C2C - Housing

[Kreatur]

every sosciety has an under, a middle and a upper clas. Every group has its own demands to the goverment and special needs. Unfortunately this isnt represented in C2C. But we can use the housing system to simulate different classes. we have low, medium and high wealth houses. low wealth is the under class ,medium is the middle class and so on. every house should get ore for different civic systems depending on their social affiliation. they could also get ore +- ore . i hope you undesand me .
the upper class are the nobility, factury owners, and manorial lords . just as an example
civics that support these groups (for example vasalage,nobility, corporate, feudal) should get their appropriate houses happines bonuses and maybe gold bonuses. The other two groups can tollerate ore dissapprove, this system. while the middle class maybe arrange itselve with this system, the under class maybe suffer from hard work as feudel bondsmen. their houses get and +. the from the poor houses outweigh the from the rich houses.

after this we have to identify what civic give advantage to what social class. A cvic can be beneficial for a class or bear it down, ore thay arent affectet in some cases
lets see what cicics we have and how they affect different groups
this is just a suggestion

civic under class middle class upper class

despotism
monarchy
republic
democracy
fascism
federal

i could continue this but i think you get it

 

[Hydromancerx]

@Kreatur

But what will make people build those buildings? If you say run a government with too many you could just not build those buildings. Which seems worse.

 

[Il Principe]

I like the genral idea. Balancing might be tough, but could be done I think.
maybe make not that much to each, but a bit of local instability.

 

[Schwarzbart]

The problem with given with houses is that some kind of even worse housing must be there bevore you build the house buildings and so why sudenly a new bether housing would give .
If at all I would give this to the civic and reduce it with the house buildings.
Onliy if the housing system actual raises the popolation limit in some way I find it reasonable to give or some other bad effect to it.

 

[Kreatur]

A house would have for a reason. The inhabitants would be dissapointed about high taxes or hard work for example. that means in exchange for ore .

 

[Schwarzbart]

So your talking about a building that is only interesting to keep as long you still have a overflow on and to raze it as soon the population get near the max in favor of Specialists?
If the AI can handle the razing, fine but I would find it strange to raze housings as soon the population get near the max of my .

For me Housing sould the oposit increase the max population (trough or reduction in wasted food) maybe at the cost of work or money.
(See it as the people are happy to have something to live in instead of have to take shifts in using a bed as happened in some countries during the industrial revulution but the houses need upkeep)

 

[P A Y N E]

The from housing may be counter intuitive to be honest.

 

[CIVPlayer8]

Hey, why was houses taken out of V23?

 

[Hydromancerx]

Hey, why was houses taken out of V23?

What do you mean? No houses were taken out. If anything more were added.

 

[Il Principe]

The from housing may be counter intuitive to be honest.

I know I liked it nevertheless.. I think the problem is interpretation: Are housign symbols a sybol of ( maybe state funded) housing oportunities? then it should , like it is now, provide happiness.
But if it is a symbol for various levels of society Kreatur's idea makes sense.

On the long run we just lack a mechanic for tracking the social structure of your empire, so usin housing for it might be an idea.

 

[Thunderbrd]

What we should do to make that concept work, Il Principe, is add some default unhappiness factor (homelessness) and make each level counter it more effectively. Thus we add, say, +1 Unhappiness for each population for being homeless and then counter it with various housing levels. +.5/pop for poor, +1/pop for middle class, +1.5/pop for wealthy. Thus, only by building all the housing buildings will we keep all homeless unhappiness at bay. There's always going to be additional causes for homelessness but we don't have great ways to measure economy factors like that yet.

 

[Il Principe]

Nice idea. But might be hard to balance with big old cities, usally capitals. In my current game ( difilculty: monarch) I got lots of cites with 30+ population, some over 40.
My first game with C2C which I aborted because it was too easy was on settler difficulty , just for getting used to all the new stuff... I had size 50 cities and a size 64 capital around 600 BC. If those would have had +1 :mad for each population point even building all housing including the shanty town/slum line would be useless.
I don´t want to bring down your idea, on the contrary. More wanting to help refine it.

