Too much micromanagement?

[Howser]

I miss an option making it possible for your factories and plants to make some decisions of their own.

When you have several big islands with many production lines, it's pretty tedious making them sleep and waking them up depending on the levels of goods in the warehouse. If the warehouse is already full with lumber, the lumberjacks ought to realize this and put them self to sleep(!) and reactivating once the supply drops below a certain level.

The ships on your trading routes should not continue doing their route when no goods are being delivered but could instead assist on another trading route nearby, or return to the nearest friendly port for repairs.

All this and more could be done with some kind of governor that could be researched after a certain level of development, or possible hired from the queen.

[Dobber]

Maybe some of this is designed to perhaps force you to be more diligent with your management and not have so many foresters that they fill up the warehouse. And the trade route suggestion you made would add to much complexity to the internal programming of the trade route feature. You should adjust your trade route to work more efficiently!

[Howser]

After playing for a while and having a prosperous community, it would make much more sense that you (the leader) also develop and should focus more on warfare, which islands to colonize, how to keep good relations with the queen and other cultures than telling lumberjacks what to do.

[Moryarity]

Well it is a game for development and strategy...comparing to the previous Anno, micrmanagement has been reduced quiet a lot...but there has to be some challenge for the player, to keep ALL his activities in mind, not only some (like the Queen) :go:

[Howser]

I'm still loving the game, being able to change focus would make it even better. :go:

[Toccatta]

I agree with Howser. I think there's a lot of room for some simple automation to increase the fun (or rather, to decrease the annoyance). There's also a precedent for it already in the game.

If you look at the shipyard, in addition to the raw materials needed to build a ship, there's also an operating expense. When the shipyard isn't currently building a ship, it automatically puts itself into sleep mode to conserve operating expenses.

Consider the smelter. It requires wood and iron ore, but wood isn't part of the finished product. That makes wood another operating expense. If the whole point was to make the player constantly leap from one industry to the next making simple decisions that the shop foreman should be making, then why does the shop foreman put out the fire when he runs out of ore or has a full warehouse? If the foreman of the smelter and master shipbuilder are smart enough to reduce their operating expenses when their shops aren't busy working, then why isn't anyone else smart enough to reduce their expenses when they're not producing??

Here's my suggestion: instead of having two operating costs, have three. Currently, the only two modes are "full production" and "sleep". The game should also have a "reduced production" mode.

1) While a shop is producing goods, it should have the full production cost. All the employees are working, and all the operating costs are in effect because the shop is producing. This should be the mode no matter how "efficient" the shop is. Whether it's running at 175% or 10%, if the shop is producing, it should be in full production mode.

2) If the shop has a full warehouse or has run out of supplies, it should go into "reduced production" mode and cost less to run (2/3 normal cost). This would simulate the fact that the shop isn't spending the same amount of money they would to actually produce goods, but still keeps some of the employees on hand to check stock and be available in case someone shows up with more materials or to allow the market carts to pick up supplies. It isn't spending as much, but there are still significant expenses.

3) If the player decides to put the shop into sleep mode, it costs even less to run (1/3 normal cost). This simulates the fact that the employees have been sent home. There is nobody standing around to see if supplies have arrived, and nobody to let the market wagons in to collect goods or start up the production when there is room in the internal warehouse. Everyone's on vacation. It's spending a LOT less, but there are still minimal upkeep expenses, since even a non-operational shop needs preventative maintenance.

I think a setup like that would still reward the player for being diligent without punishing the player too much for overbuilding. Since it's virtually impossible to have the exact number of shops needed by your population, you will ALWAYS be in a condition where you're either overproducing or underproducing a needed supply. The fact that supply and demand fluctuates isn't an issue of bad planning, but an inherent aspect of the game that the designers intentionally included. You shouldn't punish the player for it or make it sound like the player's a slacker if he isn't constantly tweaking his shops to produce the precise amount his people need.

[Flying Dutchman]

If you would own a shop, would you close it if you had no goods coming in, knowing that you'd still be payd?

Personally, i find this to be a key element to the game, the need to constantly balance production with usage. It wouldnt be the same game without it.

[Toccatta]

If you would own a shop, would you close it if you had no goods coming in, knowing that you'd still be payd?

Personally, i find this to be a key element to the game, the need to constantly balance production with usage. It wouldnt be the same game without it.

It depends on how much a person's self-respect is worth. In my case, the answer is: yes, I would.

Let me respond to your question with another: Would you honestly demand to be paid the same thing for doing absolutely nothing like a lazy sod?

Each person has their own opinion. I accept that you would rather run around and micromanage every single establishment to maximize your profit (as the player). However, if you actually READ my suggestion instead of casually dismissing it, you'll see that it's still quite possible, as there is still an incentive to micromanage your shops. It just isn't as punishing if you should choose not to.

