Citizens in Civilization VII

[bene_legionary]

How should citizens be implemented in Civ 7, and how should they work in relation to your civilization's economy?

To me, people are the most important part of a state, and is the fundamental resource of it; it's about managing your people effectively, because they eventually make up cities, businesses, nationalities, institutions, governments, social blocs, etc. Managing your citizens and using them in the best way for your current situation should be a large factor of Civilization VII. In Civilization VI, the population and citizens of your cities aren't nearly as important, mostly because they don't provide as many yields as districts.

If I had a say in determining the implementation of citizens in Civilization VII, I'd first make them more unique; more than just a number. I think this uniqueness shouldn't go past a three-tier hierarchy and potentially ethnicity, as more than that would go against Civilization's easy accessibility that blocks most Civ players from playing Paradox games. However, that doesn't mean we can't borrow ideas from the Paradox games.

A three-tier hierarchy system (like the Pop Strata system in Stellaris) would give more variance to citizens; there would be more of an identity to them past just being a number in your city. Citizens would produce different yields depending on their level in the hierarchy. Maintaining a balance of citizens so that they produce the right yields for your cities might become a big consideration. Lower hierarchy citizens might be more suited to working improvements, while higher hierarchy citizens should work in campuses and theatre squares. Civilizations might have bonuses for specific citizens; China, for example, might have more productive lower-hierarchy citizens provided that they're fed and content but will turn into rebels very quickly if they aren't, France might benefit highly from an well-off higher class residing in Chateaus, and Rome would have a better military sourced from middle-hierarchy soldiers as long as the state can provide enough iron and gold to keep them there.

I think my biggest change might be that each citizen could be counted as its own unit on the map. They are real people and they aren't all just working in the city menu; the distinction between a citizen unit and a military unit is strange. Instead, sending a citizen unit to work a tile would be like moving a warrior and telling it to alert itself; it would be more visible to the player and help the player understand what tiles are productive and what aren't, as well as allowing the player more control over their citizens and where they are. Lower-hierarchy citizens could be turned into builders and used to build improvements, higher-hierarchy citizens might have actions to sponsor a Great Person for their work, citizens could be captured by military units and moved to enemy cities, etc. Building military units might also involve choosing a specific citizen unit to convert, and some populations might be better geared towards specific units. Higher hierarchy citizens might be more easily turned into knights, for example.

This new citizen system should be tied into a better amenities / citizen fulfillment system, as well as a better food system. Amenities shouldn't arbitrarily provide 2 amenities for 4 cities, or whatever, because that makes no sense, and it's one of the least-developed systems in Civilization VI. At the very least, citizens need to be able to survive (have food, water and housing) before they even think about going to the arena to watch a gladiator fight, or go over to the water park to take a ride in the ferris wheel. When citizens have more than enough food, then amenities and their bonuses should be applied. However, having enough food should be harder than it is right now; after all, farmland was a huge part of economies before the industrial revolution and are barely represented in Civilization VI. Providing amenities should be uniform across cities and populations, as civilizations with larger populations will want more of the same amenities, and as far as I can tell everybody wants more coffee. Higher-hierarchy citizens might demand more amenities, which lower and middle hierarchy citizens can't demand as many. They might have different tastes over time; having more of one resource might give them more amenities and boost their output; sugar might be a highly valued commodity in one era, while tea might be in the next. Removing access to those resources might cause problems among your population.

Adding onto the food system, farms should continually upgrade over time with new technologies. The development of agriculture created the first cities as people no longer needed to move around and could stay in one place, while less people needed to find food and could instead reside in cities. Improvements to farming lead to less workers on farms, allowing them to turn into artisans or thinkers. After the industrial era, better farming practices and machines like combine harvesters and tractors greatly increased crop yields, which meant one person could now do the work of many more before. Again, these people became researchers or students at universities and gradually became higher in the hierarchy. Trying to overcome this food barrier with better organization or technologies should be one of the biggest challenges in running a civilization, although there is enough food on tiles in Civilization VI that yields from bare fields and forests (even ones with sawmills, which feels counterintuitive) is more than enough is nearly all cases. When a famine struck or an army ravaged the farmland, the result was starvation and increased immigration from the area, leaving the region economically destitute until the war or famine was over. In Civilization VI, the result is a pillaged tile and almost no loss to you. With a system like this, immigration is possible with moving your citizen units away from the area, while any citizen units left might be disbanded because they cannot feed themselves.

