population limit

[Dida]

I don't like the idea of having an arbitrary cut off point for city grow, such as 6 in a city without aquaduct, and 12 w/o hospital.
How about we have some random events, such as riot and plague that is a function of population and other factors such as terrain and technology. So the bigger the population, the higher the chance of getting plague or some other problems. Some technology and some city improvements will decrease the chance of getting plague.
Plague will spread quickly throughout the empire if the cites are inter connected, and can even spread to other countries.

[Aussie_Lurker]

I totally agree with you Dida, and have said so in several threads. I preferred the CtP approach, where your population could grow as much as it wanted, but if you lacked a sufficient, underlying infrastructure (like aqueducts or hospitals) your people would start to become VERY unhappy. Obviously greater susceptibility to plagues should also be another trade off for high population cities!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[Denarr]

Cities without a water system are incapable of growing beyond a certain size.
In the real world this size varies, depending on the terrain within which the city is located.
The programmers could simulate this, but it would increase game size, and slow down game play.
Cities eventually need some sort of sanitation facilities to grow even further.
I think the Civ 2 sanitation facility of Sewer System was more fitting than Hospital, but a Sanitation Facility of some sort was definitely an appropriate necessity.
Random crime was simulated by the unhappiness factor, and cities that had an insufficient number of Happines Improvements for their size go into revolt. If the revolt isn't dealt with soon enough, it gets ugly.
I do think there should be some provision for the possibility of a nation having cities breaking away and forming their own country, but I think it should also be limited to cities that have gone into revolt, with some sort of consideration for creating greater unrest in the rest of the nation (much like war weariness) which would increase the risk of more cities joining the rebel nation.
This would simulate the civil war syndrome, and it seems to fit in with how many of the world's civil wars and splinter groups/nations got their starts.

[Jaca]

I agree with all of you. In another thread I suggested the use of a more elaborated health care model. For example, one might get sick citizens in towns or cities, depending on the money spent on health care (may be part of the luxury bar), the (lack of sanitary) infrastructure, and the number of people in town. A sick citizen would then produce less. I.e. a 2F-2S-2C tile worked by that sick citizen, could prove only worth 1F-1S-1C, effectively slowing down growth and production. More sick people or sick people present for a long time, could lead to starvation, or worse, the start of a (city or empire wide) plague. Or, as suggested by you guys, more unhappy people and so possibly even less productivity or civil wars!? The larger the empire, the larger the network and so the more vulnerable to this.

Regards,
Jaca

[rcoutme]

Jaca, the problem with your model is that I would take all of the sick citizens and make them entertainers and scientists. Furthermore, we are talking years here, not months. I don't think making workers sick is the answer. Instead, either hit the city with plagues or not. That was how Civ3 decided to deal with run-away population on flood plains, and it would probably work for >12 size cities without sanitary improvements.

[Jaca]

rcoutme, I understand your comment. But then again, making all sick citizens entertainers and scientists would just lead to starvation as well, or at least to a stagnation of the city growth. It might be better to leave the sick somewhat less productive citizen in the city for a while. Besides, it should not be too hard - though maybe in some peoples opinion somewhat artificial - to prohibit making (many) sick citizens specialised ones. Only option is to put more money in luxury and health care, or let him starve, and indeed go through the process of a plague. I also figured the appearance of sick people would warn you for a possible upcoming plague, instead of just striking suddenly. It might just add a little more dynamism in the game.

I don't say it' s such a great idea. The reason I came up with it was, that I find in CIV some concepts just too much all or nothing. The issue in this thread is an example of that. Why growth till a discrete number (6 or 12)? Desease (or the suggested plagues) is another such example: it only strikes in flood plains and takes a few citizens. After a short painfull time it's gone forever. So I thought of this concept as a more smooth way of handling health care, desease and city growth. And I hoped it would also put more pressure on bigger civs that have grown too fast. Anyway, city (or worse empire-wide) plagues as suggested by you guys might prove all right for this purpose as well. But some warning might be nice.

Regards,
Jaca