[Moryarity]

I guess, this is in fact a mayor problem between American and European gaming.

A lot of European gamers think, that micromanagment of the game has been reduced too much (and that this happened to please the american way of gaming)..and still it seems, that you think there is too much micrmanagment...but..well..it is a game..if all the dicisions I can make are made by the computer..where is the fun in playing the game?!? :scratch:...if the computer is makng the decision, which facility will produce and which not..why playing the game..then I could also just start a simulation, that works totally without my influence :scratch:

[Toccatta]

I guess, this is in fact a mayor problem between American and European gaming.

A lot of European gamers think, that micromanagment of the game has been reduced too much

Which is precisely why my suggestion allows the player to still gain a benefit from CHOOSING to micromanage while allowing the player to not be punished so harshly by CHOOSING not to.

Another major problem between gamers is that some gamers seem to think that taking choices and options away from the player actually improves gameplay, while others think you can improve a game by giving players MORE options.

You talk as if my suggestion lets the computer make all the decisions, but isn't that exactly what you're doing by not allowing the gamer to make that choice? Whether you force the player to micromanage or prevent the player from micromanaging, either way, you've taken the choice away from the gamer and allowed the computer to make the decision for them.

[Toccatta]

Yet here you are with a suggested redesign which would require a garboon of high cost coding for a relatively minor improvement.

Sorry, but I don't see the world as you do. :sad:

Obviously not. The game already has a divider to reduce the cost when in sleep mode. A coder changes the byte from "2" to "3" and suddenly it only costs a third to be in sleep mode instead of a half. That takes, what.. two seconds?

And the same code that throws up the exclamation point over the building (the "problem flag" you refered to) multiplies the operating cost by two thirds. As a coder, I could make the changes in less than five minutes if I had the source, since it wouldn't require any special visual effects or voice acting modifications.

A garboon of high cost coding? Hardly. Yet we do agree on one thing. We obviously don't see the world through the same eyes. Given that the staff of the site are actually ASKING for suggestions on how to improve the game for the first update, I don't see why you have a problem with me posting what even you consider a "well thought out suggestion".

[Sir Gawain]

Well...I suppose a "smart management" option could be made available in the options menu. I think what is being suggested here, is that for a production facility that costs 50 when it's running...and 20 when it's shut down...could cost something like 35 when it's not producing anything but is still active. I don't see the harm in desiring an option like that...but I don't think it's all that necessary either. Although it could save you a bit of money at times.

In past versions, I always made sure that I had things running like clockwork before engaging in any military movement. But from what I've read in the forum so far regarding the management required to deal with AI opponents on higher difficulty levels in 1701, an option like that mentioned above could be helpful, without detracting from the production management aspect of the game.

Just my 2 cents.:silly:

[TheBogNug]

A coder changes the byte from "2" to "3"

So are you saying that by turning on the least significant bit you could solve this problem? Of course by using "'s maybe you mean that by making the byte 00110010 into 00110011? :silly:

[Toccatta]

Once again as with so many game discussion boards, appears a coder who can do wonders with redoing a game - IF I HAD THE SOURCE. And you could guarantee that your changes would not have any effect otherwise. But what is this about no special visual effect for your changes? You will give no signal to the player about the automatic "reduced production mode"?

You got it mister -- carry on and good luck!

:go:

As an active game modder, yes.. I not only could, but I have. I've both written and modified game code. In games that are designed to allow for easy modification, access to the source isn't necessary. For games that aren't designed for user modification, it is. Not everyone that posts to this forum is a youngster with more coding ego than experience. Some people that post to this forum have had more years of experience working with computers than many of the members have even been alive!

And as to giving a signal to the player, no I wouldn't. There's no need to. That wonderful "problem" flag that you were touting earlier would BE the signal that the shop was in reduced production mode. That's already what it does, so why on earth should something extra be necessary?

If you don't like the idea, that's fine. But keep your arrogant assumptions to yourself.

[TheBogNug]

Not everyone that posts to this forum is a youngster with more coding ego than experience. Some people that post to this forum have had more years of experience working with computers than many of the members have even been alive!

:rolleyes:

Of course this statement combined with your previous one does reek of someone who has more coding ego than experience. As far as the idea goes, I'm not too concerned either way, but I do get tired of stupid comments about how easy change 'x' should be. You people make my life hell.

The game already has a divider? More likely there is a table of costs in different modes. I could be wrong, but it would provide more flexibility in balancing different buildings. Especially since currently the costs are all multiples of 5's. Dividing by 2 and rounding down to the nearest multiple of 5 would be too time consuming. (or multiplying by 0.5...)

