An argument for why vertical city growth is too slow

[Paeanblack]

The attached graph show how Earth's population has increased as measured by Civ V game turns.

Spoiler :

Even though each game turn represents fewer years as the game progresses, the rate of population growth still overwhelms this effect.

However, vertical growth in Civ V does not reflect how things actually happened. The massive amounts of food required to grow large cities is simply not attainable with 4-food farms. Biology and Penicillin help, but they alone are not enough and quickly get overwhelmed by the size of the food bucket.

For example, the world has hardly seen any horizontal growth post-1950. Apart from a some exceptions, like Las Vegas, Jamshedpur, or Brasilia, there aren't new major metropolitan areas created anymore. Real growth is vertical, yet if we were to try to emulate this in the Civ V engine, world population would be half of what it is in reality.

We can handwave this away by saying that a size-20 city represents many times more people than 4 size-5 cities. This is reflected in the demographic screen, but where is all the production and research? A big number on the stats page doesn't really mean much.

 

[Paeanblack]

Reserved

 

[Zenstrive]

the cities on real world thrives because they suck up resources from other cities, like food, minerals, etc. We haven't got that simulated in Civ games, although their colonization offshoots offer something like that. In colonization, you can make a city suck up foods from other cities and generate free colonists every other turn. Or concentrate manufacturing of clothes in one city, coats in another city, rum in yet other cities.

 

[PawelS]

4-food farms

I think it's a part of the problem, improved food resources should give more than 4 food, so cities placed near them will grow faster.

 

[Slowpoke]

Well, if you want to get to the core of the issue, for realism purposes the growth rate should not even be a linearized rate that Civ 5 uses without the exponent. Instead of it should be a flat 25 growth needed per city. The real incentive for building new cities should be more like the aqueduct system civ 2 used, since large cities past a certain point were too difficult food-wise and water-wise to maintain with certain technologies. Quite possible, though extreme, if one wanted to work on a giant realism mod, one would make the min city food tile to 3-4 and make grasslands 1 food (with of course the complete elimination of maritimes). Then take out civil service, so the only positive food is in wheat. Then make the growth for each city a simple 25.

To allow for giant cities like in modern times, you would then make fertilization have civil service's properties.

 

[flyingbunnys]

Agree with PawelS cows sheep pigs wheat rice and corn, just don't give enough food to even care. Large population civilizations always have some importaint food resource. In this game food resources are irrelivantly weak.

 

[glaivemaster]

To follow on from what Zenstrive said, the population growth is also tied in to industrialisation - people stop working the fields and start coming to the cities, where they meet many more people and suddenly *boom* babies everywhere!

If, at certain tech in the tree (say, Steam Power) specialists contributed more 'food' than a farmer or lowered the required food for population growth, this might help vertical growth. Freedom leans towards this somewhat, but really doesn't represent the increase in population working in the cities, just less of a slow-down

 

[LordTC]

Ideally there should be late game techs that allow you to add transportable resources to tiles. One should be able to add pigs, cows or wheat to any suitable tile.. isn't that basically what we've done, I mean the US grows monsoon crops in a desert in the modern era.

 

[Martin Alvito]

Honestly, the way the map fills and the way cities grow (as measured by the Demographics screen) are not unrealistic. The problem is that the game's mechanics don't match up with the Demographics screen. Your graph very closely resembles a graph of per capita GDP (est.) or world population over the relevant time period, and it's pretty consistent with the work of highly respected scholars such as Rostow and North.

Stripped of the jargon: most of the game is fine. But large cities don't pay sufficient dividends under the present game mechanics, which is why you observe the disconnect in the game.

the cities on real world thrives because they suck up resources from other cities, like food, minerals, etc.

/sigh

Dependency theory FTL. Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage demonstrates that gains from trade exist. It says nothing about who is going to reap the benefits; that's a bargaining problem. Empirically, it turns out that developed countries usually have sufficient bargaining power to acquire most of the gains from trade. So while the empirical observation tends to confirm Marx, it does not prove him right!