I'll update this later, it's late where I am, and maybe some of it isn't as coherent as I'd like to be. I'm happy to hear any thoughts or completely different ways of implementing citizens in Civilization VII.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

This new citizen system should be tied into a better amenities / citizen fulfillment system, as well as a better food system. Amenities shouldn't arbitrarily provide 2 amenities for 4 cities, or whatever, because that makes no sense, and it's one of the least-developed systems in Civilization VI.

The "profession" of the populations could determine how many amenities or food a city requires. For example:
A "Miner" requires 4 food.
A "Plantation Worker" or "Lumberjack", requires 3 food.
A "Farmer" or a "Fisherman" requires 1 food.
A "Scientist", "Longshoreman", "Merchant", "Priest", "Entertainer", "Legate", or "Performer" requires 1/2 food.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I've been an advocate for assigning an ethnicity to each citizen, sort of similar to how a religion is assigned to a citizen.

The obvious difference is the ethnicity can't change though, however. Ethnicity would be assigned based on "birth" or a new population such as Chinese, American, Japanese, Zulu etc. based off of the civilization they were born into. It's possible through certain factors such as conquest, or migration between close borders, could result in mixed cities. If a Chinese city takes over an American city, politically it becomes part of the Chinese civilization even though it would have a majority of Americans living in it. Chances are higher of an American being born than a Chinese.

When it comes to tourism, cities that have a majority of an ethnic group not in their "home civilization" will be more likely to be visit other cities in their "home civilization".
If that Chinese city, which was conquered from the Americans, still has a large American ethnic community they will be more drawn to American culture.

 

[Zegangani]

I really like those Ideas, and I agree, Citizens should play a much bigger role in the Game in Civ7. They should be the main source of growth and prosperity (or downfall) of your Empire and the general focus of the management of your Empire. Though, as much as I like the Ideas represented by OP, there are some that I think implementing them in the Game would result in AI struggle similar to them struggling with optimal district placement.

A Hierarchy System would indeed be a nice thing to have in the Game and open some interesting gameplay around Empire/City management, but if it isn't a self-magaging system (by that I mean a semi-autonomous system that for example when player changes the yield focus in a city, it automatically changes that for all class types, so all the player needs to do is use some policies/resources to make each class happy and ensure stability) then I don't think it would do the AI any good. Especially when combined with a reworked Amenities System to match the changes; the AI might struggle with Happiness, Stability and Optimisation/Productivity. Besides, it would be very hard to divided the Citizens in classes if we keep the same Population System we are used to in Civ VI/V. The Population Number would have to be greatly increased in order to represent any (for gameplay) reasonably realistic demographics, but then we also would need to change how Pop grow, how happiness and specialists work, and perhaps even how Yields get generated...etc. Because, imagine a 3 Population City: how should we dived those citizens in classes? 1 in each Class? for sure not, bc A) it wouldn't be realistic, B) it won't make much of a difference untill the mid-late game where you have enough citizens in cities to make any use of the new system, C) it would heavilly restrict specialist management, since you can't rely on 1 farm to feed all the citizens (if we keep the same food consumption mechanic like so far in civ) and you can't work a Mine if your only 1 Low Class Citizen is working the Farm for food, which in result affects the whole production/growth/Yield generation of a City (difficult for a human to manage, let alone AI), D) If we ty in other Systems such as Religion, Ethnicity and Tourism, that might further complicate things. Those are the only things that I can think of for now, but I'm sure there are many others.

Gedemon has managed to make a good and working Hierarchical Society System in his Overhaul Mod that is mostly autonomous or semi-autonomous IIRC. But the overhaul also introduced a reworked population system (with realistic demographics), which also affects Military training and many other things. So it makes sense there, but I don't see it working in Civ7 if we keep population like how it worked so far in Civ.

