i think city growth and aquaducts should work differently in civ 4. right now if you have a city next to a river, it doesn't need an aquaduct. i like that. but i think you should only be able to build an aquaduct if you have a river inside your 21 city square radius. if not taht city can't get past size 6. now if you want that city to grow, you need to ship over food form another city. (sorta like freights in civ2) i think this will make it more realistic. if there is no river near by(or lake) than where's the aquaduct getting water?tell me waht you think.

maybe up to a certain age, but then you should be able to build some kind of ground water pump thing which supplants the aquaduct and can be built in any citiy.
food sharing is definatley a good idea, as long as there is transport between cities and a refridgeration tech.

but i think you should only be able to build an aquaduct if you have a river inside your 21 city square radius.

Greekguy that sounds good, but somethings wrong. if a river is inside your 21 square radius you won't need an aquaduct. first you can irrigate that square, getting the water, and realisticilly, you could think of it that the citizens are filling buckets with the water from the river. even if the city doesn't get the river square(another city overlaps it) the cities will transfer water. that might sound like a new plan though. also, with my idea you could have another box in city viewing screen, that shows how much water is in the city.

dexterJ: i agree with you this rule should only take effect until a certain age. with our modern technology we can obviously get food/water to a different region very quickly. i was thinking untill the industrial age. then a city with no river in the radius, but enough food to grow can build a type of modern aquaduct. also this improvment (can't think of a good name yet) can act as an airport, but instead of transporting units, it transports food. this way any 2 cities wiht this improvement built can give food to each other. a city with a big surplus can give to a city with very little food.

Greekguy that sounds good, but somethings wrong. if a river is inside your 21 square radius you won't need an aquaduct. first you can irrigate that square, getting the water, and realisticilly, you could think of it that the citizens are filling buckets with the water from the river. even if the city doesn't get the river square(another city overlaps it) the cities will transfer water. that might sound like a new plan though. also, with my idea you could have another box in city viewing screen, that shows how much water is in the city.

viking ruler: how can you irrigate a square outside of your city raidus? :crazyeye: i said if the river is OUTSIDE your city radius you shouldn't be able to build an aquaduct('cept till industrail age). you can't get the water for irrigation, so why should you be able to build an aquaduct for a city with NO river in its city radius? also water and food is basically the same thing. a whole new box for water is a bit too much. it should all contribute to growth together IMO.

Personally, I think they should chuck out the WHOLE population model, and start from scratch. Have fairly 'realistic' indications of a city's population, and have different factors contributing to the population growth and/or population decline of a city. So potable water sources and/or improvements which can bring in such water, good terrain surplus food, surplus goods, 'official birth rates', happiness and high employment should all contribute to population growth, wheras famine, disease, poor terrain, pollution and the like contribute to population decline. Implementation of improving medical technologies would, obviously, contribute both to lowering population decline AND increasing population growth. Increasing wealth would probably reduce population decline, but retard population growth (and poverty would have the OPPOSITE effect). The degree to which one cancels out the other would ultimately determine the NET change in population.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

ALSO, why not have POTABLE WATER is a strategic resource-if you have access to it (via 'trade' or within your city radius) then your population growth rates will increase-according to how much you have. However, as a resource, potable water can disappear if you place to much strain on it-through overdevelopment, pollution and runaway city building.

"WATER WARS"

Welcome to Arrakis.

Does that mean you LIKE the idea, or are you just being sarcastic? :mischief:

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

you should only be able to build an aquaduct if you have a river inside your 21 city square radius.

if a city is inside your 21 square radius YOU don't need an aquaduct. you said you should only be able to build an aquaduct if you have a river inside the radius. :crazyeye: thats what i meant. also how does water go towards food?

[QUOTE=vikingruler]if a city is inside your 21 square radius QUOTE]

next time when argueing me make sure you know what you're talking about. :lol: if it is a typo, check harder next time before posting. :)

if a city is inside your 21 square radius QUOTE]

if it is a typo

it was a typo, i was saying you only need to build a aquduct if the river is outside your city radius. you said if its in it you still need to, which is wrong.

it was a typo, i was saying you only need to build a aquduct if the river is outside your city radius. you said if its in it you still need to, which is wrong.

you DON'T need to builld an aquaduct if your city is directly next to a river. you MUST build an aquaduct to expand past size 6 if your city isn't next to a river EVEN if there is a river in your city radius. can someone else back me up here or point me to an example where i'm wrong. thanks. :)

@greekguy you are correct in this.