 

[Hydromancerx]

What we should do to make that concept work, Il Principe, is add some default unhappiness factor (homelessness) and make each level counter it more effectively. Thus we add, say, +1 Unhappiness for each population for being homeless and then counter it with various housing levels. +.5/pop for poor, +1/pop for middle class, +1.5/pop for wealthy. Thus, only by building all the housing buildings will we keep all homeless unhappiness at bay. There's always going to be additional causes for homelessness but we don't have great ways to measure economy factors like that yet.

I have thought about this actually. And if applied as a property then say homelessness could be a "forced" building. If you build a house then then it replaces it.

Another method could be houses reduce homelessness like police buildings reduce crime. The more houses you have the more people are not homeless. Population and other factors can add to homelessness. Note that more advanced homes could also fight off homelessness better.

However the main problem is what happens if you are not advanced enough to fight off homelessness and you built every possible building?

Also Housing Civic could come in (which I have brought up before).

 

[Il Principe]

However the main problem is what happens if you are not advanced enough to fight off homelessness and you built every possible building?

That will happen sooner or later, and actually sooner on lower diffilculties.

The principle problem for me is , that the current houses are just symbols for a type of house, not for how many of them are build. suburbs for example can mean anything from a few roads with maybe 50 homes to something like the outer reaches of greater London.
So it´s hard to tell if there is a home for evryone or not.

 

[Koshling]

I have thought about this actually. And if applied as a property then say homelessness could be a "forced" building. If you build a house then then it replaces it.

Another method could be houses reduce homelessness like police buildings reduce crime. The more houses you have the more people are not homeless. Population and other factors can add to homelessness. Note that more advanced homes could also fight off homelessness better.

However the main problem is what happens if you are not advanced enough to fight off homelessness and you built every possible building?

Also Housing Civic could come in (which I have brought up before).

Isn't this what unhappyness from population (in base Civ) is pretty much modelling?

 

[Thunderbrd]

I don't think so, Koshling... I take it to mean people are just flat unhappier in a more crowded environment. I think it also represents the tendency for society to corrupt and the larger the gathering of people, the more that's going to take place. There are more people, more dissenting views, more delays, less capacity for common people to stand out and feel meaningful.

IlPrincipe: Note that the concept included happiness per population counteracting unhappiness per population. If you maintained your housing appropriately, you'd stay on top of it. But, that said,

Hydro... I'm liking where you are going with that as a property based system. Unfortunately, the basic design concept needs a few factors to consider:
1) as mentioned, the buildings don't indicate volume and that would have to be quite important to address somehow. It'd be nice if we could design these sorts of buildings to be buildable repeatedly so we could manage it better. Here's a thought though, we COULD have the various levels of these buildings accessible at various city populations and rig them to solve the growing population as they arrive.
2) I only wish that our societies were intelligent enough to make it so that if there are people who need homes and there are homes vacant, then there would be no homelessness. Sadly, pretty much 100% of homelessness is not about not having places for them to live but about their own failures to succeed in society's demanding financial game. So, we'd need to figure out how to make that fit into the homelessness picture as well.

Maybe we need to set up a property for each layer of society, Economy - Fugitive, Economy - Incarcerated, Economy - Homeless, Economy - Slaves, Economy - Destitute, Economy - Poor, Economy - Lower Class, Economy - Middle Class, Economy - Upper Class, Economy - Wealthy, Economy - Super Rich.

We could give buildings modifiers to any class they may have an impact on, give each class a great many modifiers from various civic choices, possibly even begin weighting lower and lower the more gold you hoard as a nation, a huge set of modifiers from crime levels etc. We use the strengths in each (min 0) to determine the percentage of population that exists in a given class.

