I was wondering if anyone missed that feature in Civ3 (and maybe the earlier Civs, I don;'t know) where you can build a worker/settler in one city and use it to buff up the population of another city and the whole military-disband for production thing. For me it was kind of cool, considering you could have a productive city (so long as it can keep those immigrants' bellies bloated) near instantly (or for the whipping pleasure of the sadists out there).

:dance::whipped:
-dance, little immigrant, dance!
-OH YEAH! (Chm)

Oh yes, and does anyone miss the whole "Entertainer" specialist? Or did that concept make little sense to you as much as the fact that artists don't provide any happiness (that could just be me, though)?

I was wondering if anyone missed that feature in Civ3 (and maybe the earlier Civs, I don;'t know) where you can build a worker/settler in one city and use it to buff up the population of another city and the whole military-disband for production thing. For me it was kind of cool, considering you could have a productive city (so long as it can keep those immigrants' bellies bloated) near instantly (or for the whipping pleasure of the sadists out there).

:dance::whipped:
-dance, little immigrant, dance!
-OH YEAH! (Chm)

Definitely, yeah, I was just thinking of that yesterday, as I stared into my game... I want that feature back!

This was a good feature... but I think I read something about it technically being an exploit.

Maybe so... But in the real world, people DO move from city to city, and ruthless dictators (like Mr. Flying Chicken over here) DO/DID force entire cities to move.

I think forced migration should be an option, but it should make the new population unhappy (we don't like being uprooted/these immigrants are taking our jobs)

Speaking of immigrants, has anyone seen TheLopez' immigration modcomp (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=173972)?

I think that would be a fine addition to the mod.

The only problem with that is that it would weaken the American UP a tad.

looks good

Weaken the American UP? Maybe not. Forced immigrations are always unhappy affairs (lots of :mad: probably) - unforced immigrations would cause less :mad: because of "it's too crowded." Or more, for both, because of cultural differences (:mad: for "We want to rejoin the Motherland" from the immigrants).

The Immigration Mod sounds fun, but that would slow down gameplay since it adds more units (and since we're on the RFC forums, that's a no-no!). The 'backstage immigration' thing of the American UP could work out better...Besides, that will fix the whole "we can't cross the ocean" business (Technology being the basis of overseas immigration instead of an actual ship).

As for the forced migration thing being an exploit, let the AI suffer in their own incompetence - if they have their happiness, health, production, and research bonuses, then let us have these so-called "exploits."

Anyway, for RFC, I don't think immigration would be a nice feature, since it will take away all the novelty (ergo, part of the fun) of playing as the Americans, don't you guys think so?

EDIT:
That is, normal doo-dah-day immigrations. Forced immigrations are just part of the fun of being dictator of the world.
ruthless dictators (like Mr. Flying Chicken over here)
Democracy is what you get when you have a squabbling rabble negotiate their differences by giving the bigger or stronger (or both) party complete power over the matter, even if it is not always right or sensible.

I think forced immigration should be disabled by some civics. Not sure which though.

Anyway, for RFC, I don't think immigration would be a nice feature, since it will take away all the novelty (ergo, part of the fun) of playing as the Americans, don't you guys think so?

That's what I meant by "Weaken" ;)

Free Speech, definitely.

Universal Suffrage, Representation - you still vote for someone who can kick you around. Free Speech allows you to legally voice out your complaints without fear of beatings/killings/etc.

OK, Free Speech.

Do you think the AI will be able to use it, or is that what you mean by "exploit"? That the AI can't do it and we can?

I dunno. I haven't been perving on the AI all this time to know whether or not it force-migrated in Civ3 (I highly doubt that it did)!

...But for a human player, instant growth and production (or instant whip-hammers) in a new city with a good location sounds nice, doesn't it?

Yeah, from a "make it easier for human to win" perspective it seems good, but what about balancing etc.?

Democracy is what you get when you have a squabbling rabble negotiate their differences by giving the bigger or stronger (or both) party complete power over the matter, even if it is not always right or sensible.

Democracy sucks

I get frustrated with democracy too.

What would you prefer?

Oh snap

That's where the anti-democratic arguments fall down you see

I believe Winston Churchill's quoted words are appropriate here. Just research Democracy in civ and you'll know the ones ;)

:eek: OFF-TOPICISITY!