About the idea, I'm with aussie lurker on this one. The current system is very unrealistic. Cities are not built just becuase there is water nearby, but as a center for trade and/or civil administration. A city grows because of wealth not food or water.

That said every city should need an aqueduct at a certain point to provide clean water to different points in a large city, even if it is on a river.

I would like to see more gradations in allowable city growth, as pointed out, city size is based more on wealth and industry, esp. in modern times, then on water availability and local food supply.
Since in ancient times, local water WAS very important, maybe still have the aqueduct or a similar improvement needed to increase local food, allows city growth past 5. Skip the river business allowing second stage growth, have that based on whether or not there is a resource or luxury in the city radius that will allow trade/industry centers there. Aqueduct or city resources allow growth to size 10.

In middle ages, growth was a result of a combination of factors - city location for trade, industry and convenience to resources, much as its been ever since. Maybe instead of 1 building allowing growth to size 15, have a combo of buildings trigger the effect - say, a windmill, bank, and university, or a mill, cathedral, and military academy, etc.

In industrial times, roads are vital. Have Mass Transit allow for unlimited growth, coming a bit earlier in the tree. In modern times, maybe have yet another improvement, superhighways, that allow transport of food to allow even more growth for megacities.

Roman Aqueducts were giant public works projects that often extended many miles to the river in question. I think Aqueducts should be improvements built on squares that lead towards a city. Cities on rivers automatically are 'ducted' just like now, except it requires construction to get beyond six 6 in Civ 3 terms. As technology progresses, the number of tiles aqueducts can carry water increases.

Instead of improvements determining population caps, they determine employment levels. For example, any 'unseen' resources will always provide jobs for one or two citizens. Beyond that buikldings, such as Temples ,provide industries based off supporting hte build, the temple ,and so on. Some buildilngs become more efficient with increased trade or certain developements. Resources enhance and add jobs as well. Citizens will not move to cities that have no avaliable jobs, although citizens trapped in cities that have lost jobs will automatically be unhappy.

OK, here is a very broad take on this matter:

1) Each unit of food/shields an unimproved tile generates creates employment for X people-if that tile is worked. Players can boost or lower a tiles output by, say + or -1.

2) By boosting the number of food/shields which can be extracted from a tile, a tile improvement increases the 'employment output' of a given tile. Tile improvements also give players greater flexibility in deciding exactly HOW many shields/food he wants to extract from a tile.

3) Improvements also create employment-with every new city improvement creating employment for X people. If you don't have sufficient population to MAN all the improvements you build, then it will be IDLE until there are sufficient numbers.

4) Units and workers also 'use up' population. Units, in particular, do not contribute to the population growth of a city UNLESS they are IN a city.

5) The players main task in improvement and unit building will be to balance off competing demands for a slice of the 'population pie'.

6) Many factors would influence population growth at both an internal and external level. These might include:

(a) Employment-the more employment a city has, the lower its INTERNAL population growth (though the higher its EXTERNAL growth).

(b) Health Care-the higher the level of health care, the greater its INTERNAL population growth.

(c) The more wealthy a city is, the lower its INTERNAL population growth (though the higher its EXTERNAL growth).

(d) The greater a city's culture, the higher its INTERNAL and EXTERNAL population growth.

(e) The more surplus food a city has, the higher its INTERNAL population growth. Also access to 'manufactured' goods will also increase INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL population growth.

(f) The more FRESH WATER a city has (in its radius), the higher its INTERNAL and EXTERNAL population growth. (Note, FRESH WATER would be determined by the number of river/lake squares in a city radius-as well as 'average rainfall' determined by terrain types.)

(g) Increased Crime/Corruption/Pollution will all REDUCE INTERNAL/EXTERNAL population growth.

(h) National Factors/Social Engineering will also effect INTERNAL/EXTERNAL population growth. So increasing Theism, Libertarianism, Nationalism and Sufferage will all impact EXTERNAL/INTERNAL growth for ALL cities.

(i) Obviously, increasing the national birth rate will increase the INTERNAL growth rate of ALL cities within the nation.

(j) Happiness levels, in general, will also effect population growth.

Disease outbreaks and other natural disasters will have a one off impact on population growth according to the disasters STRENGTH and, in the case of disease, its DURATION and CONTAGION LEVEL.

Anyway, I hope that clarifies my hopes and dreams for Civ4's population and employment level. If people have any questions, please feel free to ask :)!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Does that mean you LIKE the idea, or are you just being sarcastic? :mischief:

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

I'm neutral.