Population growth and Overpopulation

OK, I have to say that one of the things I REALLY liked about CtP I and II was that your cities population never stopped at arbitrary level, but simply continued to increase indefinitely. It has ALWAYS bothered me that, in civ, if you don't have an aqueduct your cities stop at size 8, and size 12 without a hospital-RUBBISH!
Instead, like in CtP, a lack of this infrastructure should simply lead to an increase in unhappiness, pollution, crime and unemployment! Overpopulation should obviously also increase the chance of emmigration and disease! All of this would then represent the flip-side of the economic growth provided by population growth.
So, what things can alleviate some of the downsides of population growth? Hospitals, Waste-treatment plants, food and water distribution networks, communications/transport/ energy networks, suburbs, apartment blocks and arcologies all help, as do cinemas, theatres and other happiness generating improvements. Of course, all of this infrastructure will cost money to maintain-which could mean increasing taxes to cover them (which, in itself, could make people unhappy !)
Also, food alone should not be the only factor in determining population growth. Certain Government-types, religions, improvements and laws should boost the rate of growth above the normal levels associated merely with food. Low standards of living (as reflected through lack of resources or money), poor education and low levels of welfare should also boost population growth rates (just look at many 3rd World nations-or the USA-to see what I mean). Lastly, high levels of immigration will also boost population (though not growth rates!)
Obviously, then, certain governments, religions, improvements and laws will help to reduce population growth-as will high standards of living, good education and high levels of welfare.
Anyway, I guess what I'm hoping for is a more accurate population modelling system-one that isn't necessarily MORE complex, but which adequately takes into account the pro's and CON'S of increasing population! I'd like to know what the rest of you guys think!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

I think your extensive post pretty much said it all, Aussie! I suppose at an absurb extreme, population gowth must plateau out when no more land is available for agriculture, and all relevent improvements have been built in all cities.

Perhaps, in the most advanced and developed nations, population should eventually begin to DECLINE - due to low birth rate and an aging population, as people can live a lot longer. If an advanced city's population sinks to the point where spare food is at maximum storage for (say) 5 turns, one of the farmland squares near the city could revert to its natural biome.

The idea of having only your 8 designated squares around a city producing food, shields, gold etc should be changed. You should be able to use the food and production of all the tiles you control in your empire towards your production.

Secondly, bring back double irrigation (and maybe even introduce triple irrigation). It's silly that the improved cultivation of land through time isn't reflected in CIV3; farming methods and food productivity have improved greatly over time in our society.

Further, maybe introduce coastal farming as well, eg fish farming. This was included in SMAC if I recall correctly.

iamthouth

Sounds like a good way to go. The arbitrary caps are meaningless and increased corruption, disease, and unhappiness would be natural ways to control population growth.

I might add that in the modern ages, surrounding tiles can be 'urbanized' - losing their food production capability, but allowing population to be moved out of the center city (actually or just symbolically) to alleviate the density problems.

Good idea, Aussie. I like it also. We shouldn't go into too much detail though, I think. There is simply not enough time to build all this improvements, if you don't want to get overrun by rival units!? A few (2-3 at maximum) should do the trick.

Pirate points out that corruption, unhappiness and desease should be a natural way to control population.

Regarding disease here is my 2 cents:
1) Disease is a continuous phenomenon. There is always a change of disease, depending on terrain (floodplain, marsh) and overpopulation and maybe other things as well. But when disease strikes, you get a sick citizen which produces less. I.e. a 2F-1S-2C tile would become a 1F-0S-1C tile. And of course, a sick citizen cannot be turned into a specialist; In case of starvation the sick one dies first. The presence of sick citizens causes more people become sick (more sick citizens icons), and a plague may start in worst case...

2) Chance on desease decreases by:
a. building some improvements, as Aussie indicated: e.g. an Acqaduct (if not yet near a river), a City Plumbing System (both after Construction), and later the Hospital (chances of getting a sick citizen icon drops dramatically);
b. generally (empire-wise) investing money, e.g. extra money in the luxury tax slider, which would in effect become a "life standard or health care slider" instead of just "luxury".

As far as the acqaduct is concerned, it would have have the same effect as being next to a river: fresh water is available (chances on desease lower, except floodplanes and marsh maybe). I would suggest being near a river gives you 1F+ as for the acqaduct, but you'll have much more sick citizens in the older ages, that is before Medicine comes. So it think this system can be balanced anyhow.

Your thoughts?
Jaca

Many diseases are population dependent on density. The more people the more likely it will spread and be significant, would add to the disease possibilities and probably create a problem when not combated by clean water and sanitation (aquaduct and hospital)