Even the most incapable people of society get a vote.

Whoops, you already warned about the off-topicnessity of the thread.

I find the immigration idea interesting, and I think it should be featured under the "Expansion" civics. After all, "expansion" comprehends "population expansion", no?
Each civic will have a value for a more or less immigration value. Ideas:

-Subjugation: None immigration. Just think, how many people you know want to stablish in Cuba, or in North Korea nowadays? I think the same, none.
-Viceroyalty: Minor immigration. Now your government divides its country on several parts, call it provinces, viceroyalties or whatever. Some people may come attracted to settle on the new provinces. E.g. : (late)Spanish Empire, (early) British Empire.
-Resettlement: Major immigration. Now you actively promote people to trip to your new lands. A lot of peolpe come attracted to fulfill their dreams on the new lands. E.g.: (late) British Empire, any colonial power.
-Occupation: NEGATIVE immigration. Because of warrive nature of your government, people prefer to escape from your empire's claws, ruled by you as ruthless dictator as Mr. Flying Chicken ;) . E.g.: 3rd Reich, Soviet Union.
-Commonwealth: TOP Immigration. Thanks to your open borders, and your federal or net-shaped political structure, you empire now wellcomes new blood, and people feel safe to come and found new homes. E.g.: European Union, USA.

Another idea I had is to make immigration to appear (or to peak) after you had a GA, representing the news spreading of a powerful and rich empire, where people can easily have better conditions of life.
I think the American UP may not be lessened by this feature, if you just adjuste so to be somethink like "America has a constant stream of immigrants, not caring the civis it has". So the immigration feature will apply to all civs, except America.

Perhaps the cities with highest culture, health, and happiness should get immigrants, limited by the civic effects you just stated (I like them lots). If the civics of one of top Civs disallow immigration, then the next most eligible set of cities to be immigrated-to become eligible for immigration.

The American UP will not be lessened - the novelty will just disappear. Maybe if the American UP was something like "Pop Culture" where American culture spreads to all non-closed Civs...

Maybe if the American UP was something like "Pop Culture" where American culture spreads to all non-closed Civs...

You couldn't represent this properly.

Oh, you could just convert a percentage of cities' culture into American even without immediate border contact - provided America has (1) greater score, (2) contact with the cities' civ, and (3) America and the civ must both have broadcast towers. Very conditional, and very useless. But it's COOL.

I dont like it. If its in can open borders be a recuirment too at least

Yeah, probably. But then, does open borders stop refugees from entering neutral territory?

Perhaps the cities with highest culture, health, and happiness should get immigrants, limited by the civic effects you just stated (I like them lots). If the civics of one of top Civs disallow immigration, then the next most eligible set of cities to be immigrated-to become eligible for immigration.

The American UP will not be lessened - the novelty will just disappear. Maybe if the American UP was something like "Pop Culture" where American culture spreads to all non-closed Civs...

Yeah, I thought those effects as modifiers for a given formulae, that might get into consideration the factors you say, which can be summarized just as the city highest in score.

I don't think open borders stop immigration. On the contrary, it ATTRACTS population. If you now go the Balearic Islands, the Canary Islands, or the southwest coast of Spain you'll see that it's growingly populated by germans, dutch and english. In fact, some cities are currently governed by them! They came to Spain when we opened borders with that countries after entenring on the European Union.

As I said, the American UP should stay as it is, because it will guarantee a constant stream of population to the country, with independence of the civics you choose, or the distribution of your workers (e.g. you can put a city maximizing :hammers: and starving, but it will keep growing thanks to immigration). This is a great advantadge, if you know to handle it. Many people complain about American UP because they just play as they will play any other civ, and they are wrong. When playing American, micromanage every city, every turn, it's of max importance to success!

What I meant was: does [the lack of] open borders stop refugees from entering [officially closed] neutral territory?

Grammer aisn't meh strongurst bit.

Good correction, thanks. Well, I think part of the immigration is stopped, but not the main stream. Actually, we Spanish have a lot of immigration. Almost everyday the news show that our navy have captured another "slave vessel" on African waters (so far reaches our culture! ;) ), but from time to time also shows that one of these boats has arrived to our coasts, captured by Coast Police, because it wasn't on good conditions to go back safely to its home country, so the immigrants are hosted in special camps (much secret is hold on these, but probably these camps are pretty much like prisons). These two cases show the ones that immigrants are captured and sent back to their home countries. Most of immigrants, though, enter illegally by night, crossing less watched waters, and leave immigrants on the beach (or even at sea!), or legally, as tourists.

