What\'s your micromanagement tolerance level?
 

I've owned SEIV for a while, and I've rarely felt like there was a whole lot of micromanaging involved. The two situations where I've been overwhelmed were when I was just trying to learn the game, and whenever I take over for a player on PBW who happens to have a fair sized empire.

Recently SEIV seems to be getting quite a bit of attention, and I've heard people repeatedly make the claim that SEIV is micromanagement hell. Yet my experience seems to be rather different, so I decided I should start this poll to figure out where I stand.

Additional questions listed below.
1) Does SEIV involve a lot of micromanaging?
2) Does SEIV feel like there's a lot of micromanaging involved?
3) Does anybody happen to know of a computer game that involves more micromanaging than SEIV?

Re: What\'s your micromanagement tolerance level?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. Yes to some degree, but it is well balanced.
2. Depends upon the player. I do not believe so.
3. BOTF - Rebellion - Stars

I think the people who never really played the game are simply repeating reviews they have read whereas the reviewer only played the demo for an hour or so and had stated that it was a "spread sheet" micro-managment game from hell. The real game reviewers, the people who know and play 4 X games, rated SEIV very highly and consider the micromanagment level of the game to be well balanced. I agree.

What I have discovered is that people who started playing Moo, then Moo2 and the Civ games have a certain expectation of "Automated Managment" and are fearful of having to think about doing things. One person posted at the Moo3 forum that the game was so full of micromanagment that the carries did not "automatically" replenish there fighters after combat. Nor did the game automatically build fighters to fill the carriers. The fact that he had to do this automatically seemed like micromanagment from hell to him. I find this level of player involvement draws the player into the game, and gives the game a more real feel. I like the idea that I need to think about such things as ensuring that my carriers and ships are stocked and in good operation. Then again, I can easily assign a Minister to do that for me if I did not want to worry about it, but what fun would that be?

In an earily game, you want to have control, it is why you play these types of games.

I have played a micromanagment game from hell and it was named Birth Of The Federation. I have played the latest game, Masters Of Orion III, which is on the other end of the spectrum.

In all I have played just about all of the 4x games out with the noteable exception of SE III, and in all of those games, I found SEIV to be the most balanced when it came to Micromanagment.

I do not agree that the game is bogged down by micromanagment, and would argue that fact to any one who believes so.

[ March 07, 2003, 11:17: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Re: What\'s your micromanagement tolerance level?
 

I am a big fan of the Civilization series of games. (I will include Alpha Centauri) in that mix. In the original Civ played under DOS, I don't remember there being any sort of queue. Please correct me if I'm wrong. In that game, you could eventually end up with dozens and dozens of cities, and you would have to tell them what to buld each and every time they finished building something. To me, that is micromanagement hell. Don't get me wrong. I loved that game. But it *was* quite tedious after a while.

Was it Civ II that first introduced build queues? I think build queues are awesome. Now, you can plan out the next 'x' number of things you are going to build. This way, you still have all the control you desire but don't have to, in my mind, micro manage the "heck" out of the game.

Wasn't it Civ II that also introduced the ability to set your city on different tracks? That also was a neat feature. I must admit that I never used it because I preferred to specify what each city was building. Now, if I could have had the ability to specify what buildings in what order were build by each "minister", I would have loved that. Well... they added that in a later patch. You could edit a text file and determine what to build and when. I never used that but I applaud them for adding in.

Now, let's fast forward to MOO3. There are MANY, MANY buildings that you absolutely cannot build yourself. Speaking in SEIV terminology, each planet has a specific number of facility slots. In MOO3, there are a number of facility-enhancing buildings that can be stacked on top of those facility slots. In MOO3, you have no control over when and how those are built--even through the use of the empire-wide, macro-management development plans. To me, this is WAY too little control.

Through the use of Development plans implemented at the empire level, you *can* specify what "facilities" to build on a planet. That is a neat sort of feature that *might* be nice for a game such as SEV.

Another example of over "macro"-izing the game is how it allocates resources to new planets. In SEIV, when you start a new planet, population doesn't affect the initial production rate like it always has in the Master of Orion series of games. In MOO1 and MOO2, you could move population from your "average" worlds to your best, high mineral production worlds. But in MOO3, there just doesn't seem to be any way to do that.

Because MOO3 requires "money" to build anything, a new colony cannot do any building without a substantial amount

Re: What\'s your micromanagement tolerance level?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That pretty much describes how I do things except I still double check. I start with the log then go through each and every system, first ships and units, then planets. 90% of the time, that's all it is, a check, a reassurance. But sometimes I'll see that I'm still building that old satellite and change it to the new model or put a hold on that monolith 2 because monoliths 3 will be available next turn.
After the systems review, I check each screen: planets, colonies, ships, construction, empire status, research, the log again (for diplomatic responses) and finally the other empires. Amazing how often that check through the screens catches something I missed earlier. I know my thoroughness would drive most of you bonkers, but I love it! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Kim

Re: What\'s your micromanagement tolerance level?
 

Hmmm 1st post did not post http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif I do not have a problem with running it untill late in game then I still "micromanage" it the AI is for a lack of other words dumb and makes silly moves so I will keep going this way and enjoying the game, I have used the ministers a few time to try them and will run the normal way one turn at a time http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: What\'s your micromanagement tolerance level?
 

Must be me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I love micromanagement of SEIV. I wouldn't have it any other way. I wouldn't mind if there was more actually. But right now it is a good level and balanced ver well.
Oh and ministers suck! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: What\'s your micromanagement tolerance level?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hey and what happened to my post?? Also based on a quote it looks like StoneMill posted here and I don't see his post http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif

Re: What\'s your micromanagement tolerance level?
 

I think the 'tolerance level' of anyone for micromanagement will be the point where they can't remember what they are doing in various places all over the empire and start to forget/lose track of things. This is different for different people.

Some changes/additions to the SE IV interface would make management of your empire easier. More ways to select Groups of colonies and issue orders to them. More 'divisions of labor' in the ministers so you can hand smaller tasks over to them. I'd really like to let the AI scan for intruders in my systems and send warnings to leave. But I have to turn on the Politics minister to do that, and that also agrees or breaks treaties! I can't let the AI run my foreign relations, so I can't get any help in watching the borders. Bummer. Seperate ministers for these things would be very nice. Similarly, I'd like the AI mines/satellites minister to maintain mine fields or sat Groups that I create, but NOT create new ones. Not available, so I have to leave the minister off to keep it from wasting mines and sats in places I don't want them used. Hmm. Nicest of all would be in the AI defense minister could be told to keep a fleet to a specific 'area' of action. To defend only certain systems, in other words. Instead the AI will go running all over the place once you give it control of a ship or fleet. Being able to tell a specific fleet to 'stay in this system, defend only THESE systems' would be a big help.

[ March 07, 2003, 19:14: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Re: What\'s your micromanagement tolerance level?
 

I think the current is not bad, but could use a few refinements to improve it, like most have suggested already.

I think it would be interesting if resources were consumed on a system-per-system level, i.e., whatever you build in that system comes from resources in that system. You could then have transports and stuff, but that might get a little too much work in a large empire unless it was automated...

Re: What\'s your micromanagement tolerance level?
 

I like the micromanagement. I don't want any games that (as said in another post) "you click 'end turn' until you've won" or something like that.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif In fact, it makes great gameplay (IMO) when I miss something on my Last turn and it takes me a few turns to adapt (forget to restock carriers, etc) - makes it more realistic.

Yeah, end game turns take a while, but thats why I bought the game and takes up +90% of my gaming time....