Where's all the farmers?

[Hannibal3]

I've noticed lately that civilization lacks a country population. There are the cities, and then there's nothing. Also, the population movement of most countries are not controlled by a government (i.e. building settlers to construct new cities)

It seems like there should be some sort of population point for each tile in the game (except water tiles of course). The population radiates from the cities. The population condenses mostly along the coast, rivers, and roads and RR. The populations gravitate toward regions with valuable resources and easy access to the rest of the empire.

A civilization can then come along and organize the territory into individual cities. Populations can also emigrate from one city to another or a city to the country or vise versa.

The advantage to this is that it:
A) causes natural exploration and colonization.
B) farmland naturally develops from the country folk
that use the land.
C) allows for the organizing of regional militias
in time of war.
D) invading armies are slowed down and even receive
damage as they pass through heavily populated
squares.
E) other country's populations can immigrant to
your land.

The populations will also demand forts and such in order to defend them from hostile neighbors. A lack of defense results in unhappiness. Largely populated tiles construct their own basic improvements, so if a city is organized, then the improvements remain.

[Youngsun]

quote: Largely populated tiles construct their own basic improvements

Irrigation/road do you mean? or city improvement?

A Civ should be allowed to own it own huts(rural pop)
When one of your cities get too crowded, you might see the message showing "500 people left [city name] for better life" then few turns later a random hut,which belong to your civ, should pop up around the city.

You can excercise fairly limited authority over those huts like collecting tax/farm products or raising levies for grand project/war.

[Deathwalker]

Though this is realastic I think it would over complex the game and should be included, though the idea of a civ including a rural opulation is a good one.

------------------
I have walked since the dawn of time and were ever I walk, death is sure to follow

[Shadowstrike]

Maybe you could have the population less likely to pay taxes if you don't adequately protect them (say a unit within 2 or 3 squares). This happened near the end of the Western Roman Empire, when villages became de facto semi-autonomous conclaves when the Empire was unable to protect them.

[Hannibal3]

I think that the rural population would not overcomplicate things. It could be made very user-friendly. Maybe having different shaded tiles for it. Purple or dark red could be heavily populated, and it gets lighter from there.
Let me give an example of how it would work. Every time the population of a city grows, it causes a one point population increase in the surrounding area. Now, if the city is in the middle of a plain, it will continue until all of the squares around the city have one population point. If the city has few plains, and mostly forests, mountains, etc. the plains will fill in first and continue to grow faster than the other tiles. Now, in keeping with reality like the US expansion into the west, roads cause people to migrate as do rivers. So they continue moving down roads and rivers in your territory before anything else. This would not just be in the city radius but outside the radius too.
This will not overcomplicate the game because its happening automatically. It takes a very natural flow. Instead of having to be constantly concerned about moving into those new territories, the game does it for you. And when your ready, you can select a place where people should start building a new city, and the populations will condense there until they build one. And when a city needs a new improvement to grow, the excess population moves to the countryside or another city depending on whats more "promising".

Of course, this does raise other questions. What happens when country populations come spilling into cities with lots of industry? Unhappiness will come fast, won't it? It would become like the beginning of industrialization in the western countries. Too many people looking for work causing overcrowding and unhappiness... maybe they can make some new improvements for stuff like that.

[DarkCloud]

How about in the city screen your building allocation is distributed by moving the population around on the screen.

You can put as many people as you like in the city square or 8-10. The city squares resources would work like the resource squares do now.

You could also put 2-4 people in the squares surrounding the city to plunder the resources.

You can only put 1 person in a shore square and squares more than 1 square around from the land cannot be utilized for production.

[Youngsun]

quote: Maybe you could have the population less likely to pay taxes if you don't adequately protect them

Interesting idea. The further the place from the power centre of your empire the more need for garrison for the control and that should be dictated by available transportation/communication techs or government forms.

quote: This will not overcomplicate the game because its happening automatically. It takes a very natural flow

That's the point Hannibal3. Migration should be conducted by AI especially for early stage of the game for the representation of people's free will. Forced relocation is quite rare case in history. Instead of sending a setter unit to the desired spot, you announce your government's development plan for specific area to attract as many settlers as possible from various other cities. The only thing you have to do is that one click on the square then wait and the rest will be done automatically. You may use other tools for promotion such as advertsing(Gold found!),money offer,etc.

This plan may or may not succeed depends on how attractive the spot is which can be enhanced by your new city's city improvements/infra ,basic resources such as food/water or job opportunity. Brazilia(Brazil's capital)failed to attract many people from Rio(former capital)due to its remoteness and outback image(surrounded by jungle)

quote: How about in the city screen your building allocation is distributed by moving the population around on the screen.