But what I really like about a Hierarchical Population System, is how it could (I think positively) affect your Military Units (training, maintenance...etc), and the Military Game in general.

As for making Units phisically (not really, but you know...) on the Map:
If you mean a Citizen Unit like a normal Civilian Unit (like a Builder), then I also see this as another thing that the AI will just struggle with, AI is bad enough at moving Units on the Map, let us not push things any further.
But if by that you mean just it being visible to the (Human) Player, like not just as a Citizen Icon on the UI, but as a (small) Unit on a Tile, then I would love to see that in Civ7. That's a great Idea actually! it would really help a lot to visually easily grasp which District/Improvement is being worked and which not, and similarly useful like the colored and visually appealing Districts and Buildings (1 of the main Issues with Districts in Humankind). Wow, this should really be a no brainer for Civ7, since in Civ6 we kinda have that with Improvements, but not with Districts, which should be improved upon, starting from this.

You're making good Points in regard to the Amenities and Food Systems, I like the Ideas represented.

 

[bene_legionary]

Instead of fully controllable citizen units, they might be more of an extension of the citizen panel, and work like the current Civ 6 citizen management panel and units. They can automatically move by themselves and the only time they can be moved manually is with capture by military units, otherwise there might be ways to influence their movement with yield focus or other ways. At least, I hope citizens can be seen in normal view as units or something like that, even if they aren't changed mechanically in Civ 7.

I also think that having 3 tiers of citizens would be a challenge to adapt to for the civ citizen system and the AI, but I'm not hoping for the Civ 6 AI to play it, I'm expecting that this system would be fit for the Civ 7 AI. This new food system is already going to change population growth so I can't see why the scale of population can't be changed either. How the scale will be changed I will have to think more about.

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

I had a similar idea in my thread The Big Ideas for Civ VII: Cultures, Citizens, and Counsels:

Citizens

Each and every Citizen is an individual. Your population, instead of being a mere quantity, is all of these individuals, each with their own religious and political beliefs, and their own strengths, and weaknesses.

Every time a City, Nation, or Tribe gains a population point, a new Citizen is randomly generated. This individual will have a numeric value for skills in the following categories:

• Creativity
• Enterprising
• Intelligence
• Fitness
• Productivity
• Zeal

These relate to the Citizen’s aptitude at Culture, Money Making, Scientific Research, Warfare, Building, and Faith, respectively. Each time a Citizen is produced, they can do one of four things:

• Improve a Tile - Good for Citizens with low skills, building Farms, Pastures, etc.
• Construct a Building/District - The Citizen will work in the Building once it's constructed. A Citizen with high Productivity but low Zeal will take fewer turns to build a Temple, but that Temple will produce less Faith or Great Prophet points. A Citizen with low Productivity but high Zeal will take longer to construct a Temple, but it will produce more Faith and Great Prophet points.
• Military Duty - Good for Citizens with high Fitness. You select a specialization such as Warrior or Archer, and the Citizen becomes that unit after several turns of training. More advanced military specializations require resources such as Iron or Oil, in addition to the Citizen
• Specialize - Becomes a Trader, Missionary, Rock Band, etc. Restrictions apply to some specializations.

The Cities themselves no longer have production queues. Each Citizen takes a number of turns to build his Building or learn his specialization, and this can happen simultaneously if the Citizens have generally low Production skills and the City is growing quickly in population.

Citizens can also be born with rare traits. One with a Green Thumb might produce more food on a farm, while one that’s a Tactician might have a greater combat buff on advantageous terrain.

Certain buildings can make Citizens born in that city have better skills in a certain category. A campus with a Liberal Arts College would give all new Citizens of the city a higher Creativity, whereas a Military Academy would improve Fitness. The new Campus District (no longer the Science District) would have an Elementary School and High School that improve all scores, and one of the following tier three buildings:

• A&M - Farming and Mining traits
• Business School - Enterprising
• Institute of Technology - Intelligence
• Liberal Arts College - Creativity
• Military Academy - Fitness
• Seminary - Zeal
• Vocational - Productivity

When a civilization has acquired enough Great Person points, the next city to increase in population will not receive a random Citizen, but rather a predetermined Great Person from their Culture’s list. Even after retiring a Great Person remains a part of the city’s population.

