Domestic Discussion: Getting Our Cities to Size 12

I know there is still some time left in Term 5, but I am starting this discussion as a citizen so that I may hopefully begin work on it as Term 6 Domestic Leader.

This proposal will allow us to prepare for the advent of hospitals. The idea would be to have our larger, more food-plentiful cities send settlers to help the growth of those that can currently sustain a larger population but have limited growth potential.

The plan contains 6 different types of cities:

Self-sustained These are larger cities that either don't have the resources to grow larger or are too production heavy to spare the population. With a bit more preparation, cities in bold can be switched to Provider.

Provider These are the only cities that would produce settlers under this plan. Focus should be on maximizing irrigation in these cities so that population can be replenished quickly to allow continued settler production.

Level 3 These are cities that have enough unworked resources to immediately grow 5-6 population points(3 settlers).

Level 2 These are cities that have enough unworked resources to immediately grow 4 population points(2 settlers).

Level 1 These are cities that have enough unworked resources to immediately grow 2 population points(1 settler).

Level 0 These are cities that cannot just yet enter the plan for various reasons. Next to each city, I have included the reason for the hold-up and the category that city would be in once the problem was resolved.


As you will see below, we have much opportunity for growth. Keep in mind that this plan will only ask for a production change in Provider cities. Governors would still be able to plan for military, cultural and financial issues in every other city. And under this plan, they will find they can realize their goals much faster. Cities in bold indicate future Provider status. Here's the list:

Self-sustained
Bavaria
Tokyo
Octavinium
Plexenburg
Kagoshima
Kells
Serenity
Bremershaven


Provider
Kyoto
Eklektochtitlan
Palanthus
Zorgonzolia


Level 3
Dacula


Level 2
Tlaxcala
Nara
Novgorod
Riga
Pensacola
Karachi


Level 1
Kuhkaff
The Highlands
Tarkingrad
Izibia
Andobius
Civanatoria
Nocsfiedera
Leckopolis
Calcutta
Lahore
Nagasaki
Pune


Level 0
Delhi(aqueduct > self-sustained)
Bombay(aqueduct > provider)
Shimonoseki(aqueduct > level 3)
Valhalla(aqueduct > level 3)
Morgana(aqueduct > level 3)
Cuernavaca(aqueduct > level 3)
Padmativa(aqueduct > level 3)
Yokohama(harbor > level 3)
Sturmandrang(aqueduct > level 3)
Huntington(aqueduct > level 3)
Toyama(harbor > level 3)
Strider's haven(aqueduct > level 2)
The Burrow(aqueduct > level 2)
Bizen(aqueduct > level 2)
Grandmastoria(aqueduct > level 2)
Trader's Inn(aqueduct > level 2)
Leningrado(aqueduct > level 2)
Penguin(aqueduct > level 2)
Dapperdan(harbor > level 1)
Goonidom(harbor > level 1)
Naerva(harbor > level 1)
Chittagong(happiness/development)
Jaipur(development)
New Falcon's Nest(development)
Hakodate(development)
Ise(development)
New PDX(maxed out)
Ganges(development)
Larsa(development)
Gunningheim(development)
Fukushima(development)
Bangalore(jungle)

Since it's still term 5 (and I'm still governor of the Southwest Province) I can chime in for Eklektochtitlan. This poor city has been trying for all of term 5 practically to build a marketplace. Once that is complete then we can put some entertainers back to work and maintain WLTKD. While I'm at it I will also speak as Mayor of Palanthus. This, our first truly large city, still to this day does not have a market. Once these two cities have their markets in place then they would make excellent settler producers to enlarge our other cities. Palanthus itself can potentially produce 10 extra food per turn! (I miss the old Civ 2 food caravans. )

Let us build markets so the people may barter for needed goods.

A new name for provider - breeding grounds.

Is this plan for cities that have high production potential, but low growth speed?

