Model population using bushels

[polymths]

In the "reduce population when military is built" thread, Theben suggested that instead of population points being reduced, we might just reduce "bushels" instead.

This lead to think, why not just model population "loss" at a finer level using "bushels" period?

One thing to notice is that although head/population increases with city size point level, the bushel/head is approximately constant. (Because at larger population level, notice that the bushel box also increases).

There are several consequences of using the "bushel model". All of them are good and I see absolutely NO DOWNSIDE!

1. Far more realistic and accurate.
Currently in Civ1/Civ2, whether there is a single bushel or the box is nearly filled, you lose one population point. How about if you lose a set number of bushels instead? (If you go under zero, reduce the population point and then take away the appropriate number of bushels with the "full bushel box" at the lower population point.)

Also resolves the (I built a settler from a level 20 city so that settler theoretically equals 100,000 people, why am I only building a new 10,000 settlement?)

2. Losses can be spread out amongst cities!
When you build a settler (or military unit), it should not be the case that all the people wanting to try to build a new settlement should come from ONE CITY. But using the bushel model, the loss can be spread. Say a settler costs 30 bushels and you have 3 cities. Then each city can lose 10 bushels each. Same thing for military units! (see separate population reduced when building military thread). Makes population loss occur at a NATIONAL level!
(which BTW is also more realistic and accurate. When you draft soldiers for tank divisions or whatever, although you may build the tanks in "Paris" you are most likely drafting from the whole nation. Also for settlers, a whole "settler wagon train" might and most likely was formed by people from throughout the nation joining together on a pioneering expedition.)

3. Requires NO change in population head model.
Bushel can be (and correctly so) be thought of as "population head fractions".

[This message has been edited by polymths (edited May 15, 2001).]

[polymths]

BTW, another consequence is that for each bushel(s) increase the population can increase more incrementally.

So instead of going from 10000 to 30000 in one shot, the population could increase, say by the appropriate amount of bushel increase per turn.

Use bushels to model population at a finer level!
Use population head to model population at a coarser level to reduce complexity and micromanagement!

The best of all worlds!

[Theben]

I think it's an excellent idea.

[polymths]

Hmmm, seems people actually like the current population head model for measuring population loss when building settlers. Not much interest in this "bushel cost" idea, sadly.

It still makes more sense to have a "bushel cost" when building settlers and military units than a simple population point loss. Simple to implement. Allows the "bushel cost" to be spread amongst cities (if appropriate). Can balance the cost to be realistic relative to how much population a bushel represents. (which I believe is constant throughout Civ1/Civ2).

Requires no change in the current population model at all but does require all units now to possess a new rating called "bushel cost when built".

Oh well!

[This message has been edited by polymths (edited May 15, 2001).]

[Captain]

This is a great idea!
I'm still for a total change in the head system, but this is a very good compromise and solves lots of the problems we have now.
I think that every unit should have a food support cost as well - after all, armies have to eat just as much as civilians and settlers do.

(The assyrians maintained their fierce military prowess by having a standing army fed by a well developed network of grainaries. Many armies have lost simply because they couldn't feed their troops and an invaded countryside is usually stripped bare by the foraging army, even with supplies. I can't remember who, but a famous general once said "an army marches on its belly".)

[Theben]

Whoa! A convert! Welcome aboard!

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Hi Guys,

I've been thinking that, if Firaxis are going to make all other resources regional (ie accessible to all connected cities), then why not bushels?
With that in mind how about this idea: You have a regional interface that shows all of the resources available to your Civ, including Bushels (you could have a seperate section showing "Surplus" bushels). Also on this screen you could have the total number of population "Points" in your civ, with a number of toggle switches underneath for allocating "Specialists" (Labourers, Merchants, scientists, capitalists and soldiers etc.)
Basically, each specialist costs a certain number of bushels/"pop. point".
At first, these specialists will be spread evenly throughout your cities, but you can move specialists around through the city screen (for example: if you have a Wonder you wish to build quickly, you can move your labourers from other cities into the one building the Wonder! Additionally, specialists in a city can be captured (or killed) by an enemy if the city is taken (and you lose any bushels you spent to purchase them).
The excecption to this is Soldiers, as the number allocated represents a Potential only!! I've already discussed in an earlier post how the allocation of population points to the military should work, but the number of units you can build/Pop. point should be based on a "Bushel Cost" for each unit (as suggested by Polymths). Infantry units would cost the most bushels, whereas cannons and naval units etc. would cost the least. Missiles would have no bushel cost. As has already been said, destroyed units would lead to the loss of the allocated "Bushels"
A special military unit that could be constructed is the "Militia". This unit costs the same bushels as infantry, but has no ongoing gold cost. Additionally, they have a higher attack/defense and morale rating than similar non-specialist infantry of the era, so long as they are within the city of their origin (to reflect the "Home Gaurd" mind-set)
Anyway, I know a lot of this stuff has already been covered in other posts, but I just had to put my views forward, based on what I've read.
Thankyou,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Hey Guys,