Though Citizens cannot be moved around, in addition to their job, they can also be appointed to a position in their government’s Counsel

 

[MistroPain]

Looking at these ideas I do think a great deal of care is needed to not overburden players with micro. Turning every citizen into a moving unit could do exactly that, especially if we are looking at something like 10+ citizen average cities. That and the bots pathfinding and ability to utilise units in recent titles are still questionable as zegangani has already mentioned, so this may further divide the competence of the average player from the bot.

I might be in the minority in thinking the game needs to focus more on making each decision more impactful, but potentially have fewer needed decisions to cope with that; having a dedicated system where each citizen is potentially individualised and unique could really take away from that and make the game feel laborious, same with having a system where each citizen is physically on the map.

I would go a different direction if it was completely up to me. I would make it so the citizen represents the district. Remove builders entirely, when a citizen spawns you select a tile and district/imporvement type, that citizen now houses that tile and begins developing the infrastructure you chose (with its completion and development based on factors like production or gold), or you can pack them up (if you have the right resources) and they turn into a settler. Heck go further, make it so military districts like the encampment are required to spawn professional soldiers (IE the district which is technically a citizen is the source of your armies), with the ability to spend money to raise non-military district citizens up as militia units for temporary use. The districts may level up over time to spawn building slots allowing you to further specialise each district, or in the case of improvements level up to yield more (although in the case of improvements it can make less sense as overexploitation should technically reduce yields over time, but simulating that may just be annoying to play rather than interesting).

 

[Zegangani]

I would go a different direction if it was completely up to me. I would make it so the citizen represents the district. Remove builders entirely, when a citizen spawns you select a tile and district/imporvement type, that citizen now houses that tile and begins developing the infrastructure you chose (with its completion and development based on factors like production or gold), or you can pack them up (if you have the right resources) and they turn into a settler. Heck go further, make it so military districts like the encampment are required to spawn professional soldiers (IE the district which is technically a citizen is the source of your armies), with the ability to spend money to raise non-military district citizens up as militia units for temporary use. The districts may level up over time to spawn building slots allowing you to further specialise each district, or in the case of improvements level up to yield more (although in the case of improvements it can make less sense as overexploitation should technically reduce yields over time, but simulating that may just be annoying to play rather than interesting).

I think there is a Gold Mine waiting behind those Ideas that just needs to be mined, and by that I mean finding a balance between those Ideas that urge for impactful decision that award the player in the long term, while restricting specialty change, and the current flexible Citizens Mechanic that isn't restricted by anything, but lacking the depth of specialization that could benefit the player in the long run, which is IMO a major reason why Civ6 struggles with Tall Play.

A middle point between the 2 would be the perfect Solution for Citizens/Specialists IMHO. So that the Player can adapt to any situation (like changing the Victory goal, a special situation like preparing to defend against an attack...etc.) without being too much restricted in what he/she can do.

 

[bene_legionary]

Both are interesting, I'm reconsidering citizen units continously because I agree that it has too much micro-management. But, I think that there needs to be a better way to show what tiles are worked if the current system still goes.
Old World has a system here that involves unused citizens building specialised improvements as a one-off action.

Perhaps, each citizen is a unit with one build charge and can't ever destroy improvements. These citizen units are created like how population is grown right now. Their one build charge is used to build an improvement which they work for the rest of the game, unless it's destroyed in some way, and only improvements can be worked in a city. This way, we can show what tiles are being worked just by seeing what tiles are developed. Citizens might be reinvested into existing improvements to improve their yields or create new districts where they can then be used to build buildings.

I've got work to do, but if anyone else can follow on or give some other ideas, please do

 

[dagriggstar]

I'm not a fan of each citizen being a unit on the map, again too much micro.

I would like for improvements to spawn over time. So the citizen works a tile for say 15 turns, you get a popup asking if you'd like the tile to become a farm/mine/pasture. I want to move away from build charges and builders/workers in general.

