 |
|
|
how's this for balance then
the more unhappy people you have, the more pleasure they require, the more babies are born, the harder it is to keep your city stable
|
|
| |
|
|
Rhuarc
|
 |
Florida, USA
Mar 2001
time: 00:14
|
|
ok, I am going to show my ignorance, what is GGS? And I agree with you. The game is supposed to be fun!!! I mean yeah, we want it realistic, but now so realistic that it no longer becomes fun! I mean if you want realism, GO OUTSIDE!!!!!! That's as real as you can get! Games are meant to be fun, and if that means sacrificing a little bit of realism, well, then so be it!!  Ok, I'm done now! 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maniac
|
 |
Gent, Belgium
Jul 1999
time: 06:14
|
|
Rhuarc, it's true population size won't grow if there's too little food, for the simple reason they'll die of starvation sooner or later. Thus availability of food is a limiting factor for population size. So you must have enough food; in civ words, you must have 2 food per citizen. The unrealistic part in civ is that population growth is determined by food surplus. Once you have reached a certain amount of food availability, it ceases to be a determining factor for people to choose to or not to have a child. Otherwise people in industrialized countries would have more children than people in developing countries. It's just the opposite around. They have more children in developing countries. Why? For one, there is child labour in those countries. Every child means more income. The same counts for farmers 6000 years ago. The more children, the more free work forces. Another point is that there is little social security in those countries. To be assured a quiet and peaceful life when you're old, you must have children taking care of you. This is no longer necessary in industrialized countries, beause retired people get money from the state to survive. One reason why ex-communist Russia has such a low birth rate. So actually, it's just the opposite around than what you claim. The less reason people have to be happy, the more children they will have. Of course, it's best that this shouldn't be implemented in civ3. Otherwise players would make their populace as unhappy as possible before they get riots.
Then what should be the most determining factor of population growth. Well, history (and present reality in Africa) shows us that there is a population boom if the hygiene and health of the population increases. Simply put, the less people die from diseases, the higher your population growth. This is clearly shown by the fact that, until the Industrial Revolution with its accompanying health & hygiene increase, city populations only stayed stabile because there was a constant immigration of people from the countryside. Until the 1800s, the death rate in city was very high as a consequence of epidemics.
Of course it's too late in Civ3's development to include a disease model, but I think they could include a city improvement called "Hospital", which would make population growth go 50% faster, and give each city two happy citizens. Also, it should be impossible to have a population boom until you have this facility. (You have to admit; the "democracy with 100% luxuries" tactic was too powerful.)
M@ni@c
Going back into lurker status...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Al'Kimiya
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rhuarc
I thought the population was 10,000 for each population point hence:
1 = 10,000
2 = 20,000
3 = 30,000
*
*
*
41 = 410,000
|
Only in CTP2...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
dainbramaged13
|
|
Dumbass
Mar 2000
time: 00:14
|
|
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...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:14.
Apolyton Time is 00:14. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-06-2001 04:03
)
I thought it was... oh just forget it!
|