Isn't that already represented in CivI/II? One thing I disliked from CivII city screen is that you can change rural pop(resource gatherer)to urban pop(entertainer,taxman)too easy. Do we really want one simple click change an entire city industry without any problem?

[Shadowstrike]

Maybe we could have a one turn "switching time" to reflect the people travelling to the city and/or country side. But whatever happened to refusal to move?

[Hannibal3]

quote: Instead of sending a setter unit to the desired spot, you announce your government's development plan for specific area to attract as many settlers as possible from various other cities.

Youngsun, I don't think we should completely remove the settler unit from city-building. Afterall, how would we set up new cities on new continents? Besides, I still like being able to set up that little citadel city on the top of a hill or something.

quote: The only thing you have to do is that one click on the square then wait and the rest will be done automatically. You may use other tools for promotion such as advertsing(Gold found!),money offer,etc. This plan may or may not succeed depends on how attractive the spot is which can be enhanced by your new city's city improvements/infra ,basic resources such as food/water or job opportunity.

Some very good ideas. I think the expanding rural population should naturally flow to valuable resources, so hopefully you'll be designating a city where people are already moving to. Also, it should be more attractive depending on their current location too.
As I said before roads and railroads should also encourage people to migrate to a region. After the National Road was built in the US in the late 1700s, towns sprang up all along its way because it connected them. And many people migrated west after the transcontinental railroad, and many towns grew from tiny villages to bustling commerce towns overnight. Thus a city you want to grow faster should have roads, railroads, a river, or a shoreline.
The other thing is about populations moving into the city. I think "job oppurtunity" should be based on whether the city has a factory. Citizens will also be attracted to food/water as long as the city is not at the max population without having an Aqueduct, etc.
But this also raises an important question, which should definitely be included. Brasilia is the perfect example. Brasilia's main problem is the unwanted population. The city was meant for 1/2 million people and currently has 2 million. Beijing and other Chinese cities are in danger of this as well. Tremendous influxes of rural people come into a city that can't handle all of them.
As a result, they set up shanty towns without sewers, plumbing, or electricity. And believe me, I've been in some of Brasil's worst... Thus, what happens if a city with a Temple only, builds a Factory and has a population jump from 5 to 8. That city is in serious trouble. This is something that should be addressed.

quote: Maybe we could have a one turn "switching time" to reflect the people travelling to the city and/or country side. But whatever happened to refusal to move?

Well, its a little more complicated that just changing from urban to suburban. In addition to the rural population moving beyond the frontier and into urban areas, they're also growing, so the existing tiles have higher populations than previous turns.

And about refusal to move... people are ALWAYS willing to move. Look at the United States, the only reason they stopped is because they ran out of land. And even then, they went and annexed Hawaii and bought Alaska.


------------------
"...The highest realization of warfare is to attack the enemy's plans; next is to attack their alliances; next to attack their army; and the lowest is to attack their fortified cities." - Sun Tzu
[This message has been edited by Hannibal3 (edited September 01, 2000).]

[DarkCloud]

:quote:
quote:

How about in the city screen your building allocation is distributed by moving the population around on the screen.


Isn't that already represented in CivI/II? One thing I disliked from CivII city screen is that you can change rural pop(resource gatherer)to urban pop(entertainer,taxman)too easy. Do we really want one simple click change an entire city industry without any problem?

:quote:

[b]What I propose is different, I propose you can 'stack' the farmers to greater increase production/ however the farmers when placed on the squares will be given two options, (Farm,Mine) Farmers produce food, miners produce production.

When you convert a laborer (Miner,Farmer) to a scientist the full effect is not felt for 3 turns. When you convert a laborer to an entertainer/taxman the full effect is not felt for 2 turns while they learn the proper way to do things.

[Lonestar]

quote: Where's all the farmers?

At Texas A&M!!!

------------------
"You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you"

"Soylant Green is people. PPPeeeoooppllleee!"

[Youngsun]

quote: I don't think we should completely remove the settler unit from city-building. Afterall, how would we set up new cities on new continents?

If we can remove a settler unit, ICS problem has less effect but I'd like to see labourer/worker unit for tile improvement like the formers in SMAC.

New continent? The same way you do for your old continent just click a desirable spot of the new continent.

Citadel? Building a fortress wouldn't be enough?

I'd like to differentiate hut building from city building.

Hut(rural settlement)
From time to time for various reasons such as overcrowding/famine, overly populated city will inevitablely produces emigrants who want to settle down somewhere else without any government intervention or plan.

You just get message which shows some portion of pop left a specific city for whatever reason. Then few turns later a random hut which is similar to those goodie huts will appear on the map.

Now you have two choices "leave this hut alone" or "Establish your authority by sending troops/bureaucrats/government appointed administrators".

