City growth, Social Stratification, Population Migration

[Gedemon]

CITY : Social Stratification and new growth mechanism

Spoiler City composition :

City have "real" population and also use social stratification. The ratio between classes will depend on buildings, civics, techs, government, etc...

Growth is calculated from Birth and Death Rate, with a base variation between class and further variation relative to each class from external events.

The only one coded ATM is food rationing (which happens when the stock goes below a threshold), it will raise the death rate of all classes, but much more the DR of the lower class than the upper class.

OTOH, for game play reasons, the lower class has the highest birth rate.

The cities always keep 50% of the stock for themselves, the food stock in Cairo is not raising because anything collected above the 50% is currently send to the warrior in the desert.

Don't mind the "3031" for turns before growth, it's not linked to the new mechanism yet.

Spoiler Heavy rationing in a city :

In that city the death rates of the lower class is now more important than the birth rate, but after applying the social stratification ratio, the other classes are also affected more than just because of the change in their own DR ratio.

While under heavy rationing the food consumption is much lower, and that state is locked for a few turns, which allow the stock to be restored a bit.

Spoiler A few turns later... :

The stock is higher, the city is now under medium rationing, population is raising again... and will of course trigger another heavy rationing phase

Don't worry, I'll add new buildings to control housing (most of the actual ones are going to control health) very early in the game.

Low housing will limit the birth rate, allowing you to control better when to allow a city to growth if there is not enough food in the area.

Also note that there will be buildings to convert resources (wheat, sheep, ..) to food


Moderator Action: This post and all following posts up to post #26, have been copied here and some may have been edited to fit the topic, but the original (unedited) posts are still available in the main thread - Gedemon

 

[VDanchuk]

Any new ideas regarding captured units/slaves? I see giving players options here. For example, one may go for a war route or growth/expansion route.

Growth Route:
By converting captured units to slaves, that city may have an increase in production at the cost of food + population limit. This helps out cities founded with minuscule production. As a bonus, and if possible, a greater number of slaves present = a negative appeal in that city. This can be implemented via

• Concentration/Labor Camp (city building); converts prisoners to slaves, which can increase production, but - appeal/tourism. May also be used for citizen growth and resource yield boost
• Slave Market (city building); converts prisoners into slaves, which can increase production + gold. May also be used for citizen growth
• Divide and Conquer/Conquest (policy card); converts prisoners to slaves to be used for personnel or citizen
• Plantation Economy (policy card); an economic system based on slavery. Boost to production and most other yields without a negative to culture
• Slave Labor (city project); if possible, boost a wonder/district production, otherwise same as above more or less

War Route:
Conscript captured units to your own reserves. This can be implemented via

• a Collaboration Post/POW Camp (city building); converts captured units into reserves + xyz bonus to...
• Levy, Rehabilitation Conscription (city projects); converts captured units into reserves + xyz bonus to...
• Irregular Army/Auxilary Corps (policy card); converts captured units into reserves + xyz bonus to a particular type of unit
• Total War (policy card); as the name suggests, but adding a bonus to production at the cost of culture/faith (this is to imitate prioritizing warfare over non-combatant needs)

These are just crude and barebones suggestions, and I know most may not even be possible to implement easily. Jus thought I'd leave my mark on the drawing boards.

 

[heinous_hat]

Yes handling prisoners after capture is not coded yet.

On that side, I'd like a few suggestions for the buildings handling them and slaves...

One to convert prisoners to slave, one to house them, setting a minimal value of slave reserved to that city, and one to allow slave trading/transfer between cities.

I could use fixed values, but this setting allows you to decide what to do with prisoners.

I could use some other buildings to convert prisoners (especially barbarians) to personnel (for your army) or citizen.

My first thought was that this shouldn't be too complicated, or require special buildings other than the Slave Market... it might crowd the building list with basic utility items. But I see your point about wanting to allow the player to direct the slave population somewhat.

