Growth - should it be related to food

[frenzyfol]

Growth - should it be related to food?
Sure in the old days a surplace of food would result in a growing population. But here in Australia and in Japan there is a surplace of food yet those populations are decreasing.


Anyone got any thoughts, or can point me to a previous similar discussion on the subject

[GePap]

Growth should be based on real world formulas, with the avilability of food being one of the factors, but not the only one, You should be able to outpace your food supply as your population grows-and thus causing instability.

[DarkCloud]

Personally, I would, for simplicitys sake go with the historical factor of growth being directly related to the proportion of arable land. Those lands with more avaliable food had larger populations than those which did not.

I see no reason to reflect solely modern effects of birth-control in the game as such... since it appears that would merely be adding complexity needlessly.

[Fosse]

Let food influence growth, but not in the linear and unrealistic way it does in Civ.

A city's economy has no effect at all on its rate of growth, but many cities grew overnight in what would be Civ 3 terms... the reason for that was trade much more than nearby fields.

Food should be something that you provide for the many people who choose to live in your city, not the only reason tha they are there.

I'm entirly with GePap on this one.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

I think that, based on what I see in the real world, population growth should be in part inversely proportional to a city's wealth. Just have a look at some of the poorest cities in the world, and you see that they also have VERY high population growths as well!
In addition, it should be possible to alter population growth through social engineering.
For instance, you should be able to set a base 'fertility' rate, from 0-4. Also, the more secular your society, the lower the base fertility rate will be. Lastly, the amount of money you assign to education/science, welfare and health will also impact population growth. Of course, this all comes together with both food and available fresh water to determine TOTAL population growth!
Anyway, I know it might seem a little complex, but it would at least be more realistic-and might put an end to 'rexing' by simply maxing out on food production!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[Panag]

hi ,

yes


and food should become a trade item , .... so we can trade food from wealthy areas to unwealthy , .....

during war if the lines are cut over land like we have now over the sea the city should get no food , ....

have a nice day

[GePap]

Food needs to be a commodity to be traded certainly. Growth of cities should be based on its trade levels, or by government policy and of course technology levels which set the rates of mortality rates and fertility rates.

For examples, we use simple formulas to say population growth for the Civ should be X (based on fertility rates and given population (% in childbearing age)). That is modified by the mortality rate for that area (which can be set by geography, plus normal rates of disease given the level of tech) and then trade levels -do people leave the city, or do people move into the city becuase it is a large trading center?

Which one, should not be very difficult at all to program, anymore than any other formulas. That forces the player to manage his food more carefully, since some cities, simply by virtue of being important trade centers-so then you get situations like with Rome, of having to feed the masses of risk riots.

Ways population growth are affected are:
Lower fertility rates (educate women specifically)
Lower mortality rates (better health systems)
Change trade levels (ban movement into a city, ban immigration, put limits on internal migration-all of which make it easier to manage populationns, but at an economic and stability cost)
Forceably move people (create new cities, forced migrations)

[asleepathewheel]

yes

[Panag]

Originally posted by GePap
Food needs to be a commodity to be traded certainly. Growth of cities should be based on its trade levels, or by government policy and of course technology levels which set the rates of mortality rates and fertility rates.

For examples, we use simple formulas to say population growth for the Civ should be X (based on fertility rates and given population (% in childbearing age)). That is modified by the mortality rate for that area (which can be set by geography, plus normal rates of disease given the level of tech) and then trade levels -do people leave the city, or do people move into the city becuase it is a large trading center?

Which one, should not be very difficult at all to program, anymore than any other formulas. That forces the player to manage his food more carefully, since some cities, simply by virtue of being important trade centers-so then you get situations like with Rome, of having to feed the masses of risk riots.

Ways population growth are affected are:
Lower fertility rates (educate women specifically)
Lower mortality rates (better health systems)
Change trade levels (ban movement into a city, ban immigration, put limits on internal migration-all of which make it easier to manage populationns, but at an economic and stability cost)
Forceably move people (create new cities, forced migrations)

hi ,

yes

and it should be affected by trade embargoes , war , etc , .....

disease can break out during war , food can get spoiled , ....

have a nice day

[frenzyfol]

Interesting stuff,
btw what is rexing?
Ive only civd 1 vs the computer and ctpd a couple of times so excuse my noobness

[Panag]

Originally posted by frenzyfol
Interesting stuff,
btw what is rexing?
Ive only civd 1 vs the computer and ctpd a couple of times so excuse my noobness

hi ,

REX = rapid expansion

MEX = modest expansion

what it means , well spit out settlers and try to grab what you can asap , ....

below is the search , it will give you more insight ;

>>>> http://www.apolyton.net/forums/searc...der=descending <<<<


have a nice day

[Sir Og]

Growth should only be capped by food. As in moo2. There should be a number of factors determining growth like happiness, available free sqwares, technological advances (medicine, genetic engineering, etc.) and social engineering settings.

I also think that there should be some sort of internal (and probaly external also) migration of population that would lead to faster growing big cities, that attract population from smaler not so developed cities.

And finaly I think that food should be like gold income i.e. it should be collected to a single pool and distributed to each pop unit in the cities across the entire civ.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Sir Og
Growth should only be capped by food. As in moo2. There should be a number of factors determining growth like happiness, available free sqwares, technological advances (medicine, genetic engineering, etc.) and social engineering settings.

I also think that there should be some sort of internal (and probaly external also) migration of population that would lead to faster growing big cities, that attract population from smaler not so developed cities.

And finaly I think that food should be like gold income i.e. it should be collected to a single pool and distributed to each pop unit in the cities across the entire civ.

hi ,

well it would be nice to see up to a certain percentage people moving inbetween cities , lets say a size 20 moves two people to a size 8 , etc , ....

have a nice day

[Shogun Gunner]

Civ 2 Trading Framework worked much better for this desired feature. If you have a "bread basket" city producing bunches of food, you could send a caravan with food to another city in your empire. I miss that ability.

Additionally, I agree that the concept of trading food between nations -- perhaps with the apprpropriate science tech (Navigation?) -- would add some wonderful texture to the game.

[Maniac]

How about this little idea? Food shortages or even only small food surpluses cause extra unhappy citizens.
The reasons that even small food surpluses would cause an amount of unhappy citizens would be because you can see the food output as the average output over many years, which in overal would be slightly surplus, but while in fact it's a variation of good harvests and famines. The latter would cause unhappiness. These effects could be reduced by building a granary.