Also, I read in the demogame rules that railroads can only be built between cities. I've got a feeling it is an ignored rule, like one I think I saw about 'parkland' but if it is a used rule, it could prove a real pain in maximising production. Can somebody clear this up?

anyway I posted a message in the MAG province thread about each city's Max population and production.

a list of all the cities max production and max population:

Novgorod - 5spt, 16 with offshore platform, @ 13 pop
Shimoneski - 17spt, 23 with o'shore platform, @ 14 pop
Bizen - 42spt with max laborers
Ise - 8spt @ 3 pop
Hakodake 20spt @ 9 pop

this is with all used tundra forested, all grassland, + all used mountains and hills railroaded.

Click to expand...

(note: now I realise that Bizen's production could be even higer)

If you want, I could compile a list like that for all cities, to help decide where to place the population.

Originally posted by Gingerbread Man
Also, I read in the demogame rules that railroads can only be built between cities. I've got a feeling it is an ignored rule, like one I think I saw about 'parkland' but if it is a used rule, it could prove a real pain in maximising production. Can somebody clear this up?

Click to expand...

I'm unaware of of any restriction on railroad building other than in national parks. I don't think the parks rule has been ignored. We carried over from the last demogame but it's really not applicable till we get to the industrial age - so it's only now coming into play.

Can you find the rule about only building rails between cities and tells us where it is in the Three Boooks?

If I'm not mistaken, most of our parklands are forests which cannot be enhanced by rail anyway. I do believe that the Nat'l Parks law allows us to build roads through those forests.

I hope that besides that, there are no limitations on railways or we will lose many growth and production benefits.

@Gingerbread Man - Good job on the chart......I may ask for more like those in the future. However, I am hoping that this plan can be implemented well before we get to Miniturization, so we don't need to look that far in advance. The plan was devised to hasten the growth of as many Fanatikan cities as possible, with priority going to cities near our palaces. I believe it emphasizes growth and commerce the most, but will lay the groundwork for production planning.

donsig, here is the section I found. CoL.J.2 is a bit vague but in context looks like the rail restiction is only limited to area with the existing park:

OK, I think the railroad rule means if we need to build a connection between cities and the only way to do so is through a national park then we can do it.

Do we have any national parks at this point? I may still be off i another world but I though we had to formally declare (via a citizen vote) that an area was a national park before we had to worry about these rules.

We currently have no national parks, thankfully.

That clears things up. Thanks

I really would not want parks until we have the game in hand. At this point, we don't. But, for size 12 cities, we should have our rails over irragation tiles (+1 food for rails, +1 food for irragation - each plains makes +1 off the base (of 2), grasslands make +2).

CT- Putting rails in current Provider cities will certainly help, but won't be necessary to start this plan. We could use that tactic to get other cities up to Provider status. Obviously, we should focus on the Trans-Fanatika railway first.

I would rather get a railroad network up and working first, then concentrate on filling out the the various city tiles. We should get our railroads working, then concentrate on growing our cities.

Octavian - my projections in the first post are increases that can be made today with no more improvement of the land. All it would require is sending a settler to a chosen city to add 2 population.

I believe rails should be our top priority as well, but this is something we can do in the meantime to get more production and gold.

@DZ - as per our discussion in The North province thread, in which I have addressed this more fully, I have agreed to changed the Valhalla queue to include an Aqueduct. Also, I believe we both agree that current Settler production is earmarked for Tundra cities (whether NP or not).

Valhalla will indeed grow quickly and will be good for producing Settlers, but this in turn will restrict its growth. I'm not really sure which way you want this city to go. Either way is workable, but will need some worker action. Also I'm not real sure I agree with you on Androbius. Your named city is very well situated and would probably rate higher than a level 1 with me. Riga would seem to be a prime candidate in your proposal.

I sure am glad we stopped talking about National Parks in this thread. I was basically holding off until that was done. My main concern with this proposal is in essence the same as the Railroad situation. I agree that railroads are important and needed, but I do not believe we should let our cities suffer because we want to link them with rails. We need to strategically work our needy tiles. This proposal will help some of our low-pop citie, but will also restrict the growth (for how long?) of some of our larger cities. Or will this "provider" status only be for size "12" cities?

