Unofficial Poll: Pop Rushing

[alva]

be good to your people don't kill them !!!

[Guardian]

Originally posted by civman2000
emergencies only. I don't like this so called "population control" being grouped with emergencies thoguh

Same here!

[BigFurryMonster]

I have never pop-rushed. When is this possible? How many shield can it replace ..?

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by BigFurryMonster
I have never pop-rushed. When is this possible? How many shield can it replace ..?

Population rushing is for EMERGENCIES ONLY. And even then....only for the most DIRE of emergencies.

We don't get that many happy citizens to start out with, and more unhappy citizens can result in a city shutting down, or us having to divert special resources and attention to the unhappy citizens.

We musn't become, er....whip happy. Only for emergencies....

[Kloreep]

Emergencies only. BUT, there is one other thing I'd approve it for: Temple rushing. Not only do temples nullify their own rushing unhappiness, but Temple-rushing is one of Religious civs' great advantages, allowing them an early culture jump once they have the time and pop to use it. We shouldn't waste this advantage.

[Kuciwalker]

Why vote no? It is possible that we'll need to. You can argue at those times that we don't need to, but there's no reason to get rid of the option altogether.

[Epistax]

oh crap skywalker agrees with me

*watches time/space evaporate*

[GodKing]

I dislike the notion of killing our own people, but sometime sacrifices must be made. Those who choose to needlessly slaughter our own shall be brought to justice however.

[Captain]

Originally posted by civman2000
emergencies only. I don't like this so called "population control" being grouped with emergencies thoguh

I agree with civman. it should be a real emergency - as in, we're about to lose this city, or we're about to lose another city if we don't hurry some reinforcements over there.

I'm not convinced population control counts as an emergency. So I say no. At this point in the game, we don't have large populations and culture levels are relatively stable, so population control is not a concern in terms of flipping. Resistance at this era is very easy to quell without resorting to poprushing. It also has no penalties besides not getting the use of those resistors for a few turns. That's better than not getting use of any citizens cuz we've killed them and making the others unhappy.

When we reach size 9+ cities that are close to enemy capitals with lots of culture (and far from ours), then if there is a high probability of flip (resulting in the death of a large garrison), that might count as an emergency.

While I don't like pop-rushing, heavily garrisoning and pop-rushing/starving (by converting to entertainers) any size 12+ city down to a manageable level, is better than razing it outright. But in a real emergency, razing it might be wise too. Hopefully, we don't get ourselves into a war where we're so unprepared that we have to resort to such scorched earth tactics.

[Shiber]

There's something that's not getting through to me: why would anyone use pop rushing as a form of population control?
Wouldn't it be better to starve your citizens by moving working citizens to tiles which produce less food but more shields/commerce or changing them into specialists? Other than of course in a situation where we would want to decrease a city's populace FAST, I don't see why else pop rushing should be used as a mean of pop control.

[BigFurryMonster]

Don't see Population Control as a goal, but as a nice side-effect (the goal would be to accelerate production).

[Guardian]

Originally posted by BigFurryMonster
I have never pop-rushed. When is this possible? How many shield can it replace ..?

I've never pop rushed anything myself either, but I some times pay hard currency to have a build project finished early under republic or democracy...

Anyway, the "pop rushing" works under despotism and / or communism. When you get out your whip, you can scrape together 20 shields by "sacrificing" one citizen. For each and every time time you do this, one of the remaining citizens will be unhappy for the next 20 turns.

[Guardian]

Originally posted by BigFurryMonster
Don't see Population Control as a goal, but as a nice side-effect (the goal would be to accelerate production).

Well, I'd hardly call it nice...

[kring]

How was the recent pop rush of a Spearman an emergency? Poor planning on someone else's part doesn't constitute an emergency on other people's parts.

[Spiffor]

We needed a searman to go with the settler as soon as possible, to improve our chances the Persians won't get the Iron near the coast.
I don't remember if we quickpolled suring the turnchat on this though.