On game terms: closed borders should make immigrations to be reduced, but will depend on the garrison units you have in the city. Jails should also make immigration to be reduced. Airports, harbors, and any other "trade route" building related (or trade routes itself) should increase immigration.

Summary: trade routes and open borders should mean an increase in immigration rates. Closed borders, military, walls, castles, and jails decrease general immigration, especially closed borders. War scatters (aside from destroying) population to the nearest cities (would be usually none in case of long sieges that cut off food supplies, or in general just having a small population). Having a city unconnected by any trade route simply means its cut off from the rest of the world.

Maybe the Statue of Liberty provides you with an increased rate of immigration, given that your state has relatively more attractive or similar Civics from where they came from (emancipation, free speech, universal suffrage, the stuff people love and take for granted nowadays)? And culture in general makes a city (cities, not whole civs) more attractive?

Yes, I would agree to both things. An example: most Europeans haven't problems at all before 11-S to go and settle on America. After it, and specially after the Patriot Act, and other acts on the same course, Europeans start to be more afraid to stablish on there. That may be represented in the game, as George W. Bush, triggering away "Freedom Speech" and switching to "Nationhood" (argument: the American nation's security is more important than individual rights - European favourite civic is Freedom Speech, so lower European immigration to America is the result).

I find the immigration idea interesting, and I think it should be featured under the "Expansion" civics. After all, "expansion" comprehends "population expansion", no?
Each civic will have a value for a more or less immigration value. Ideas:

-Subjugation: None immigration. Just think, how many people you know want to stablish in Cuba, or in North Korea nowadays? I think the same, none.
-Viceroyalty: Minor immigration. Now your government divides its country on several parts, call it provinces, viceroyalties or whatever. Some people may come attracted to settle on the new provinces. E.g. : (late)Spanish Empire, (early) British Empire.
-Resettlement: Major immigration. Now you actively promote people to trip to your new lands. A lot of peolpe come attracted to fulfill their dreams on the new lands. E.g.: (late) British Empire, any colonial power.
-Occupation: NEGATIVE immigration. Because of warrive nature of your government, people prefer to escape from your empire's claws, ruled by you as ruthless dictator as Mr. Flying Chicken ;) . E.g.: 3rd Reich, Soviet Union.
-Commonwealth: TOP Immigration. Thanks to your open borders, and your federal or net-shaped political structure, you empire now wellcomes new blood, and people feel safe to come and found new homes. E.g.: European Union, USA.


Migration is a consequence of a variety of push-pull factors. Aside from the relative availability of resources (proximally v. distally), elements of a population are motivated to migrate by the degree to which they are integrated -- assimilated or segregated -- in the society they live in.
This is a function of the way that society is stratified.

In game terms, migration could be an event brought about by instability: a certain percentage of the city's population moves to the nearest city or cities, for example.
The Expansion civic represents basic social relations; why not, then, call the civic "Social" instead? It seems more comprehensive than "Expansion."

SOCIAL

-Egalitarianism: Base civic. No inequality. Good Stability bonus. Limits city size to ...3? Some probability of the event Migration (cities lose a percentage of their population to the nearest three cities)
-Segregation: (with Priesthood) Poor Stability bonus (fair with Hereditary Rule civic). Cultural and Structural inequalities exist, yet are sanctioned and tolerated. Required to get benefits from Slavery. Bonus Stability for each Vassal. Some probability of the events Migration, Expulsion (lose 25% of population to the nearest three foreign cities; temporarily gain Stability, lose more Stability over time). Genocide (lose 25% of population; temporarily gain Stability, lose much more Stability over time; triggers possibility of War Crimes Tribunal, allows International Justice, etc)
-Pluralism: (with Liberalism) Good Stability. Some probability of Migration, Separatist Movement (change civics to Autonomy or 0%-25% of your cities join an adjacent Civ)
-Autonomy: (with Divine Right) Fair Stability (Poor w/Nationhood civic; Good w/State Property civic). Stability penalty for each vassal. Some probability of Migration, Secession (25%-75% of your cities become independent), Diaspora (triple rate of pop growth out of your Civ from Migration for a limited time)
-Integration: (with Democracy or Corporation) Fair Stability (good w/Pacifism civic; poor w/Police State civic). Can't have vassals. Some chance of Migration, The Melting Pot (triple rate of pop growth into your Civ from Migration for a limited time), Radicalism (Changes civic to police state; lose stability each turn for a limited time, less with Jails, much less w/Emancipation)