If there is a table of values for the different states than adding an extra setting for a different operating cost would require changes and setting of values for every building in the game.

And of course, it might not be done this way either. Maybe different buildings have a different sleep modifier. Of course, again, you'd have to modify all the buildings to have 3 not just one. I guess you could create one modifier to modify the modifier. Of course, who knows how well that'd work?

Heck, maybe they just hacked it together and hardcoded the values in there for each building. You'd be hunting all over the place changing values then.

All in all though, I doubt that this simple change that would take 5 minutes, would really take 5 minutes.

[Toccatta]

:rolleyes:
All in all though, I doubt that this simple change that would take 5 minutes, would really take 5 minutes.

Perhaps not. It might actually require changing numbers on a lookup table. However, I'd point out that using a lookup table to determine a cost would be more computationally expensive than a simple math function. So if that's the way they did it, it's not MY idea that's cpu unfriendly.

But that's neither here nor there. While it might take more than 5 minutes, I seriously doubt it would take "a garboon of high cost coding" whatever that is. Compared to some of the other suggestions that aren't drawing such flack, it wouldn't take nearly the coding to accomplish.

The idea was a suggestion for something that I thought would improve the game. Like it or don't. Say you think it would be a good idea or a bad one. That's fine, and it's anyone's prerogative. But don't say it isn't possible or that it's prohibitively costly to make such a minor tweak. That's simply not true.

[Dobber]

The primary focus of the game is managing the economy, alway has been with the Anno series. War is and always has been a secondary feature.
If you automate all the production facilities to shut themselves down when not producing and starting themselves back up when their product has been picked up, you have then turned the management of the economy over to the computer, thus defeating the the objective of the game. If you are producing to much, then get rid of one or more of the facilities so that you have a constant flow. Learn how to manage the economy without having to let the computer do it for you. This game does not need a failsafe to protect you from your own mismanagement. Hey I'm gonna go over here and slap down about ten of these faclities, if that is too many, no worry, the computer will slow down production for me and save ny butt.
You say you shouldn't be punished for mismanagement, what happens in real life when you mismanage? You get punished for it, you lose your butt!

You talk as if my suggestion lets the computer make all the decisions, but isn't that exactly what you're doing by not allowing the gamer to make that choice? Whether you force the player to micromanage or prevent the player from micromanaging, either way, you've taken the choice away from the gamer and allowed the computer to make the decision for them.

Your suggestions place a lot of the decision making with the computer. And no, your being forced to micromanage is not allowing the computer to make decisions for you. The computer is not building too many production facilities, the computer does not tell you how many of anything to build. You are the one making the decisions, you are the one that decides how many foresters you are going to have, you make the decision to build each and every thing and where it is being built. You should be responsible for your building actions and suffer the consequences should those actions be wrong, not have your butt saved by the computer.

The idea was a suggestion for something that I thought would improve the game. Like it or don't. Say you think it would be a good idea or a bad one. That's fine, and it's anyone's prerogative. But don't say it isn't possible or that it's prohibitively costly to make such a minor tweak. That's simply not true.

Yes your idea was a suggestion for improving the game, and should have been made in the suggestion thread. Instead it was made here in the micromanagement thread which makes it fair game for being picked apart.

[Toccatta]

Thank you. I disagree with your position, but I appreciate the fact that you actually commented on my suggestion and not the technical problems associated with implementing it.

[TheBogNug]

Tocatta you brought up the technical 'byte' and 5 minute change issues I was addressing... I would've stayed out except for that... but anyway...

Maybe there are better options to explore related to this problem as opposed to have the computer handle the management.

For example, you can look at the warehouse and see by the bars which goods are filling up. Suppose there was a little snooze button next to the goods on this screen that would shut down production of all the facilities on the island associated with producing those goods? Instead of manually selecting each building and turning them off, you could just shut down all of them on the island. This would still require management on the part of the user, and not change any costs, and still provide for the current method where you might want to only turn a couple of them off.

Another idea would be a double click on a building selects all buildings of that type on the island, a click on the snooze would turn all on/off.

[Toccatta]

No, actually I didn't bring it up. It was a response to someone else saying what an incredibly huge amount of costly coding time such a change would require. Had someone not gone off on how much Sunflowers resources would be consumed by my suggestion, I wouldn't have mentioned it either. Honestly, I would really rather not argue about whether or not the idea is prohibitively costly for Sunflowers to implement. I'm sure they're quite capable of making that decision on their own. I'd much rather talk about whether or not it's a worthwhile idea. Positive or negative, I can appreciate the input.

As to your suggestion, shift-click on the snooze button already does that.