What you could do is use the Slave Market for prisoner housing (and transfer), but give standard industry buildings the conversion power. So a city with a Slave Market that is also well developed in basic industry (granary, mill, butcher, workshop, etc) would be more efficient at converting slaves to lower tier population, while a less developed city (with slave market) would overflow and passively transfer elsewhere. It would be interesting if tile improvements (farms, mines, etc) could also contribute to conversion, so smaller cities which receive prisoners would still get a measured benefit. Together, this would have the effect of larger population centers gradually pulling slaves from the frontier.

Military buildings (barracks, etc) could handle direct conversion to personnel, serving as an alternate sink for the raw slave population. So a player might choose to develop military over industry in a frontier region where they want to direct the slave population towards personnel instead. I guess you'd need to use policies for +/- conversion rates, since there's no apparent method to remove buildings when they're no longer relevant (i.e. the frontier expands and cities change focus).

Having a great time with the mod.. Even at this early stage, the systems you've introduced create a lot of integration between city and military management, which is otherwise absent. I poked my head back into civ6 to see if there were any substantial improvements, and was very pleased to find this project . Some questions and bug reports to follow...

 

[Gedemon]

Fixed a few more things related to saved data, and new update on GitHub

- add Housing needs for population, affecting Birth Rate
- add 3x3 buildings to add Housing to a city (the "Housing" values from the mod are different from the "Housing" values of the base game)
multiple bug fixes

I'll work on the UI for the Population Needs next, ATM the information is only available in the Lua.log

There are 3 classes of Housing: Wealthy, Normal and Cheap.

Upper class population will use Middle Class Housing if there is no Wealthy Housing available, and Middle Class population will use Cheap Housing if there is no Normal Housing available.

The Housing value for the buildings is equivalent to city size, a city start with 3 housing (enough for a Size 3 city), each of the test building add 1 more, the population size use the same formule as for Civ5: population = math.pow(CitySize, 2.8) * 1000

Size 1 = 1000
Size 2 = 6964
Size 3 = 21674
...

When there is more than 50% of specific housing available for a population class (Wealthy for Upper, ...) that class get a Birth Rate bonus
When there is less than 25% of total housing available for a population class (Wealthy and Normal for Upper, ...) that class get a Birth Rate penalty

bonus/penalty are directly relative of the value of housing left.

Note that if the Upper Class has to use some Normal Housing, that part is not available for the Middle Class.

For almost every needs, the upper class will take its full part first, but for some specific needs (like food), rationing may be used.

There is no effect coded for surpopulation yet, that will come with Health.

 

[Gedemon]

(copied from MP to continue discussion here)

I've taken a quick look through your concepts document. I keep seeing your ideas that are nearly exactly in line with ideas of my own! I'm not sure how much I put in my economy topic idea but I'd like to share what my current idea for that is. I'm not saying you should do it this way, but if you like where my head is at, let me know!

So, you've given populations real numbers and with that, we have so many possibilities. I love that you're thinking about tax rate and you've split the citizens into upper, middle, lower and slave which is exactly what I would have done too.

You did mention that you're not sure what to do with the slaves or how to get them. Here's my idea: because cities have an actual number for their population, it makes sense that settlers have a number as well, so when you produce a settler it subtracts 1000 people from the city to produce the unit. That gives us another possibility though: maybe settlers don't just have to found cities, maybe you can move a settler into a city tile and have them JOIN the city. There is precedence for this: 150+ years ago, I know for a fact that many European countries would advertise for citizens to ship themselves over to the new world to grow the cities. Waiting for population to grow naturally is very slow, and this is a good system to do that.

