Where do babies come from?

[dainbramaged13]

joseph, thats true, but it (the civ2 system) makes more sense gameplay-wise, and it would only be fun that way. I mean, if population were represented not by people and not points, obvoiously, this would be more sensible, but as it is...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Rhuarc
Where do you see that it isn't like that? (I'm not saying you are wrong, I just didn't think that was the way it was! )

If you go into the city menu, you can see the pop at the top (I think). I also believe that this information was in the game manual. The actual formula for city pop is:

Pop=5000*(N)(N+1) where N is the "size" of the city.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Grumbold
That doesn't explain why every time your population grows you need more cabbages to produce another new baby when the suggestion that people have something to do with the process should imply that the converse is true. Do the babies have to appear under the cabbages when no-one is looking so the more people, the less unwatched cabbages there are available

Too much people eat cabbages early, before babies are ready, not to mention a crowd stomp many cabbages.
Hence you need much more cabbages to have new babies. At least I remember reading something similar proposed into The List

[OneFootInTheGrave]

I would like to see the pop numbers trying to represent the 'real' ones, so that hte biggest normal city. (like size 41 in civ 2) would be around 30 million people and not less than 10...

a nice touch I would call it...

[Adm.Naismith]

Yes, the Civ use of pop numbers is silly: classical example where the internal numbers (useful to have balanced results modelling city growth, etc.) surface from internal coding to user interface.

My first teacher of programming looong ago would kill me for an error like this, or at least my clients would do

I want to look at screen and see my megacities at 5 or 10 million people, not apply some formula to understand what 18 pop points mean

I underline that CTP2 approach, as red_jon mentioned, isn't what I ask for: they get the other, simplest way, linking showed numbers to population but missing a realistic city growth model

But I have no hopes: it seems one of the things Firaxis doesn't care, as far as I can see from screenshots

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Rhuarc
Thanks for the clarification M@ni@c!! I don't have quite as good of an understanding of the system as I thought I did!!!

Well, I've seen this theory numberous times in my geography and history lessons over the past years. By now I understand the system better than I would wish sometimes...

So what is your theory on why Civ uses food to represent population growth, or uses it to make the population grow? I guess I just always figured that they were just using it as a symbolic representation of the population. But maybe not! Any ideas anyone?

There's no (right) theory behind it, I guess. Just one of these simple unrealistic game solutions. If we could just convince everyone that it is possible to have another food system that's both fun, realistic and simple.

[Darkknight]

Arrrg!! you cant use my joke!!

I'm pretty sure babies come from storks. See when a man and a woman get together and ask the King of storks to send them a little baby the king decides whether or not to give them one. This is why babies don't come every time a man and a woman get together .

Ye'see Don'tchya know?

[Maniac]

See my new signature!

[Theben]

Originally posted by M@ni@c
See my new signature!

Still looking...

[Ralf]

Originally posted by dainbramaged13
the system was designed for gameplay, not realism, like so many other things in the game.

I agree. If gameplay & realism can be combined - so much the better. But, if push comes to shove; then gameplay should always be the heaviest factor then designing the game.

Originally posted by Adm.Naismith
I want to look at screen and see my megacities at 5 or 10 million people, not apply some formula to understand what 18 pop points mean

No, I dont agree. I prefer simple city-size integer-numbers on the main map. Dont change it.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Ralf
No, I dont agree. I prefer simple city-size integer-numbers on the main map. Dont change it.

Sorry Ralf, I suppose I explained myself badly.

Assuming the basic city will count 1 pop point=100 thousand people, I suppose a city of 50 can represent straight and easy a 5 million people (as 50*100,000), so 100 for a ten million megalopolis, etc.

Is 50 enough an integer number for you?

[JMarks]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


If you go into the city menu, you can see the pop at the top (I think). I also believe that this information was in the game manual. The actual formula for city pop is:

Pop=5000*(N)(N+1) where N is the "size" of the city.

Hey, this is as close to perfection as you can get! Doesn't anyone know about triangle numbers???? The formula is (N)(N+1)/2. So they multiply this by the base number of a city, 10,000 and get your wacked out city population model.

Hey, I'm no mathmatician, but even I know about this stuff.

[Ghost:Rosenkrantz]

Re: Where do babies come from?

Originally posted by Russell

Will it be tied in with happiness this time? When people are happy they are more likely to want to do that which helps make children.
Or is it perhaps some combination between the two?

It should of course be a both I think. Where there is nothing to eat people stagger and settles other places and the same should happen if the welfare isn't too good.
-Babymaking is done whenever, whatever, whoever?
I thought it was... oh just forget it!

To historians: I don't think USA grew so large for that reason. ;-)
The big continent with lotsa resources and the liberal justice gave hungry and surpressed Europeans a chance in succedeng a hundred years ago so they simply moved and moved and ...

[Dr Strangelove]

Yes, I'm pretty sure also that growth of city poulation in Civ 1 and Civ 2 was geometric, not linear. It was reflected in the food store display: at low levels of population the bar was thin, but as population grew it widened, reflecting the larger quantities of food needed to advance to the next number.

I believe that the US population growth in the 19th century was the porportionately greatest of any nation ever. The US population grew from 3 million to 90 million during this century, but immigration (even considering the descendents of 18th century immigrants) only accounted for 25 to 30 million of that growth. That's a whopping 20 fold increase. Certainly the availability of food had a lot to do with this growth, Americans of this period tended to be taller and heavier than Europeans, but the culture of expansion was another factor. What limits our growth today is our credit economy (and the availability of birth control). It is as if the availability of money has come to replace the availability of food and land as the main factor in determinibng population growth. I suppose it might be possible to work this into the game. Perhaps "Credit Economy" could be an advancement that would increase productivity, income and trade, but then also become a major determinant of population growth.

[Maniac]

So you think the reasons I wrote in my posts are bull****?