I think anything beyond specialist/labourer distinction is too complex. Specialists should just be a much bigger part of the game, it should be considered highly unusual for late game cities to not be majority specialists.

 

[Naokaukodem]

There's an idea of mine (see my signature) that has the same theme. And yes, one of my main concern about it is the micromangement it may create.

On a side note, that would not be necessarily bad for gameplay perspective, and for players who need a little help in their Deity games, because one problem I did encountered with my games, is that I often press "next turn" relatively quickly, without thinking too much of what my civ is doing, which puts me often very late scientifically.

So the ideas like "self improving tiles" and such would be even worse when the player has to do nothing else. At least, with micro, you have many prompters of what your citizens do and can do, so you don't forget to minmax.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Perhaps, each citizen is a unit with one build charge and can't ever destroy improvements. These citizen units are created like how population is grown right now. Their one build charge is used to build an improvement which they work for the rest of the game, unless it's destroyed in some way, and only improvements can be worked in a city. This way, we can show what tiles are being worked just by seeing what tiles are developed. Citizens might be reinvested into existing improvements to improve their yields or create new districts where they can then be used to build buildings.

I like this idea especially when it comes to building improvements like farms, mines, and fishing boats, instead of having to wait and build a builder unit.

I do wonder about other improvement's such as roads, bridges, forts etc. though which are things that don't necessarily need to be worked. I guess in those instances you could still build military engineer units, and maybe later a civil engineer unit for non-military purposes trained in an Industrial Zone.

 

[bene_legionary]

I think anything beyond specialist/labourer distinction is too complex. Specialists should just be a much bigger part of the game, it should be considered highly unusual for late game cities to not be majority specialists.

I don't agree with most of your post, but I thought this was interesting. I never thought of Specialists being another 'tier' (or whatever we call it) of worker. And in real life, the modern workforce is incredibly specialised for many types of specific jobs.

To be fair, I don't think most Civ players pay attention to specialists anyway, because they're hidden behind the city screen and aren't explained in the citizen management panel at all, you have to look them up in the civilopedia or in building info panels. Specialists only work in buildings, and their yields are mostly lackluster.

I haven't thought about roads, but you might still be able to build them using regular citizens, maybe if you gave players a choice between an improvement or a certain amount of roads.

I once had an idea like your Civilization VII thread (and I like it) but I think it's clear that the Civ franchise won't go that way. If I had the time to develop my ideas into a game, though...

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

To be fair, I don't think most Civ players pay attention to specialists anyway, because they're hidden behind the city screen and aren't explained in the citizen management panel at all, you have to look them up in the civilopedia or in building info panels. Specialists only work in buildings, and their yields are mostly lackluster.

I think if citizens are used to build improvements, then I think you'd also be able to send citizens to buildings to become "specialists". Maybe sending a citizen to a building will initiate some sort of "training project," like that's how a citizen starts to yield science because they went to actually study at a campus. Maybe later buildings would have more slots for citizens, like great works.

I haven't thought about roads, but you might still be able to build them using regular citizens, maybe if you gave players a choice between an improvement or a certain amount of roads.

I think roads could still be built by sending a trade route, or by a military engineer.

 

[Saxo Grammaticus]

Civilizations might have bonuses for specific citizens; China, for example, might have more productive lower-hierarchy citizens provided that they're fed and content but will turn into rebels very quickly if they aren't, France might benefit highly from an well-off higher class residing in Chateaus, and Rome would have a better military sourced from middle-hierarchy soldiers as long as the state can provide enough iron and gold to keep them there.

I think bread and circuses broadly applies across culture. I would almost be in favor of having a counter-bonus for minorities of other cultures. For example, a Chinese city with French artisans may allow an event that increases culture or production. This too seems highly generic but could open up opportunities for flavor.

I think my biggest change might be that each citizen could be counted as its own unit on the map.

Sostratus wrote a great post you can find here on embedding citizens just short of adding them as units.