@Cyc - At the time this was written, Androbius hadn't built its settler yet. If this proposal is accepted, I would update status after every chat. Androbius was probably a Level 1 because it was a size 4 with no aqueduct and therefore could accept no more than one settler at the time. With the addition of an aqueduct, Androbius would have the room to grow and would become a Level 4(!!) under those same circumstances(if there were enough grassland tiles to get it to size 12).

As governor, your best way to use this chart would be to correct issues with Level 0 cities and to check for growth potential in Level 1 or 2 cities. I should probably consider adding the goal pop size for each city. In most cases, it would be size 6 or 12....unless a city could not grow past, say, size 11 due to lack of further food resources.

Finally, Provider cities are those that have a surplus of food and would grow back quickly if they generated settlers. I would like to keep them as our size 11 and 12 cities for now, but could see using size 6's without aqueducts as well to complete this mission faster. My goal here would be to allow more irrigation in these cities so they could produce a steady flow of settlers.

Thanks for your insightful questions on this plan and I hope this makes sense. I know exactly how this plan needs to work, but getting the public to buy into it may be another story. If anybody has further questions on this plan, please ask.

Will do on the use of the chart, and as far as the Provider paragraph, I'm doing exactly that in the GBC scenario, only I'm starting new cities, not giving implants. BTW, I like your suggestion for the Androbius Settler (the third one in the NP queue).

Finally, Provider cities are those that have a surplus of food and would grow back quickly if they generated settlers. I would like to keep them as our size 11 and 12 cities for now, but could see using size 6's without aqueducts as well to complete this mission faster. My goal here would be to allow more irrigation in these cities so they could produce a steady flow of settlers.

Click to expand...

Since I consider my time in the Demogame to be a learning opporunity, I'll pop an overly obvious question. What is the advantage to building settlers from Provider cities rather than workers? I would have thought that serial worker production would be easier to micromanage.

The idea of using a size six city to generate workers/settlers is a well-tested one. All you need is a city with more food and production than it really needs at that level and it can populate a good chunk of the country for you.

I agree that railroads are important and needed, but I do not believe we should let our cities suffer because we want to link them with rails. We need to strategically work our needy tiles.

Click to expand...

Railroad and production growth need not compete with each other. The accelerated food production provided by rapid rail contruction through irrigated lowlands should more than compensate for the loss of population due to worker creation. I believe that was the issue you were addressing?

More thoughts,
Feodor Ardent
(Back from touring the new foundries)

Uh, no. The issue I was addressing was that we shouldn't assign all our workers to blindly build rails, when we have some very important tiles to develop. I'm talking about the city that needs the one grassland irrigated to start its growth again with the help of a harbor. That's just one example. No matter how well intentioned the railroad builders are, they will not be able to help any city that is not on the direct line of the railroad. All the promises of extra food on irrigated grassland is going to take us how far? Is it going to help the cities that need help, or just stack on more extra food in those cities that aren't hurting?

We need to keep some Fanatikan Workers off the chain gang, doing the Tile development that a program such as this requires. Their work should be identified and prioritized before a t/c by the Governors and the DP.

Yeah, can't we build workers instead of settlers? They could at least improve a tile or two or lay some rail before being added to a city. As for getting the populace to buy into this I owuld suggest that while you continue trying to sell the big plan you also put some specific proposals on the table to get the ball rooling. It's easier for us (as a group) to agree to build a worker in such and such city, have it improve such and such tiles and then join such and such city. I realize this calls for alot of micromanaging but you may find that once the ball is rolling it will be eaier to have the big plan accepted.

We need to keep some Fanatikan Workers off the chain gang, doing the Tile development that a program such as this requires. Their work should be identified and prioritized before a t/c by the Governors and the DP.

Click to expand...

An excellent idea.

One additional way to embroider: use some of the foriegn laborers for priority development in gangs, then absorb them into cities for assimilation. Meanwhile, produce native workers for railway work -- they are twice as effective, I beleive.