I just had a revelation to the cause of global empires by 2000 BC: growth rates.

Growth rates in the ancient era are really high and only improve slightly by the modern age. If you look at human population graphs on a global scale, a vast vast majority of the growth happened after 1800 and most of it after WWII.

How do we fix these problems?

1) Make mortality rates mean something. High mortality and disease rates, as well as normal epidemic factors, would slow down growth severely. In current civ terms that is increase the food needed in the food box.

2) Make farming(or how growth is handled in the future) improve a lot more over time. There needs to be farms, and probably a few other things besides basic irrigation.

Of course the big problem this causes is the fact that military units would be very popular because you cannot produce population much. Also, workers would not be so easy to come by, even in fertile valleys, which is an advantage.

I know this slows down the game, but is that such a bad thing to extend the ancient era? Things would really pick up whenever population exploded.

Great idea. One way around the military units would be to alow drafting (militia) of defensive units earlier in the game. It would allow one to concentrate a little more on offence but still allow a balance. The truth is that trained military units were, for the most part, pretty small up through the middle ages.

Sounds a lot like the Rise and Rule mod.

Now one thing you have to remember I believe as the game progresses each citizen head is equal to more population. However, it doesn't represent the true growth accurately enough.

Now one thing you have to remember I believe as the game progresses each citizen head is equal to more population. However, it doesn't represent the true growth accurately enough.
If that were true a settler shouldn't cost two pop heads later in the game.

I meant growth in number of pop-heads as well as quantity of people. YOur growth rates are maybe 50% better in Modern age than Ancient era.

If growth was retarded by disease rates, and agriculture increased by technology significantly, than Civ pophead curves would match earth history curves. right now tons of exploration is important in civ because expansion is so so easy. ICS is an insanely cheap strategy because you can get a new settler every 10 turns if you are growing slowly. I was hoping that was reduced to one every 50 turns if you are fast.

Heh, first post. Anyways,

The growth rates in Civ3 have always annoyed me, especially the fact that you can grow population-wise so much in Ancient and Medieval times, atleast compared to growth in modern/industrial times. This just isn't correct. Look here (http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/W/WorldBank.gif) for an example. You can see that population has boomed since 1800's, represented in Civ3 by the Industrial Age and Modern Age. In earlier times, there just wasn't the sanitation, medicine or food production to support such high population growth. Now, this is modelled somewhat in Civ3 with the concept of aqueducts and hospitals, but sanitation is not the only factor that has allowed population to explode in the past 200 years. Another driving factor has been improvements in agriculture technology, or the "green revolution." In the 1900's, new technologies have allowed much, much more food to be produced, which in turn has allowed the planet to support more people. So, how do accurately model this in Civ4?

1) "The Green Revolution"
The Green Revolution Started in the second half of the 20th century, though agriculture advances had been leading up to it for years. After over a hundred years of advanced in medicine and sanitation (represented by the hospital in Civ3), food didn't seem able to keep up with population growth rates caused by higher life expectancies. It seemed as if the Malthusian population model (a population model in which population grows exponentially while food grows linearly, thus causing massive starvation in the long rung) would come to pass. However, the advances of the Green Revolution changed all this. The Green Revolution was time of agricultural innovation and technological advances. Irrigation methods were improved, fertilizer was improved, and farming techniques on the whole were improved. The world went from producing 14 million tons of food per year in 1950 to 144 million tons of food in 1990.

In Civ4, the Green Revolution could be represented by a tech in the middle of the Industrial Age that would allow you either upgrade your irrigation squares to advanced irrigation squares/advanced farms/etc. (like you could do in Civ 2, if I remember correctly). The advanced irrigation would double food production on the square, causing your cities to grow rapidly in the final stages of the game. Another solution would be a Great Wonder, that, once built, would increase food production on the continent by, for instance, 2.5 and food production on other continents by 1.5. Alternatively, each civ could build a small wonder improving food production.

2) Improved Sanitation and Disease
One of the major factors preventing exponential population growth rates before the 1800's was the lack of proper healthcare of sanitation. While this is already kind of dealed with in Civ 3 (aqueducts and hospitals), it could be made more indepth, potentially. One thing that should happen is a greater occurance of disease. Disease would not just happen nears jungles or marshes (though the occurance would be greater there), but could happen in any city. Every 10 or so turns, a medium sized empire could expect to have around one population killed by disease. Along with diseases, plagues would happen more often. Some plagues would be local, affecting only a few cities. However, by the Medieval Ages, when trade routes and road networks are established, plagues could be devastating, affecting nearly every city on a continent, and potentially those on other continents, if there's a lot of sea trade. You could expect one large plague per game. Cities with hospitals wouldn't be affected by plagues very much, if at all.

@Lief Ericson Good first post. Welcome to civfanatics by the way.

I think rather than a wonder to increase food production it should be a tech instead. Something like "advanced farming tecniques" even though the real reason for the increase in production has been automation more that fertilization.

1) I like the idea of improved irrigation, although personally I would like to see an intermediate+1 to food imrpvoement that goes over irrigation, then the improvement which doubles food(industrial age).

2) I agree with the sentiment, but tend to disagree against pulse events in a protracted game. These things feel random and do not really affect growth in a predictable and linear way. Here is my suggestion: make 'health' determine how much food is needed to grow to the next population level.

Lets first start with the idea of the 'base food to grow' level. This level needs to be high, so lets start at 100 food in the box before you go to the second Pop head.

After you have base, than you have a modifier, which starts at 100%.