I don't think a society civic can be implemented without compromising realism. Sure, there were state-controlled societal models in the past, but it's always in following of the collective wishes of the people. If it doesn't work with the people -- how they think affected by "the times" -- it would no doubt compromise the stability of the state too much.

But please, feel free to defend your position and convince me of the errors of my ways (no sarcasm, honest).

Goes to my point: a society civic has been implemented. It seems to me that the Stability of a civ, as it's defined in RFC, is a gauge of the collective wishes of the people, specifically, how well their Civilization is meeting those wishes.
I think "Society" better describes "collective wishes of the people" than "Expansion." RFC's civic is essentially otherwise the new civic, with different terminology.

I think the Expansion civic is simply and literally the state's policy of territorial expansion, not it's disposition towards its population. However, I find that "Subjugation" and "Occupation" (treating of conquered territories) are disconnected from "Viceroyalty" and "Commonwealth," (governance of faraway territories) and those are further disconnected with "Resettlement" (which is acquisition of faraway territories).

A "Society" civic would mean Stability effects should change with the times and culture of certain civilizations. However, many of these are quite variable and hardcoding changes would make the game too rigid, in my opinion.

I think it's disconnected, too. Society, and the concomitant civics I described, are just a way to unify the idea. The idea of a state social policy seems to encompass a policy for expansion. Maybe a more appropriate title would be "Social." In essence, however, my civic does exactly the same thing as the original: increase or decrease a the Stability of a Civ.

Some civic combos are more naturally antagonistic (Integration & Police State), while some build social cohesion (Integration & Pacifism) so some hard-coding is always necessary. But given the number of civic categories and the many different situations a civ can finds itself in, there's still more than enough unpredictability and variability in the game.

I don't like your proposition of a "Society" civic, since society it's build around not only a state's policy, but also the people's culture. What I mean is that each civ will have it's own policy. Certain civs are more prone to migration and travelling (England, Spain), but some others are more closed into themselves (China -in the past-, America -nowadays-). I think the loosely civic of "Expansion" it's good enough to reflect migrations, there's no need to change it.

Your response begs the question: What makes one society more prone to migration than another? Is it an inherent quality of that Civ (something that can't be changed by a civic), or is it a reflection of the social organization of that civ (something that can be changed by a civic)?

If it's something that can be changed, then it's important to clearly define what is being changed. I only suggest that a "Social" civic, describing the general organizing principle of a society (i.e., it's social stratification), is a better way of describing a society's potential for discord (also, the chance that it's members will relocate) than a civic called "Expansion," which in intuitively and descriptively flawed.

Y'know, me wife is a 50C107O615T, you sound just like her :)

@50C107061CA7
I think it would be the inherent quality of a certain Civ both uncontrollably (as represented by culture and, in a broader sense, the score) and the controlled part (generous civics).

Using the expansion civic for the purposes of general migration (which will probably be never implemented in RFC anyway -- but will provide some food for thought for other modders out there) is for convenience's sake in RFC's context, and it fits in nicely but definitely not perfectly.

I've noticed (just now) that the expansion civic is somewhat linear and inflexible, : Occupation and resettlement are for acquisition of territory, and you have to pick one -- warlike or peaceful expansion. Afterwards, when you are no longer acquiring territory, you may switch to either viceroyalty or commonwealth to "secure" the stability of your empire. Viceroyalty for the warmonger (if you leave some land for your opponent, you'll be capitulating) and commonwealth for the resettlement-user (no capitulation option).

I forgot how stating this is relevant. Anyway, a state controlling how a society is organized sound Orwellian to me. Have there been any states in the past that has forced a societal structure opposing the "trends" of the people at that time and place?