We may have to question if that means a settler should have more or less than 1000 people or if that number can vary over time. However, it makes sense that if a city grows in population very quickly, that would be bad: doubling your population overnight is a nightmare for public infrastructure, housing, etc. Basically, if you try to use settlers to grow small cities quickly, that should generate amenity problems. Theory-wise I expect you could keep track of the population your city can support and based on how fast cities grow naturally, you can decide the margin of error for that number, meaning if cities grow at like idk 5% population per turn, the city would be able to support mayber 10% more people than it currently had without amenity problems. If the amount of people it could support was too low, it would increase gradually (during which time you'd have amenity problems).

Now, this is where slavery comes in: when you raze a city or make peace with another civ, either side can ask for slaves from any of the cities that the other player owns. The slaves are sort of a resource that you can assign to your own cities or trade to other players for gold (the African slaves brought to the new world were bought from African countries. The countries that sold the slaves got them from enemy tribes that lived in-land: when one group defeated the other, they would take all the warriors of the losing tribe as slaves to take away their military strength. They then sold the warriors as slaves to Europeans).

Slaves don't create amenity problems for a lack of infrastructure. On the other hand, they don't provide any taxes either. I'm not sure how you plan to handle taxes.

While I'm here, I guess I can talk about my thoughts on taxes: each type of tile improvement can have jobs for the three classes of people: low, middle and high. For example, a farm might have 95% jobs for low income and 5% for high income. This seems likely for earlier or middle eras where peasants would often work land owned by a noble. Mines may have 70% lower class, 25% middle class and 5% higher class. I imagine that mines have more management, people that direct the miners by telling them where to dig and when to support the walls. Unlike farming, mining requires cooperation and so there must be people assigned to coordinate it.

If the tiles you work determine the types of jobs that are available, that can help determine the class structure of the cities. The total "wealth" (not sure how to calculate it, but likely related to sources of wealth like tiles and trade) is divided among the population. Each class produces more taxes than the classes below them. Even though slaves don't get paid, they DO subtract from the total wealth of the city (so if all your lower class jobs were done by slaves, there WOULDN'T be more money for everyone else, because they'd still count for that) because even though the labour is free, they aren't able to buy anything or own anything which is also a source of taxes.

In summary, my goals are to have a class system that is determined by the types of jobs that people work in, and therefore how much money cities can generate. If we are able to replicate the industrial revolution properly, taxes will go up significantly when that happens because cities won't have to work as many farm tiles to produce enough food. Instead, those citizens can work in districts such as factories which have a higher wealth for each worker and therefore generate more wealth for the city. The other goal is to implement slaves in a way that works well with the class system: slaves can only perform low-class jobs but can be used to quickly increase the tiles small and new cities can work without waiting for cities to grow naturally.

I'll try to avoid new actions (like joining a new city) at this point because of the AI (to code), the (absence of) network command and the need of a new UI element (to code)

But yes Settler will take personnel (who are drafted from a city population) and materiel corresponding to a size 1 city when its build.

Migration of population (when available in renaissance eras ?) could be done along trade routes like the resource in the actual version, but with a transport cost (like the resource, again, but this time to determine if a population type can migrate), it could be "forced" using projects, converting a ratio of the lower class to indentured servants (slaves) moved to a new city with a (less important) conversion rate from slave to lower class in the destination city.

"Needs" will replace amenities to determine stability.

City growth is based on birth/death rates, both based on needs (actually only food and housing)

I have a kind of social stratification model coded, based on buildings only, I plan to have it changed by policies and eras, but your point about the improvements is very good, especially as food is a primordial resource in the early game now. Your point about industrial revolution is also interesting, I can see it working with using "citizen" slots as in the base games (where one citizen works one tile) to calculate how much people works where, and give more (middle/upper class) citizen slots to industrial and later buildings

I plan taxes for Upper and middle class only, the "wealth" of the city is determined by the social stratification, with a lower ratio for lower classes, the lower the wealth, the lower the cost of production in a city, which means that a city with a lot of slaves (with the lowest ratio in wealth calculation) will produce units/buildings at the lowest cost (but generate less income from taxes)

 

[dunkleosteus]