The housing buildings then assume that they can only handle a preset percentage based on a healthy pyramid and the goal for the player is to promote a perfectly stratified society that makes the world go around just right. Those economic layers that have too great a percentage of the population for the housing of their segment fall to fill the allotted portion of the next layer beneath but suffer an unhappiness for so doing. They add to the burden that layer of housing is trying to fill and can cause further overflow, potentially all the way down the line to homelessness, incarceration, and fugitive.

In otherwords, if there aren't enough homes for the Super-Rich, some are forced to resort to buying and residing in homes among the Wealthy. If the Wealthy don't have enough homes, possibly in part because the Super-Rich are hogging them all, they will buy homes among the Upper Class. If the Upper Class doesn't have enough to suit their earned tastes, they fall to housing in the Middle Class. As the Middle Class becomes too strong, many can't find suitable residences so they are forced to live among the Lower Class. As Housing prices for the Lower Class become too steep for even the Lower Class, they are forced to live Poor. As Old and rotten housing that the poor find to dwell in begin to dwindle but their numbers continue to grow, they are forced to live destitute, packed in with each other in whatever place they can find that will allow them to. If enterprising broke folks can't even find places where the human masses huddle, they find themselves Homeless. Homeless and jobless folks tend to break the law, especially when desperation becomes extensive so as their populations grow, they tend to end up incarcerated. When the Jails and Prisons become overwhelmed, escapes grow easier and criminals begin to be released to wander the streets due to budgetary strains and overcrowding. These are the fugitives that add greatly to crime.

This system could pretty much show how economies collapse when you have an overweight of income streaming to the top as you do in our system currently thanks to our free trade. It'd be a good proxy of it anyhow.

Does this make any sense?

 

[Il Principe]

IlPrincipe: Note that the concept included happiness per population
[...]

Does this make any sense?

Ah sorry. was a bit slow there.

As for the rest: It does make sense
And if it could be done it would allow for some interesting new city setups. If not only civic choices but also buildign choices would contribute to it:
A normal pyramide shaped society would be nice for a general purpose city, but by building more cheaper housing and lots of factories one could make industiral cities ( high hammers.. but next to no commerce, resarch and culture), or build a upperclass/ rich banking center, a well educated university city... lot´s of new ways to specialize cities.
And since you already mentioned crime: I would love to see this interacting with Rev. You run faschism? have fun with those interlectual university citeis... marxist? better have troops aroudn that banking heaven.
Another possibility : Make it interact with unit xp and cost( maybe by interacting with xp giving buildings, or psudobuildigns coming from the properties) :
more upper class: cheaper and better trained mounted units.
more lower class: cheaper massed infantry units.
even more lower class: worse education of recruits: less xp per unit.

 

[Hydromancerx]

@Thunderbrd

We have this with the buildings already in that there are 3 wealth categories ...

+1 = Lower Class (Ex. Slums)
+2 = Middle Class (Ex. Suburbs)
+3 = Upper Class (Ex. Mansions)

Then I separate for density ...

+1 = Low Density (Ex. Cottages)
+2 = Medium Density (Ex. Apartments)
+3 = High Density (Ex. Highrises)
+4 = Super Density (Ex. Arcology Slums)

 

[Thunderbrd]

Well... the idea is an extension of that thinking that helps to add more depth, allowing us to define if the economy is sufficient to allow for a lack of homelessness and frustration for having to resort to less adequate housing than you'd expect to be able to afford at your income level. I feel I must have lost you in my explanation so I may attempt to explain it again at some point but right now I'm a bit pressed for time.

 

[Kreatur]

you say something to the pyramid of sosciety. i hope i understand you right.
if you have one social group that is to big, the nation will strugle ?
but todays germanys sosciety consist to 60 % out of the middle class. And we believe that this big number of medium wealth but good educated persons is the foundation of our political and economic stability. with your argumentation this would be unbalanced. sorry for my bad english