Immigration instead of city flipping

This is just an idea I have. It seems that they have removed the cultural flips, maybe because people get angry when their cities flips. It is considerer unfair and exaggerated.

According to Civrules' wonderful pre-release information docs "There is no more Cultural Dominance in flipping Cities. Instead, as your nation expands, foreign cities will begin to become more and more in awe with your Civilization as a whole. This will cause the people in those foreign cities to get unhappy, and therefore their Civilization will have to spend money to keep them happy. As this burden gets heavier, that Civilization might just offer to give you their Cities via diplomacy"

I think that the city flipping due to cultural dominance was a great idea, but it is too dramatic, you loose a whole town!!!. What I propose is immigration instead of city flipping. So your city may loose one, two or more population points that goes to the culturally dominant city but you do not loose the whole town. I think is realistic (immigration happens) and not too dramatic as city flipping.


It could be a feature to add in a mod game.

What do you guys think about that?

I think they shouldn't flip. Just one shrinks and one grows.

City A (size 3)<----- City B (size 6)

City A (size 4) ===== City B (size 5)

Something like that.

Yes, you got it. That's what I wanted to say. That is immigration, one city shrinks and the other grows.

OR maybe even like this:

Civ A <------ Civ B, C, D

It can add culture to the cities because they're bringing their culture with them.

That in turn could cause problem in its own right if you have foreigners in your cities and then you goto war with there country it may cause unrest. Although the ymoved to your country there loyalty may well still be with there homeland.

Hey, in my opinion that would be well worth the risk. The other risk, of course, is that if a population grows-due to both immigration and natural growth-faster than you can build up your city's infrastructure (aqueducts, hospitals et al), then that city could start to suffer from a decrease in health. So this prevents any kind of exploitation of culture-based population changes. In addition, you could have a legal choice to restrict/ban migration-thus halting any flows into-or out of-your nation.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Totally awesome!!!

One great answer to one great annoyance.

At the very least, a city could flip if you could attract its very last population point. This way, you wouldn't lose a metropolis!!!

I'm not against cultural flips, I think it's a good idea, it makes people to remember they must build some cultural buildings to keep people happy.

There's a long time I didn't have any city flipped to another civ (except in case of taking huge cities in war, when there's a lot of resistors - but this case is "rebellion against oppressors", not flip). I always build a temple or a library as soon as I can, in a few turns cities will go from 9 tiles to 21 tiles, it works very well in the beginning of a game. Later in the game, when I need to build near to a city, owned by another civ, I try to hurry production for all cultural buildings as fast as possible, as well bringing a lot of military units to avoid flipping.

The idea of immigration instead of flip may make some people happier . No one likes to see a whole city going away. But there must be a message saying something like "People at city XYZ is unhappy and some people immigrated to city ABC" then decrease 1 pop in XYZ and increase 1 in ABC. On the other side, there must be a message saying something like "Unhappy people from XYZ came to our city ABC". Maybe an animation showing these immigration be good. It may work well, but it's not a good idea some cities producing tons of population and going away. There must be alternatives, where cities like this XYZ will flip:

1) XYZ has only 1 pop, and this pop is unhappy;
2) XYZ has unhappy pop, but ABC and all other near cities cannot grow;
3) People from XYZ already emigrated before, and there are people willing to emigrate. After 2 or 3 successful emigrations in a few turns (maybe it be accordingly to city size), the next must be a flip.

People emigrating is a warn to the ruler. Emigrating again is a warn², so if this ruler don't make anything to make people happier, then this ruler deserve a punishment, so the whole city may flip soon.

What do you think?

Immigration should be part of the whole picture. The status of your borders (open/restrictive) and politics and relative cultural ratings should influence international immigration (it should be an automatic reward, once you build up the conditions).

In MOO3, you could also set the flow of immigrations---basically representing pay incentives to move. Technically we got that with worker rushing to pop rush a city. It might be interested to automate it though---say 2 gp = 1 civ pop moves from any city to a city you designate as "immigration capital".