Disease - The mortality rate in demographics is an average across your civ. EAch city will have slightly different disease mortality rates based on traffic, location, terrain, etc. The rate raises the modifier, but is reduced over time by technology.

Sanitation - This rate is an amalgam of healthcare technology and sanitation present in a city, along with other factors. This reduces the modifier and can be improved with technology.

Average Life Span - This would be determined by other demographics and such, and would lower the modifier by 1% per year of life span.


This means that the 'base growth' would be very slow until either disease rates dropped nicely or healthcare got a lot better.

Also, when 'base growth' starts to approach the 25 - 50 % range, food production begins to increase massively. If you double food production and quarter growth requirements, then you increase grwoth 8 fold versus the Ancient Era. IN the modern era that advantage could grow to 20 to forty times the growth rate. Finally by the time you have epxlored the world, you can start to populate it.

How many people does a pop head represent now anyway?

@sir schwick. Good list. I would tie Ave life span to heathcare and nutrition though and not make it a primary modifier.

Maybe this will actually be similar to what Civ intends to do with health. Where food isn't the only determiner of growth, but basic quality of life issues, too.

sir_schwik, I agree. The thing is, currently in Civ, your city grows because you have enough food. This shouldn't be the case. You city should grow when the sanitation, medicine allow more people to be born than die. Food production should be the factor that allows your cities to not starve to death. We see these problems in much of the third world. Medicine has allowed people to live longer, thus drastically increasing growth rates. However, food has not been able to keep up with population growth, thus causing massive starvation. Civ4 shouild accurately represent this.

Imagine how it would change the early game if you couldn't produce settlers every five turns.

It would definitely draw out expansion and make science more important.

In the long run, it would make the later ages more interesting too, since land would go undiscovered for longer periods of time.

It would definitely draw out expansion and make science more important.

In the long run, it would make the later ages more interesting too, since land would go undiscovered for longer periods of time.

This is what I was thinking.

It would definitely draw out expansion and make science more important.

In the long run, it would make the later ages more interesting too, since land would go undiscovered for longer periods of time.
Yes, this system would make the later ages much more exciting and fun. Not only would large stretches of the world be undeveloped, but you would have to face a number of growth problems at home, shifting the focus of the game from war and diplomacy to internal affairs, and carefully managing your population growth so that your people don't sink into poverty and starvation.

and then when the industrial age hits with medical advances, your population would boom. PLayers would feel the joy of now having the labor they need for rapid expansion. The agricultural and medical revolutions would really feel like massive changes.

It's true, those are huge huge steps that Civilization doesn't really experience. Maybe the closest thing is the discovery of sanitation, but I think it's way underrated as is.

sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels,

Where are your growth figures for ancient times? Most of the explosive early growth is due to irrigatible river valleys---doesn't that jibe with most of the historically 'over' populated areas of the world (which didn't experience the Green Revolution, and the hospitals).


There's an in-built sanitation to living by a river, so perhaps non-river cities should be penalized by a higher mortality until the Industrial area.

Adding steps to agricultural improvements would also be good. Crop Rotation, Fertilizers (as early as Chemistry), Irrigation, and Advanced Fertilizers (20th C.), and an optional Pesticides (side-effect: pollution). And Genetics / Breeding. And Salting, Canning, and then Refrigeration for food distribution. Salt should be a strategic resource then.

I agree--mostly sounds like RAR.

http://www.bio.miami.edu/dana/160/humanpopgrowth.gif

That is a fairly commong curve showing human population levels throughout history. In Civ growth rates are pretty consistent throughout the six millenia, never having a massive expansion.

River valleys did allow relatively high concentrations of people with more possibilty for growth. However mortality rates were also extremely high. If anything, the reason for our population increase is the fact so fewer people are dieing. Rivers actually had a lot of drawbacks in terms of disease, considering water is a good medium for bacteria. Sanitation was very important, and many civs did not take care in that field.

i agree with this idea but it makes me think how the biggest cities are not necessarily in the most fertile locations. so maybe food should be tradeable between cities (I think they had this in civ 2). also immigration/migration based on the location and economy of a city should play a large role in how fast the city actually grows.

I'm pretty optimistic that Civ 4 will do something about this. It may not go all the way, but it might take a halfstep towards history (where 4 or 5 steps would be desired).

They're implementing health in the game. So food won't be the only factor for growth.

i agree with this idea but it makes me think how the biggest cities are not necessarily in the most fertile locations. so maybe food should be tradeable between cities (I think they had this in civ 2). also immigration/migration based on the location and economy of a city should play a large role in how fast the city actually grows

I discuss many of these ideas in my thread at the bottom of my signature. They are good things to be discussed, but unfortunately the scope of the current thread is only on the fact population growth rates are skewed.

Also, tie this in with military units requiring some population(maybe just food points, etc.) and you would make Ancient era warfare about tactics. Of course it favours those who can grow, but they are risking a lot to build a few swordsmen when you can throw together some militia and put htem back int he field.

Also, tie this in with military units requiring some population(maybe just food points, etc.) and you would make Ancient era warfare about tactics. Of course it favours those who can grow, but they are risking a lot to build a few swordsmen when you can throw together some militia and put htem back int he field.

That would make a lot of sense. Adding "operational range" of a military unit would help change warfare entirely, too. I like the idea, though, of have food units needed for military units, and the better the unit, the more expensive the non-gold support cost.

Good ideas in this thread!

Combine little growth, pop cost, and operational range and now war is only worth the endeavor if its profitable. Pure land grabs loose you so much in population that its not worth it.