24-12-2003 21:35									#1
	Population limits-and responsibility Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Since I don't know where this would fit best, I am making a new thread.

I have been a big advocate of making population difference matter more, and matter in a direct, not an inderent way (inderect being, more people more trade and shields, the difference of trade and shields being what matters, not people- a city on floodplains adds less to military might, be is a size 20, than a city size 3 next to hills, and resource bonuses).

One simple yet powerfull way of doing this is adding population limits for military units- The number of military units a civ could make without consequence would be based on the population of the civ. Now, some minor versions of this exist (like a metropolis supporting for free more units than a town), but this really minor, since if you can make more units you probably can afford to pay for them. What I say is a limit which brings about real consequences for putting your population in the army as opposed to the field.

The system would work as such (an example)- a civ has 3 cities all size 5=thats 15 total population points. Lets say in its current state it can support 3 military units per point- thus, this civ can support 45 military units without problem. Now, lets say the ruler wants more- he wants an army of 60 units: he would be able to do so, BUT face significant economic and happiness conseuqneces for it. A percentage of all eocnomic activity would cease. Now, this is not a tile by tile thing ; I am not saying making all tiles loose 1 food, or one shiled-that is too drastic. Instead, a percentage of the total collected is lost (or better said, never gotten due to less labor available). For example, a city can currenlty make 25 food per turn- well, a penalty of 10% might be placed, so the city can only actually use 22 (3 lost), and then waste can be figured in- same for shields and trade. This loss of 3 food represent the fact that men who would be on the fields farming are now in the army.

Government types, social choices, civ characteristics would be the factors that would decide how many units could be had without consequence by a civ. Now, this is not saying these units are free: if that civ were a democracy, it would still have to pay for all its units. This is just acknowledging that military units are made of people, not things, and that people are a finite resource just as much as iron and cola and so forth.

Now, I mention responsibility, and this is something that ties in. I am not a fan of arbitrary limits- of gaming choices that are either/or. Players should be given freedom- but freedom with responsibility. For example, city growth limits. I find the current growth limits annoying and utterly unrealisitc- ancient cities did grow to a half-million people, withou sewers. In civ, cities should grow as big as the factors that drive population growth allow. Players should have to DEAL with the consequences of this pop growth, such a riots, political instability, and pandemic disease. That makes the game more of a challange I think, and more interesting too.

	24-12-2003 23:48									#2
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The solution is simple: armies would affect population numbers. That's the solution. Just like conscription does. Only then we have to decide, what size our units really are. It would also have to finally level the growth of numerical population in the city ( i.e. city cize 1 = 10,000, city cize 2 = 20,000, etc.)

	25-12-2003 02:14									#3
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

CTP2 has something similar in place (It's not size dependent though) - if you exceed your field army size limit (different for each type of government) then your populace becomes more unhappy - and unhappiness translates into more crime (lost production/food/commerce capabilities)

I can see this being taken a step further with your excellent proposal though, GePap.

	25-12-2003 04:08									#4
	Increase Your PM Length

Doesn't Civ already deal with this by having support limits?

	26-12-2003 19:02									#5
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Agathon Doesn't Civ already deal with this by having support limits?

"Support limits" are at best an extremely crude version- plus, they are more government centric- a democracy or republic pays for all its units no matter what.

	30-12-2003 06:40									#6
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

EU has manpower, the population of all regions is added up and used in the calculation cost of maintenance. In a sense you have a support limit, if you stay under it all units are the same basic cost. If you go above the limit then you have to pay a mercenary cost where each unit over your manpower limit costs twice as much as the others to maintain.

You could turn this more into a sliding scale system where the marginal cost of maintaining a unit is proportional to the current length of military service (units/population).

Last edited by Dauphin on 30-12-2003 at 06:45

	06-01-2004 07:00									#7
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

The Soldier Citizen:

In addition to having 'scientists', 'entertainers', etc. in the city, you could also have 'soldiers'. One 'soldier' citizen would be required to support a military unit and would represent the people manning the unit, as well as the people being kept in reserve for rotation (you need approximately three to five times as many people available for rotation in order to sustain the deployment as are deployed on the mission at any one time). The 'soldier' citizen would not be involved in production, farming or commerce in the city radius and would thus adequately represent the demographic burden and the associated indirect economic costs of keeping up the military forces. The normal upkeep would also remain and would represent the direct financial costs. If the associated unit was disbanded, the 'soldier' citizen would become a normal citizen again, but if it was destroyed, he would disappear thus representing the population loss. Anybody has any comments on this idea?

BTW: I agree with Azazel on making city population growth linear.

	06-01-2004 08:57									#8
	Got spare money?

Maybe two population points, one for the unit, one for the support personell, if the unit is destroyed, then you lose 1 population point.

	06-01-2004 10:10									#9
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Roman The Soldier Citizen: In addition to having 'scientists', 'entertainers', etc. in the city, you could also have 'soldiers'. One 'soldier' citizen would be required to support a military unit and would represent the people manning the unit, as well as the people being kept in reserve for rotation (you need approximately three to five times as many people available for rotation in order to sustain the deployment as are deployed on the mission at any one time). The 'soldier' citizen would not be involved in production, farming or commerce in the city radius and would thus adequately represent the demographic burden and the associated indirect economic costs of keeping up the military forces. The normal upkeep would also remain and would represent the direct financial costs. If the associated unit was disbanded, the 'soldier' citizen would become a normal citizen again, but if it was destroyed, he would disappear thus representing the population loss. Anybody has any comments on this idea?

I really like this, but it does pose the problem that we are now back in Civ2 territory where a military unit is tied to a specific city which makes it kind of a micro nightmare, and makes "Factory Cities" Difficult.

My suggestion would be that the population point for a given unit is assigned by the AI not based on where the unit was produced, but instead based on evening out the distribution of military personell. That way the city builds the equipment, and does the training, but the personnel don't necessarily come from that city. This would allow "Factory Cities".