So I've been playing a longer game now. I've had freeze crashes on both, although I got farther in the second game than the first. Not having ocean tiles feels odd, it's way less obvious that I'm able to collect sea resources when they're not in my territory. The housing system for each type of population is interesting. The housing system Firaxis uses is really just a stand in for a more complex feature that involves access to clean water and sanitation, where as population increases so too do death rates due to disease and such, which slows population growth. Access to clean (or enough, in the case of deserts) water, food, sanitation, etc allow for higher population. Here though, we have to micromanage the amount of actual housing in a city. Obviously that IS something a city needs to take care of, but it feels a little too much like something a minor official would do rather than something for the leader of the nation to worry about. If you count the production time as well, I found I was building housing so often that I didn't have time for military or buildings. Maybe I was growing too fast though.

Either way, I'd be interested to see a system where a lot of these buildings required gold more than time. I'm typing this while staring at my frozen game and I can see that in the classical era (560 AD, turn 139) I have 3259 gold banked and it would make a lot of sense if I had to pay my citizens for their work. I wouldn't mind having to micromanage my cities as much if it wasn't so time consuming, so perhaps the wealthy housing costs more to construct? It's also hard to understand the purpose of wealth classes as it is, why do I care if my wealthy citizens are living in the middle class housing? Are wealthy citizens good?

The game feels good to play, don't get me wrong but there are a few systems left over from the base game that feel insufficient in this mod. For example, the population level being tied to how many tiles you can work. I understand that without it, it's difficult to represent populations properly but I don't think it's necessary as much. In previous civ games, there were many mechanics tied to population number, such as religious followers, housing (which we seem to have dropped), amenities, any buildings that generate yields for every 1/X population (such as in Civ 5 where libraries were 1 science for every 2 population I believe?). Now, it feels like the only remaining feature that isn't tied to the actual population number is the tiles we can work.

I just think it would be cleaner to break away from that whole system and have your own. When I have 3500 people at the beginning of the game, I can work 1 tile. When I have 150 000 at population 6, I can work 6 tiles. There's something funky going on with the scaling here, clearly. I think it makes sense to be able to select which tiles you want to work, but I don't think it should be tied to city population directly. It would be cool to see a system such as the following:

You can select as many tiles as you like to be worked. The population of your city available for working tiles is split evenly between all the tiles if you do this. Based on tech level and other factors, the yields of these tiles are scaled against the number of citizens working each one. The way you scale it is really up to you, but if you wanted to keep it SIMILAR to the current system, maybe the number of tiles you could work at FULL capacity is still the old city level (so at size 6 I can work 6 tiles at full capacity or 12 tiles at half capacity). Still, we need a way to control this system. Similarly to the buttons that Civ 6 has that let you "focus" the output of your cities on food, production, etc, you can "focus" your cities on all of the different resources. Rather than a radio button though, we can have sliders. If you increase one slider, it would obviously decrease the other sliders proportionally. For a small example, say there were only 3 resources I wanted to control. All three start at 33%. If I lift one slider to 50%, the other two would fall to 25% (because that is proportional to their relationship). We'll call these sliders A, B, and C where A is 50% and B and C are 25% each. If I drop slider C down to 10%, we should see the other two sliders increase.

In terms of coding, the change in the other sliders due to altering the level of any given slider is proportional to their percentage. So if I drop C to 10%, we've freed 15% (because 25% - 10% = 15% and C was previously at 25%). That 15% gets split among the remaining sliders (A and B). A is 50% of the total remaining and B is 25%. However, the total was 75% (which is 100% - C), so we should see that A gets (50% / 75%) * 15 % and B gets (25% / 75%) * 15%. Therefore, A goes up by 10% and B goes up by 5%. The result is A = 60%, B = 30% and C = 10%.