If you choose option No.1 the hut will pay tribute limited amount of farm product/resource/money to your treasury.

If No.2 option was executed, you now have fully functional town which can be developed through city improvements thus it can later be transformed into a city.

America was mostly colonised by this manner and the most part of the World too(people's own will). Of course, careful web of forts/ports which can provide some sort of security would need for those vulnerable huts.

Sometimes enemy civ huts might pop up inside your border which may create border tension and possibley a war.(Some former Indian Reservation districts were invaded by US settlers(for gold?) without the government intention/plan)

City(urban settlement)
Just like Brasilia case, this should be done/planned by the government(your will)for economic/strategic reasons .

From the beginning, you have the full authority over the city which is not different from thay of CivII.

It all sounds complicated but actually it isn't. The "hut case" will be done without your intervention and the "city case" is even easier than ever before.

Also I like the idea of transportation infras effect flow of people.

quote: What I propose is different, I propose you can 'stack' the farmers to greater increase production/ however the farmers when placed on the squares will be given two options, (Farm,Mine) Farmers produce food, miners produce production.

Why give two options since one tile worker can produce both shields & food? Unlike urban pop, rural pop should be difficult to control. They tend to stay their mother land and will do whatever to prevent any forced relocation.

Farmers or miners represent your civ's industry. If you can change your industry structure from 1st(agriculture,etc) to 3rd(service,etc) within only 3 or 4 turns(3~4 years minium) All the third world countries should have joined the League of developed countries by now.

I think class/job allocation should be done by AI and you can only indirectly influence that with your development/education plan or infra construction which will encourage people to move one industry to another.

quote: When you convert a laborer (Miner,Farmer) to a scientist the full effect is not felt for 3 turns. When you convert a laborer to an entertainer/taxman the full effect is not felt for 2 turns while they learn the proper way to do things.

How come those ignorant farmers/miners can be scientists within few years? If we adopt your suggestion, the China problem which is that a civ owns biggest pop is always strong will never be solved. Therefore even if your whole pop is small but well-educated you can out-perform big civ with many serfs but few intellectuals as far as research race is concerned.

Sorry for the continuous disagreement but I had to express my thought.
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited September 02, 2000).]

[DarkCloud]

The reason I say in 2-3 turns for each is within 2-3 years in the modern era or 20-30 years
in the classical era a population can learn enough to be moderatly able scientists or
taxmen and entertainers.

[Jon Miller]

I have a differing veiw

why should it take up to 150 years for farmers to leave the city or even the 2-3 years in the modern era

It would be pretty much instentaeous now and would take a few years (<10) in ancient times

therefore this should (if the idae is implemented) take only 1 turn

On the scientist question, I think it depends on your infrasttructure (only a few years if most your population is studied, a generation (or even 2) if it is not)

Jon Miller

Jon Miller

[Hannibal3]

quote: From time to time for various reasons such as overcrowding/famine, overly populated city will inevitablely produces emigrants who want to settle down somewhere else without any government intervention or plan. You just get message which shows some portion of pop left a specific city for whatever reason. Then few turns later a random hut which is similar to those goodie huts will appear on the map.

Why? Isn't this hut just a small city? That brings us back to the original problem. By this, a rural and suburban population would still be non-existent.
Besides, the rural population involves much more than just immigration and emigration from or to cities. It would also be natural growth of the rural population in each tile, expansion by the rural population to other tiles, and it would also involve population immigration from city to city as well. And also it can be assumed that the rural squares would just be lots of little villages and towns anyway.
And in this hut theory, what happens when enemies take the towns? or do they? Would they have to establish authority in the same manner? By this logic, it could allow civs to "steal" other civ's cities without so much as a shot fired or a dime spent, and if the hut should randomly appear in some far-flung location that is closer to an opponent, it could be a very real possibility. Not to mention that should the hut appear on a mountain top, it would be useless for anything other than defense.

quote: Just like Brasilia case, this should be done/planned by the government(your will)for economic/strategic reasons .

Actually, I think Brasilia just goes to show how ineffective such government regulation would be. They built the city before putting anyone in it. Then they got a whole bunch of poor people moving in. And even all that pre-planning by the Brazilian ended up breaking the bank which eventually led to the military revolution of '64.
So, I think that it would be more interesting just to make it possible for a large immigration to just throw a monkey wrench right into your nice public works. That way you have to remedy the problem by building a Temple or Cathedral. Actually if they put "overcrowding" like in CtP in the game, you could require Apartment buildings or Hospitals to remedy the problem.

Meanwhile, as for this tile worker micromanagement in the city, I have no comment. I really have no objections to the old system, and I probably wouldn't object to a new one either.