Thought I'd clarify what I think each "Specialist" should be able to do:

1) Labourers: Enhances the effectiveness of production improvements. If you have a vital improvement you need to build quickly, you can move labourers into that city from neighbouring cities to reduce the build time.

2) Scientists: Enhance the effectiveness of Research Improvements.

3) Merchants: Enhances the effectiveness of "Financial" Improvements.

4) Venture Capitalists: Might have two possible functions. Could reduce the shield cost of non-combat city improvements or they could reduce the cost of fast tracking an improvement (not unit)

5) Soldiers: This represents the maximum number of units you can build (not 1 to 1 though, obviously!) Moving these "specialists" into a single city might? speed up the construction of military units (as this specialist allocation could also represent recruiting or Drafting??)

If you capture a city, you have a chance of capturing its specialist population as well (except soldier). You can move these specialists around just like your own, but beware, as these units can forment trouble, depending on the strength of their culture (eg. they might commit terrorist acts, or try to spark a revolt in the city they currently reside!) Another option, is that when you first capture a city, you get a new "specialist" class-slave. These are basically a subset of labourer, but cost less "Bushels" to make. Like other specialists, they can be moved around your cities at will (but have a greater chance of causing trouble later on!) Lastly, when you destroy or route an enemy army (unit), you could have a 1 in 10 chance (per unit) of producing a one free "slave" specialist in your nearest city!
Anyway, I'd like to know peoples opinions about both this post, and the one above. Thank-you.

The_Aussie_Lurker.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Hi Guys,
Just had another thought about this "Bushels and specialists" thread. How about being able being able to Trade "specialists". Now, I know most people will say "why bother", but if you made a rule specifying that traded specialists have no Bushel cost for X turns after the trade (X dependant on the specialist type), then it provides an extra way of obtaining specialists for specific projects when you can't afford the "Cost" in bushels. When the project is finished, and if you still can't afford the specialist, then you can simply convert it back to an ordinary citizen.
The other benefit of trading specialists is that it'll allow you to trade Slaves. This is a great way of obtaining some really cheap labour for special projects when you aren't at war with someone yourself!

Just a couple of other points on this issue:

1) Aside from the methods of generating slaves I've mentioned above, I feel that, like CtP, there should be a special Slaver unit for capturing slaves from cities.

2) Another Specialist type you could have is the "Cleric" (ie. priest)

3) The Proportion of each specialist type should give an indication of its relative "base" influence over your society. This influence would be modified according to your government type (eg. military governments would give Soldiers greater influence, wheras Socialist governments would give labourers greater influence) and your level of "Democracy". This influence could be used to prevent you from building certain improvements, units etc.
This would give an extra element to the game, where you would have to sometimes negotiate with these "specialists" in order to get your way (not unlike the Factions in SMAC!)

4) The proportion and type of "Specialists" in your city would also give an indication of what kind of damage they could do to your cities if they're not Happy!! (eg. Labourers could slow production, revolt,or riot, Capitalists could withold money and Soldiers could stage a Coup!!) Of course, if you have a lot of unhappy Specialists spread throughout your nation, then the results could be Disasterous!!

Points 3) and 4) are important to me as I feel they might give a sense of your Civ really being ALIVE, something thats missing in Civ I and II!

Anyway, just want to know whether you think these ideas would add or detract from the current game.

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.