Here is another sample with more sliders: A = 32%, B = 5%, C = 20%, D = 15%, E = 28%. If we increase B up to 20%, we will see the following changes: A -= (32% / 95%) * 15%, C -= (20% / 95%) * 15%, D -= (15% / 95%) * 15%, E -= (28% / 95%) * 15%

The final results would be A = 27%, B = 20%, C = 16.9%, D = 12.6%, E = 23.6%. I've rounded these numbers a bit (they add to 100.1%) but I'm sure you understand the gist of what I'm saying.

These sliders obviously don't directly translate to how the game decides how to work the tiles. The sliders basically let you tell the city how it should focus its population. Many tiles have multiple types of yields however, for example a tile may yield food, production, plants, stone, etc. The percentages are used as weights to determine how to properly execute this. The yields of each tile are multiplied by their percentages and added up. It makes sense that after a tile is being worked by the maximum number of citizens (this maximum may increase over time with era/tech/building or whatever), it's less efficient to add more citizens to the tile. It will still increase the yield of the tile, but the numeric increase rate decreases. The city will "overwork" a tile if doing so will be more valuable than putting those citizens in another tile (as I said before, the "value" of a tile is calculated by multiplying the yields by their focus sliders).

Using the first example of three sliders, let's say these sliders represent Wheat, Stone, and Wood corresponding to A, B and C (50%, 25%, 25%).

We have 4 tiles we want to work, their yields are as follows (only in the categories I mentioned above): [4 wheat, 0 wood, 0 stone], [3 wheat, 3 wood, 3 stone] (imaginary tile), [0 wheat, 8 wood, 0 stone], [0 wheat, 0 wood, 8 stone].

If we multiply these yields by our sliders, we attain the following "value" for each tile: [4 wheat * 50% = 2 + 0 + 0] = 2, [3 wheat * 50% = 1.5 + 3 wood * 25% = 0.75 + 3 stone * 25% = 0.75] = 3, [8 wood * 25% = 2 + 0 + 0] = 2, [8 stone * 25% = 2 + 0 + 0]

Therefore the "values" of these tiles are 2, 3, 2, and 2. The city would prioritize putting citizens in the value 3 tile. After this, it would likely dump the remaining citizens into the first value 2 tile. This is a tie, but it would probably be easiest to sort the tiles that "tie" in value by the sliders, ie because the first tile has more wheat than the other two, it's chosen first. It should be noted that because the value 3 tile is 50% more valuable than a value 2 tile, the city may choose to "overwork" that tile and "underwork" the other tiles because it would be more valuable to do so.

 

[Gedemon]

Another post about a possible mechanism, with a small relation with the effect of social stratification and the discussion about the tech tree:

A City could have extra yields relative to its size and depending on the population type.

Lower class could give production from the start

Upper class could give gold with currency, science/culture with "literacy" (which would represent an intermediate step between "writing" and "education")

Middle class could give gold (after economics?), science/culture with "education"

For example a size 10 city with 80% lower class, 10% middle and 10% upper would yield

8 productions
1 gold aftet currency, 2 after economics
1 science/culture after "literacy", 2 after education

 

[Laurentinum]

General Opinions

I like how it would discourage unemployment, as Unemployed Citizens would just use up food without any immediate benefits. It would be nice if the middle class science /culture balance can be manipulated with Policy Cards. That would allow the player to manipulate the balance, while still keeping the AI in check. The production-heavy nature also fits perfectly into the system: with the largest lower class providing useful production , and the smallest upper providing the less useful gold .

Queries and Ideas

• Are you going to go full Victoria II POP-style and give people occupations?

You can add more functional systems if you do so. For example, Clergymen can provide faith from religious population through a religious building; abundant lower-class Laborers harvest resources from farms, while the fewer, middle-class Artisans convert the harvested resources to food .

• When implementing the mechanic (which I am in favor of), what would be it's justification?

