population growth.

[Stuff2]

In civ3 i'd like to see population growth being totally independent of food production. This may first seem quite stupid, but think about it. Look at China and India. They spend millions just to make their people stop generating more babies than they can support. And look at Europe, we waste food that could support maybe 100 millions of poeple, and we still don't generate enough babies, it's predicted that the number of old nonproductive people will be a big problem in just 25 years from now. It's obvious that food production is not that relevant. Major cities do not produce their own food, they import most of it.

Now some of you may say that, what if there's more people than there is food?

The answer is simple; Famine. It has been a common event throughout history.

And the reason for india and china to not let the famine 'do the job' is simply that famine tend increase deaceases and a very unhappy population, which in the end will cost more than a successful preventive campaign.

The best solution is a population growth based on migration birthrates and mortality. The numbers will be influenced bye social factors like education, religion,
social system etc. Also, food will be able to store, trade, and distribute. Cities that don't produce enough food will import food from other cities. (this will make piracy more worthwhile aswell).

[Dom Pedro II]

I think there is a much simpler way of doing this. I agree that it should be based on birth and death rates rather than food supply. What I think should happen is that a city should grow at a particular rate. There should be types of cities: Villages, Towns, Cities, Metropolises, and Megalopolises. A Village will be city sizes 1-4, and will grow every 5 turns for example. A Town requires more time, etc.

The first thing that affects the city growth rate would be the terrain its built on. Arid, cold, or otherwise unsuitable terrain slows the process down. The next factor is the death rate. The death rate is changed by health. Improvements like Hospitals and scientific advances like Penicillin, or wonders like, for example, the CDC would decrease the death rate.

Food would be used to cap the population growth. In other words, a city would need a supply of Rice, Potatos, or some food with large yields to exceed a certain size. If a city fails to have a sufficient food supply, the population drops.

[Dauphin]

quote: The best solution is a population growth based on migration birthrates and mortality. The numbers will be influenced bye social factors like education, religion, social system etc. Also, food will be able to store, trade, and distribute. Cities that don't produce enough food will import food from other cities. (this will make piracy more worthwhile aswell).

Food is to be treated as a limiting factor - out of necessity. You can't feed people unless you have food. I agree totally with you on this.


To have the population growth dependent on births/deaths (determined through social and factors) is logical. But food was the most important factor in the past. The Agricultural revolution was by far the main reason for the population explosion in 18/19th century europe as it reduced the death rate.


There are many complex social reasons that cause population growth that need careful consideration. An oversimplification that might work is calculating the life expectancy value and economic prosperity:


An increase in life expectancy (equivalent to an immediate drop in death rate/thousand) leads to increasing in population. Similarly if a city is economically prosperous then immigration will increase.


To calculate birth rate/thousand is harder but can be generalised to be associated with economic prosperity. The more prosperous the smaller the birth rate - I expect to be corrected on this though.
[This message has been edited by Big Crunch (edited December 10, 2000).]

[Deathwalker]

Interesting idea, but food would limit the max size, look at North Korean their staving because of lack of food.

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

[Adm.Naismith]

I agree with you, the Civ/SMAC model link from available food to population growth is really too simple.

Looking at some countries in the world, they may have much available food still not growing alot (e.g. European countries) or little food available still grow in number but suffers horrible mortality rate and bad living condition.

This model also doesn't differentiate the population by classes, so while the low class may suffer disease and famine the upper class can be prosperous and fat (I'm over-simplyfing, but you have got the concept: food available is less a limit than food distribution).

The model should keep in account the natality / mortality rate also with an eye on happiness. Citizen fighting every day for the food can't be happy, still can grow in number.
Better health condition helped a lot to reduce mortality rate (for better life condition, even before modern medicine diffusion, AFAIK).

I haven't an alternate model ready right now, but I'm pretty sure that drilling into old threads and The List we can find plenty of example about it.

[Dauphin]

quote: The first thing that affects the city growth rate would be the terrain its built on. Arid, cold, or otherwise unsuitable terrain slows the process down.

How would a city such as Las Vegas be treated. Its the US' fastest growing city, and its in the middle of the desert!!