Marx's claims are falsified by Lakatosian standards at this point. Competing theories can explain a lot of observable phenomena that Marx can't, and need little additional complexity to do it.

 

[Slowpoke]

Or we could cut out all the 5 dollar words, and say you're wrong becuase big cities are primarily supported by other cities' food resources, which is what I think he was saying

Edit: Actually that's what he literally said. You don't need fancy words to show that big cities cannot be supported by their own non-existant farm land.

 

[blac]

To follow on from what Zenstrive said, the population growth is also tied in to industrialisation - people stop working the fields and start coming to the cities, where they meet many more people and suddenly *boom* babies everywhere!

Actually the population growth was due to the increase in food production due to new crops like potatoes, new methods of farming and farming technology and advances in health care. Then the death rates dropped like crazy creating an extremely high birthrate. All these extra people then moved to the cities and then the industrial revolution happened. Although it gets a lot more complicated from there on out...

Cities should grow to up to around 8 or so, then you have to build things like hospitals which are only available around the starting of the industrial age. If you didn't build them your cities would only grow really slowly and could have a decrease in population due to plague or disease. That would be the most realistic way to do it

 

[Martin Alvito]

Or we could cut out all the 5 dollar words, and say you're wrong becuase big cities are primarily supported by other cities' food resources, which is what I think he was saying

The problems with the argument lie in connotation and causality. Big cities don't "suck up" resources from elsewhere. That's dependency theory (which, in a nutshell claims: core (rich) cities screw periphery (poor) people out of resources in unequal trades because the system is rigged).

In fact, the people in the big city didn't get the food without adequately compensating the folks on the farm. Ricardo rigorously proved that two societies with different specialties can always gain from trade...but didn't say anything at all about who enjoys the potential benefits. It turns out that organized big city interests tend to be better at bargaining than diffuse agrarian interests (probably due to specialization and the collective action problem), and they soak up a lot of the potential trade surplus as a result.

But this is pretty far off-topic. If you want to continue an IPE (international political economy) discussion, that's better conducted over e-mail or in an off-topic forum. I'm happy to do it if desired. If you're posting here, your questions will likely be superior to many of the ones I get from students at a top-tier research university.

 

[Slowpoke]

Ah okay. I think all he meant was big cities can't exist without trade, not how that trade works.

Anyways back on topic, I also wonder if a "real growth" should be implemented, but reduce cultural expansion and buying tiles. This would simulate cities' limitations for getting food from local farmers dependant on the era and technology. It'd also make stuff like angkor wat not be a joke. You could get a pretty high population being worthwile with specialists, but after a point they would just get unemployed.

 

[kossmikman]

Global pop has always been way too small. A continent-spanning empire shouldn't be populated by 22 millions persons by the year 2000.

 

[Licinia Eudoxia]

Global pop has always been way too small. A continent-spanning empire shouldn't be populated by 22 millions persons by the year 2000.

I've had a couple of hundred million. Some guy posted a screenshot where he had 1.1 billion, but he was also on like, turn 800

 

[Ahriman]

However, vertical growth in Civ V does not reflect how things actually happened.

So what? This is a game.

We can handwave this away by saying that a size-20 city represents many times more people than 4 size-5 cities.

Works fine.

 

[Zenstrive]

Or we could cut out all the 5 dollar words, and say you're wrong becuase big cities are primarily supported by other cities' food resources, which is what I think he was saying

Edit: Actually that's what he literally said. You don't need fancy words to show that big cities cannot be supported by their own non-existant farm land.

Yes, I literally said that. Big cities suck up resources. Empirically. Irresistibly.

 

[Surgeon]

if we wanted realisim cities would shink when your economy bottomed out as everybody goes and moves to your awesome neighbour Japan.

 

[Slowpoke]

Emigration mod! Although that's admittedly happiness based.

 

[mmmfloorpie]

This post made my brain hurt.