GoodGame said:

Immigration should be part of the whole picture. The status of your borders (open/restrictive) and politics and relative cultural ratings should influence international immigration (it should be an automatic reward, once you build up the conditions).

In MOO3, you could also set the flow of immigrations---basically representing pay incentives to move. Technically we got that with worker rushing to pop rush a city. It might be interested to automate it though---say 2 gp = 1 civ pop moves from any city to a city you designate as "immigration capital".

Click to expand...

Thank you for your posts. I didn't know that MOO3 developers already had the same idea. It can be finetuned as Ramalhão said.

Their sould be some way to control immigration. What if you are keeping your cities smaller on purpose? Having a whole heap of forigners come in and get every one upset cause of overpopulation would be no fun.

I agree with you Meleager-hence my post above. It should be possible to have a choice within either your 'legal' civics options-or even a set of seperate 'migration' civics options-how porous you want your borders to be. In order to close your borders all-together, though, you need to do so diplomatically, via the Open/Closed Border agreement.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

I very much like the sound of this... It sounds like it would make for a much more fluid existance that current incarnations of civ.
But, could there be other reasons for immigration than culture? Say for instance, when a city can't produce enough food and goes red. Are the people really going to sit there and slowly starve? In civ III they do. Perhaps in civ IV they could flee across the border to the nice city with surplus bread?

And then there is what you propose regarding civics. I don't think it should be possible to completly stop immigration, but reducing it should be completly possible, perhaps by adopted xenophobic policies like those adopted by much of Europe in the Middle Ages in relation to the Jews. Eventually tis will cause immigrants to leave for more friendly nations, which, however, are forced to bend to the loyalties of these immigrants?

People should immigrate instead of starving or suffering ill-health. For example, many fled the famine in Ireland, and this boosted American cities.

Plus I don't like to hear of people dying

Problem is: That kind of mass-immigration is a modern concept - and a little extreme, too.

You don't leave your country just because another one is cultural superior. Maybe it's a fascist state - would you then leave a democracy?! Or maybe this nation is your nations' mortal enemy...

What about if the immigration had real-world-like effects: corruption goes up, but so does production. That way you have incentive to have your borders open or closed. It could also be a diplomatic agreement, such as " i'll give you this resource if you open you borders to immigration" or vice versa, paying to close borders

I think this idea is stupid...
It's ridiculous people would move from one civ to another.
It would be dull.
What's the point of first getting population up and then see them move across the border?

NOT!
I really like this idea and it did come up in some thread already earlier.
It should be fine tuned of course and there should be some options to have some control over it. And the reason to leave civ should be varied than just cultural superiority. So unhappiness (and also wars)could cause people to immigrate.
Certainly something that SHOULD be part of the game, already.

Man, you really scared me there for about 2 minutes Sickman ! I mean, I know you and I haven't always seen eye to eye, but that first paragraph had me thinking you had taken leave of your senses or something!!
Glad to know we are in agreement here !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

madviking said:

I think they shouldn't flip. Just one shrinks and one grows.

City A (size 3)<----- City B (size 6)

City A (size 4) ===== City B (size 5)

Something like that.

Click to expand...

.......And what might bring this on is a question of trade wealth, luxury wealth, improvement types, and other various civ enhancers that in total out way the other city. THough, it would only happen when the city in danger of losing citizens to migration is that it is in disorder, uprisal or what have you(discontentment as severe or for an annoying number of turns).

What about a city that has reached it's maximum size or is being attacked?
If a city eats all it's food, but still makes babies, where do the babies go? to a different city. Preferably one with a similar culture. or climate.

And what if a city is being attacked? or expiriences a revolution? People want to get the hell out, again preferably to somewhere with a similar culture or climate. (Tons of Italians in Brazil)

And if you want to force people to emmigrate, why should you have to create a unit for it? Just spend gold to take the extra people and send them to populate your colonies.

If you do alot of trade with someone you might accidentally swap some people that retain their nationalities.