paying more attention to them too, thanks for the ideas.

Dave Hinz

 

[alex]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"Morgan" <morgan@home.net> wrote in message news:cpd1tj$dne$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Hello
>
> A difficult one to answer this but I tend to automate my workers and still
> at times find that the game takes a phenomenal amount of time to play to
> completion, usually with me losing but that is another story.
>
> But having read that some players manually assign tasks to their workers I
> am wondering with that sort of micro-management how much longer does this
> add to your gameplay, in time...? I have tried to play a game using manual
> control and apart from not being very good at prioritising the tasks for
> them I am amazed at the considerable time spent doing this and I soon tire
> of it.
>
> For those that enjoy the micro-management how much does this, when you have
> the skill to understand what you are doing, improve things over and above
> automating the workers..?

It's not really micromanaging, it is the game itself. Human beats AI because
human has strategic plan, and AI does not. Workers are not just an asset, they
are the tool to achieve your goal.

From the very beginning I set a sequence of goals, like
warrior, granary, settler, warrior, settler, temple....
second city, temple, the GL.....
third city, warrior....
and use every available worker to accomplish this plan. From my point of view
managing workers is an important part of the game, as they provide me a way of
achieving my goals.

Similar thing happens while in race for important Great Wonder. The workers
first keep the prebuilt wonder from overflowing and let food stock grow,
then, when the enabling technology is finally available, they replace
everything back with mines to speed up production.

There is also workers explosion between Steam Power and Sanitation. It is a
good idea to triple the number of workers, railroad everything, and join them
back to cities when hospitals are finally available. Timing is everything.

Does it take more time? No, in the end it doesn't. The trick is that your
civilization evolves much better and faster, so in the end you save time
when you finish off your enemies with superior overwhelming force. Your
people are happy, newly conquered cities celebrate, and you rejoice too.

Of course there are times when workers play no important role in your
strategy. At times like that treat them as such: automate your workers when
they are merely an asset.

 

[morgan]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

After reading through all of the replies I decided to start a game with a
determination to manually assign tasks to my workers. I have found an
immediate difference to the growth rate and speed of development of my
cities which hopefully gives me that all important advantage at the start of
the game, in terms of expansion, wonders etc etc etc.

I am actually finding it quite enjoyable and not as laboorious as I thought
that it would be and even though there is no doubt a lot that I still need
to learn about manually controlling them I can already appreciate the
difference that it seems to make.




--
Regards

Morgan

Hard drive problems...
www.flyinglizard.freeserve.co.uk

 

[Buck]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 20:45:34 -0000, "Morgan" <morgan@home.net> wrote:

>Hello
>
>A difficult one to answer this but I tend to automate my workers and still
>at times find that the game takes a phenomenal amount of time to play to
>completion, usually with me losing but that is another story.
>
>But having read that some players manually assign tasks to their workers I
>am wondering with that sort of micro-management how much longer does this
>add to your gameplay, in time...? I have tried to play a game using manual
>control and apart from not being very good at prioritising the tasks for
>them I am amazed at the considerable time spent doing this and I soon tire
>of it.
>
>For those that enjoy the micro-management how much does this, when you have
>the skill to understand what you are doing, improve things over and above
>automating the workers..?


It took about 23 hours on standard sized map and Monarch level to win
a RAR game with a Science Victory. I could have shaved off an hour or
two but I went to war with my largest competitor and decided to cut
him down to size (four cities remaining when I called for peace.)

My longest game I remember was over 60 hours, but I wasn't always
playing during that time. If I remember, I went out for a day and
left it on the screen ')

It isn't uncommon for my games to exceed 30 hours though.


Buck
--
For what it's worth.