I don't know, it seems to me the whole CIV concept is pretty Orwellian. How is changing the Economy or changing Governments with the push of a button any less manipulative than changing the way people organize themselves?
The whole game is fundamentally an experiment in Social Engineering. Fixing the Social relations part of it only adds to the "realism" of the simulation.

Yeah, I guess you're right. Civ is a god-game, after all (not unlike the Sims). Don't all existing civics affect society in some way? So, how the social structure turns out is affected by the civics; how can a society (which includes any state leader they have at the time) end up pluralistic if they have slaves? How about a social "civic" that cannot be directly controlled by the player?

We have a fantastic factor like that in RFC: stability. A stable society attracts people. An unstable society makes people to flee. It's quite simple. See Irak: how many people have fled since the war started? And now see the European Union: how many people came attracted by its peace and stability? That's why the expansion civic should reflect migration. I can understand that it's a bit loose, and does not reflect exactly or directly societal structure, but they affect stability, and stability affects migration. Do you see it?

Fearuin: Stability ought to be a factor in all civics.

Radically changing governments, for example, in an otherwise stable civilization should have consequences. Events can be designed to automatically change affected civics (following Flyingchicken's suggestion, below). Players can always change those civics back, but with a more tangible cost: civil strife, unhappiness, etc.

Yeah, I guess you're right. Civ is a god-game, after all (not unlike the Sims). Don't all existing civics affect society in some way? So, how the social structure turns out is affected by the civics; how can a society (which includes any state leader they have at the time) end up pluralistic if they have slaves? How about a social "civic" that cannot be directly controlled by the player?

I don't see how government affects a society. It's usually the other way around.

Ah, but the government I was talking about is the god you play who controls the subconscious of the people of your Civ.

One way to look at it is that the sum of all civics represents society. So changing the government, for example, changes society. Changing religion changes society, etc. But it doesn't stop there. "Society" make not like the change and demand something new. Society is reflexive, reactive.

The only mechanism that the original game (vanilla CIV) had to account for such reactive changes is a period of revolt. RFC takes the game in a more "realistic" direction with stability and events, but I think it could go a bit further. Or at least be refined a bit.

Well, longer anarchy periods would fit - uh, no - um, how about periods of halved productivity? Periods of increased susceptibility to instability? Periods when all your ships automatically and independently go back to port? Periods when colonies revolt? Periods when your cities turn to forests/jungles for one turn (in the case of super-hippie environmentalist people "going too far" then realizing their mistakes the next year)?

What would moderate such periods of change? Would not an integrated society react differently, more violently, to the introduction of a Caste System than a segregated one?
What I propose--a "social" civic--is not a civic, exactly; it's more of a meta-civic, moderating the other civics and preserving the stability of society as a whole. Theory: If you, as supreme leader, can't adequately do the job of managing your civ, society will, often violently, take matters in its own hands and move itself in a happier direction.

Well, how about a hidden one? Surely it need not be known and be left to reasoning (and allows for more imaginative freedom).

About factors affecting it: something happiness and health and commerce and production based (like the Great Depression thing)? For example, a farmer/miner (more hammers than coins) Civ would accept State Property (as it represents communism in a way), Universal Suffrage, Representation w/o Bureaucracy, Free Speech, and others better than Slavery and Environmentalism (mines are always more productive than forests). Conversely, a town-heavy (more coins than hammers) Civ would not take to State Property too well, but would still like some Free Speech action. In fact, all kinds of societies will want Free Speech and Universal Suffrage (except for Specialist-heavy Civs -- if the Chinese Unification scenario is correct, then they represent the "elite" of society, those who don't get their backs broken every day for the sake of survival -- because they're elitist and have a lot of the elite in power). Oh, and how about culture? If you have a Civ that has too much foreign influence within their cities (like America with all those immigrations), then your Civ won't take to Nationalism all too well.

So, before I extend that paragraph further the factors I'm suggesting include: Specialist to non-specialist ratio, hammer to coin ratio, nationality factor, and the "freedom factor."

Fresh ideas for everyone!

I don't see how government affects a society. It's usually the other way around.

I think it's fairly easy to see how gov'ts can affect a society. Let's take an entirely hypothetical example: a government, let's call it the Bush administration, just to illustrate, that uses the media to instill fear and paranoia into its citizenry, thereby making the people accept the idea that freedom 'as an idea' is worth fighting for, killing innocent people halfway across the world.