------------------
Pax Vobis.
[This message has been edited by Big Crunch (edited December 05, 2000).]

[Grumbold]

In modern times it is not too painful to support Civ2 cities in any hostile terrain via food caravans. Unfortunately in ancient times they take too long to build for this to be a practical option.

To model the growth and survival of cities in earlier times perhaps production and trade should be factored in too. Cities grew up on the silk route (for example) in pretty unpleasant conditions but thrived because there were economic reasons for them to be there. If two trade or two production also generated one 'free' food this might allow such cities to develop. A cap could be placed to prevent too much food being generated this way until appropriate technologies gradually raised the limit. A micromanagement-free method that avoids endless food caravans.
[This message has been edited by Grumbold (edited December 05, 2000).]

[jdlessl]

If two trade or two production also generated one 'free' food this might allow such cities to develop.

Either that or use a commodities system with decent transport automation.

--
Jared Lessl

[Tiberius]

quote: Originally posted by Big Crunch on 12-05-2000 12:12 PM How would a city such as Las Vegas be treated. Its the US' fastest growing city, and its in the middle of the desert!!

This can be done easily using 2 concepts:
1. migration (many times debated here)
2. city desirability (CD). The CD should depend on: happiness, unemployment, city wealth, health and "literacy rate"(?? is this spelled right ??), the civ's nature (civilized, peaceful, tolerant, etc).

A city with high CD will grow fast because of imigrants from other cities (from inside or outside that civ), but of course only if you can assure enough food for them.

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

I totally agree with you on this, the population should be based on birth, death, and major stuff like earthquakes, hurricanes, etc.

[DarkCloud]

population growth-

Immigration-

1.Based on factors such as how desirable (happy rate) your civ is versus the enemy civs (connected by road or rail to their cities) you should have their people immigrate; this would allow a diplomacy option 'Stop Immigration'

What does everyone think of this?

[Dauphin]

For the Stop Immigration there would have to be an incentive. Else why would the country receiving immigrants try to prevent it.

The UK prevents thousands of illegal immigrants from coming across the English Channel. (And no they're not French. ) Of course the US has a serious problem with Cubans and Mexicans aswell.

------------------
Pax Vobis.

[OreoFuchi]

quote: Originally posted by Big Crunch on 12-06-2000 08:32 PM For the Stop Immigration there would have to be an incentive. Else why would the country receiving immigrants try to prevent it. The UK prevents thousands of illegal immigrants from coming across the English Channel. (And no they're not French. ) Of course the US has a serious problem with Cubans and Mexicans aswell.

There should be trouble with assimilating the immigrants. So you get the advantage of a bigger city, but also the difficulty of managing the city. Perhaps when the immigrants come, they can be in the unhappy state and eventually become neutral (like the citizens of a conquered city). But then you wonder why they're unhappy if they're leaving a place because they were unhappy there to be happier in the new city. I guess the best way to explain this is recognizing that the people who already live in the cities aren't always happy about immigrants, so THEY'D be the ones who are unhappy, but it's just easier to represent the immigrants as the unhappy people until they're assimilated.

Not only should you be able to stop immigration, you should be able to stop emigration.

[DarkCloud]

I meant 'Stop Immigration' as in not allowing your countrys' people to emigrate, but stopping immigration is more like it is today and is a good idea.
(PS I meant Emigration, not immigration in my origninal post)

[Vrank Prins]

Good idea.
But foodproduction in former days was extremely relevant. Holland (just the western part of the Netherlands) started trading in the 14th century when they, because of drainageproblems, couldn't grow there own corn anymore. They had to go for it elsewhere, i.e. the Baltic. If you've got something to trade you don't have to starve.
Because of better foodproductionmethods the western population grew late 18th century. Familyseizes increased, more children, who are more vulnerable when starving then adults, survived.
Because of better medical way's we stayed healthy, and far less babies and mothers died during (giving) birth. Nowerdays we're overeating ourselves in the "westernworld", and that should have it's consequences too in the game.
The average familyseize in the late fifties and sixties fell drastically. Not due to starvation but because of contraception. (also!) Because of that we became wealthy! and happier (?!?).
[This message has been edited by Vrank Prins (edited December 08, 2000).]