Lower-hierarchy citizens could be turned into builders and used to build improvements, higher-hierarchy citizens might have actions to sponsor a Great Person for their work, citizens could be captured by military units and moved to enemy cities, etc. Building military units might also involve choosing a specific citizen unit to convert, and some populations might be better geared towards specific units. Higher hierarchy citizens might be more easily turned into knights, for example.

This makes sense, particularly in that many military units had a wide economic base supporting them.

This new citizen system should be tied into a better amenities / citizen fulfillment system, as well as a better food system. Amenities shouldn't arbitrarily provide 2 amenities for 4 cities, or whatever, because that makes no sense, and it's one of the least-developed systems in Civilization VI. At the very least, citizens need to be able to survive (have food, water and housing) before they even think about going to the arena to watch a gladiator fight, or go over to the water park to take a ride in the ferris wheel. When citizens have more than enough food, then amenities and their bonuses should be applied. However, having enough food should be harder than it is right now; after all, farmland was a huge part of economies before the industrial revolution and are barely represented in Civilization VI. Providing amenities should be uniform across cities and populations, as civilizations with larger populations will want more of the same amenities, and as far as I can tell everybody wants more coffee. Higher-hierarchy citizens might demand more amenities, which lower and middle hierarchy citizens can't demand as many. They might have different tastes over time; having more of one resource might give them more amenities and boost their output; sugar might be a highly valued commodity in one era, while tea might be in the next. Removing access to those resources might cause problems among your population.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes!

Adding onto the food system, farms should continually upgrade over time with new technologies. The development of agriculture created the first cities as people no longer needed to move around and could stay in one place, while less people needed to find food and could instead reside in cities. Improvements to farming lead to less workers on farms, allowing them to turn into artisans or thinkers.

This translates into modeling surpluses in food, production, and hence population. At the very least, we are all familiar with low food or low production starts. In the first, everyone must forage on a daily basis or compete for meager land. In the latter, it takes about a thousand years just to make the tools to till the field. This might need some hard counterbalance, as human history has been full of suffering and loss of life in a way that has historically opened up surpluses yet is inherently unpalatable in a 4x game.

The "profession" of the populations could determine how many amenities or food a city requires. For example:
A "Miner" requires 4 food.
A "Plantation Worker" or "Lumberjack", requires 3 food.
A "Farmer" or a "Fisherman" requires 1 food.
A "Scientist", "Longshoreman", "Merchant", "Priest", "Entertainer", "Legate", or "Performer" requires 1/2 food.

I am not so up-to-date on this question, but I do seem to recall a max of maybe 4,000 or 5,000 calories for laborers along the Yangtze River (hopefully someone has better stats and context there...). I would be in favor of a scale of 1-4 food/pop. Farmers should certainly be in the upper bracket, regardless of where their food comes from.

The Population Number would have to be greatly increased in order to represent any (for gameplay) reasonably realistic demographics, but then we also would need to change how Pop grow, how happiness and specialists work, and perhaps even how Yields get generated...etc.

Agreed. I was thinking about how traders would establish outposts and enclaves abroad. This would be very problematic for a city under 4 population, but could make sense with a larger baseline.

I would like for improvements to spawn over time. So the citizen works a tile for say 15 turns, you get a popup asking if you'd like the tile to become a farm/mine/pasture. I want to move away from build charges and builders/workers in general.

Great idea.

I like this idea especially when it comes to building improvements like farms, mines, and fishing boats, instead of having to wait and build a builder unit.

I do wonder about other improvement's such as roads, bridges, forts etc. though which are things that don't necessarily need to be worked. I guess in those instances you could still build military engineer units, and maybe later a civil engineer unit for non-military purposes trained in an Industrial Zone.

For roads and bridges, it would almost make sense for dag's model to stand, simply waiting for two adjacent tiles to bridge a river, for instance. I do like the idea of military or civil engineers taking over larger scale infrastructure.

 

[aieeegrunt]

The absurd amounts of micro make this impossible from a design/useability standpoint.