DISCLAIMER: *all characters fictitious, any resemblance to real life events or the Bush administration purely accidental*

Fearuin: Stability ought to be a factor in all civics.

Radically changing governments, for example, in an otherwise stable civilization should have consequences. Events can be designed to automatically change affected civics (following Flyingchicken's suggestion, below). Players can always change those civics back, but with a more tangible cost: civil strife, unhappiness, etc.

This already happens in the mod, if you didn't noticed. If you want to make a try, start a game, try to get a very good stability, and then change three civics at a time, and combining, for example, Police State and Free Speech. If you don't collapse in a few turns, just tell me!

Why would a leader combine incompatible civics if the consequence of such an action was instability, fearuin? Self-sabotage is not a good strategy.

I'm simply suggesting that there should be some mechanism, hidden or not (I think it should be transparent), that allows for spontaneous civic change.

Water seeks its own level. Free societies, for example, would normally want their civics to reflect their liberal beliefs: free speech, emancipation, free religion, etc. A stable society would stand firm, allowing for little flexibility in its civic scheme. Even free societies can become unstable though. Economically depressed Europe in the early 20th century is a good example of this. Such instabilities can lead to precipitous changes in a society. Facism was a radical, but surprisingly stable, alternative to what European society saw as a failed democratic system. Effectively, in game terms, the rise of Facism caused civic change across the board. But far from causing the collapse of civilization, in a very disturbing way it preserved it.

If I understood you well, what you say it's that each civic should give a modifier to stability. Well, actually does, but it's hidden (I'll quote Shadowlord's list, referred to civics, but in this thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=201431&page=2), you can find the bigger one):
Civics:
Vassalage causes either a +3 bonus or or -3 penalty to base stability, depending on what era it is. (+3 in era 2 (medieval?), -3 in all other eras)
Bureaucracy causes a base stability bonus of +5 if you have <= 5 cities. Otherwise, you get a penalty instead (-1 base stability per city after five, but no lower than -7).
Representation almost always causes a base stability penalty: Your base stability will be increased by 2*(3-numCities), but not less than -7. For example, 4 cities causes -2 base stability, 5 cities causes -4 base stability, 6 cities causes -6 base stability, and any more cities than that causes -7 base stability.
However, Representation does grant a +5 base stability bonus if your stability is already above 30.
Despotism raises your stability by 20 if it drops below -60.
Police State raises your stability by 30 if it drops below -60. In theory, if you were almost collapsing, and could generate a large enough temporary stability penalty to drop below -60, you could abuse this to raise your stability by 30 points above what it was before (If you don't get unlucky and collapse).
Hereditary rule prevents your stability from dropping below -50 (by raising it back up to -50). This would probably not be very useful since below -40 is collapsing.

Universal Suffrage grants a +10 base stability bonus if your stability is already above 50.
Free market has the possibility of a great depression, which reduces your base stability by 17-25 points.

If you have researched communism, and have changed to state property, leaving state property causes a base stability penalty of 25 points for 10 turns or so.
Viceroyalty grants +4 base stability per civ starting point you control (including your own). There doesn't need to be a city there.
Commonwealth eliminates base stability penalties from low amounts of imports/exports, and for having a low economy / population ratio.
If you have researched democracy, and switch from despotism, hereditary rule, or police state to universal suffrage, you suffer a -20 base stability penalty for 10 turns. Switching from representation to universal suffrage causes no penalty. If you had enough time, you could avoid the penalty by switching from one of the despotic civics to representation, and then to universal suffrage when you could switch again.

Civics combinations with base stability penalties:
Police State and Free Speech: -10
Theocracy and Emancipation: -3
Universal suffrage and Barbarism: -3
Caste System and State Property: -7
Despotism and Bureaucracy: -2
Vassalage and State Property: -7
Nationhood and Pacifism: -10

Civics combinations with base stability bonuses:
Police State and Nationhood: +10
Police State and State Property: +5
Nationhood and Mercantilism: +6
Hereditary Rule and Vassalage: +3
Representation and Bureaucracy: +4
Emancipation and Free Religion: +2



And every civ has its preferences on civics, as you'll surealy already know. I think the way it is, it's either realistic and playable. Just my opinion, though.