I like the idea of ethnicity. Citizens living in a city that is taken over by a different ethnicity should be far less productive and loyal

New citizens born in a city become the ethnicity of the current owner. This would reflect demographic pressures and shifts over time

Say the Gauls found a city. It grows to pop 4. The Romans conquor it. The city stays with 4 Gaullic pops. Each new citizen born is now Roman. A few centuries of Roman rule later the city has grown to a population of 12, 8 Roman and 4 Gauls.

 

[Naokaukodem]

The obvious difference is the ethnicity can't change though, however.

Most silly statement I ever read. Are you aware of metises and mixing ?

 

[BuchiTaton]

We have talked recently about Populations/Citizens (POPs) and some of their identity parameters like Belief (religion) and Heritage (ethnicity/culture), but this time I want to point more about the tird one Profession (social class).

A POP system may seems complicated but it could follow simple rules, like was said above the kind of infrastructure/districts the player build would be the main incentive for a POP to turn to be of X or Y profession (basically specialist) so if you invest a lot in industrial districs and mines is logic to have a huge amount of Laborers. The next big point is the type of Government and civics you chose because it will give you some bonus like:
- LOYALTY, less revolts from them and even fight againts other less loyal pops and foreign invasors.
- EFFICENCY, of course some nice yield bonus.
- GROWTH, higher from both their natural rate and from Immigration appealing (stealing them from others players), this mean after X numbers of turns you get a free POP than can turn to build the related free district/infrastruture, also could give you for free their corresponding Great People.

By the way to keep it simple the Profession could be paired with the different main mechanics/yield/victories in game like this:
- Farmers, food related (farms, plantations and fisheries), Landowner GP.
- Laborers, production related (industry, mines and camps), Engineer GP.
- Traders, gold related (commerce, coporations and turism), Entrepreneur GP. B
- Artisans, culture related (entertainment), Artist GP.
- Clerics, religion related (holy places), Prophet GP.
- Scholars, science related (campus), Scientist GP.
- Warriors, military related (encampment, General GP.

About the governments. In early game Theocracy gives bonus to clerics, Republic to traders and Monarchy to warriors. While late game Communism is related to laborers and farmers, Fascism to warriors and clerics, and Capitalism to traders and artisans.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Most silly statement I ever read. Are you aware of metises and mixing ?

I meant in relation to a citizen changing their religion in game by conversion. You can't change what ethnicity a citizen would be born with.

 

[Saxo Grammaticus]

New citizens born in a city become the ethnicity of the current owner. This would reflect demographic pressures and shifts over time
Say the Gauls found a city. It grows to pop 4. The Romans conquor it. The city stays with 4 Gaullic pops. Each new citizen born is now Roman. A few centuries of Roman rule later the city has grown to a population of 12, 8 Roman and 4 Gauls.

This makes sense from a settler mentality, but conquest has not always led to demographic displacement along those lines. Perhaps choice in government could influence allocation of new population. If I recall correctly, Rome also had armed internal conflict over who was and was not counted as citizens. This might also factor into how those 4 Gauls feel at 12 population.

By the way to keep it simple the Profession could be paired with the different main mechanics/yield/victories in game like this:
- Farmers, food related (farms, plantations and fisheries), Landowner GP.
- Laborers, production related (industry, mines and camps), Engineer GP.
- Traders, gold related (commerce, coporations and turism), Entrepreneur GP. B
- Artisans, culture related (entertainment), Artist GP.
- Clerics, religion related (holy places), Prophet GP.
- Scholars, science related (campus), Scientist GP.
- Warriors, military related (encampment, General GP.

I find the idea of a Landowner Great Person to be somewhat disturbing. Instead, I might suggest that Farmers have the ability to generate a random GP with a higher chance in governments with greater enfranchisement, for example. In general, I think this idea goes well with the move to reunite GP Point generation with specialist slots.

About the governments. In early game Theocracy gives bonus to clerics, Republic to traders and Monarchy to warriors. While late game Communism is related to laborers and farmers, Fascism to warriors and clerics, and Capitalism to traders and artisans.

What would you have in mind for the bonus? One option would be to double specialist slots for that profession. I am not really sure which bonus would best suit Communism but perhaps one could get away with engineers, scientists, and/or generals.