I feel that the production would be better off given to Slaves instead, with Corvée allowing you to extract production out of the lower class, in exchange for greater Unrest (when stability is implemented). Again, the middle class science / culture balance could be controlled in the same way. Having only the upper class produce gold feels weird, as all social strata can be taxed. It should be up to the player to decide the balance between the different yields. If we take faith as an example, the lower class would be the most religious if we have a trade off between science or faith , so middle class Clergymen produce faith through a Church building for other middle and lower class people. The upper class contributes their faith output through their political power so Policy Cards and a government that favors high-ranking religious people allow them to produce more faith than a system where the religious power of the masses is preferred.

 

[dunkleosteus]

Depends what era we're talking about and the societal structure. If we're talking about late-ish medieval-ish Europe, the lower class would be the working/peasant/farming class, the middle class would be the merchant class and the high class would be the nobility.

The relative populations of each are determined by a few factors. Often in class-based societies, there is very low class mobility, meaning high class children are born to high class parents, middle to middle and low to low. You would not find a middle class person born in the lower class or a high class person born in the middle class. Also, the wealth and prosperity of each class was dependent on the wealth of the nation, not the other way around for the most part. The merchants were only as rich as the nation divided by the number of merchants. Having more merchants doesn't give more opportunities for trade- more opportunities for trade bring more merchants. In a feudal system, the wealth of the nobility was reliant on the work of the lower class.

Also, if you're talking about production, that probably should not be slaves. The way you use production in the game, it's mostly skilled labour- carpentry for building buildings, bricklaying, metal working, etc. Generally you'd want skilled, paid labour for those tasks as you can't afford to have your roof fall down, and using unwilling and possibly uneducated slaves would not work for that.

By that logic, it would be the middle class that would provide production: not only merchants, but they would be the blacksmiths, tailors, cobblers, and craftsmen of any kind. The lower class is for unskilled labour- basically working the land (farms, mines, etc.)

 

[DemonEmperor]

@dunkleosteus
social mobility is rare in strict class structures, yes, but it's not unheard of. It just takes a generation or two, or in rare instances, a decade or two
Take, for an example, Roman society (in the time of the republic). It was less rigid than european feudal socieites, more "advanced" and "free" to take modern Western terminology, though still based around the concept of classes.
Even in the early days of the Republic, it was possible, though rare, for slaves to rise up to the middle class, though most did eventually join the lower plebeian class.
In the later days, former slaves pretty much ran the bureaucracy of Rome. In fact, because of the patronage system of Rome, an argument could be made that a slave would have much better odds of doing well, and indeed some did rise to be immensely wealthy, rivaled only be the hereditary nobility. Regardless, most freed slaves would eventually become craftsmen or farmers in the middle of the plebeian class. A far cry from "unwilling and possibly uneducated slaves," and more along the lines of the "skilled, paid labour" that you believe most construction in civ to be.

If you truly want to simulate a rigid class system with slavery, just create another social class (in addition to upper, middle, lower) for slaves, which are only allowed to manage tiles on the map, (mostly for food) and produce decreased production. And have lower class produce normal/full production. (pun intended)
In this system, slaves would constitute slaves, the lower class would constitute hereditary craftsmen and liberated slaves, the middle class would constitute merchants, scholars, etc, upper class would constitute the educated elite

 

[heinous_hat]

A number of cultural variants throughout history break the strict [upper, middle, lower] class model, at least concerning middle and lower classes. It's difficult to imagine a generic system that would be wholly appropriate. Where yield and other bonuses are concerned, I think much of that lies in the domain of civ specific traits, religion or social ideals (policies). That, of course, assumes the mod is taking a more realist/historical approach to game mechanics (which I think is true).

For example, Confucian ideals in feudal societies (Japan; China) place farmers at the center (middle class) due in part to the use of food (rice) as currency. The farmer produces something of value to society, while the merchant does not. As a result, farmers may be landowners (unlike their European counterparts in feudal periods). Merchants are decidedly lower class citizens, deriving their wealth from the labor of others, while producing nothing. They may be wealthier than their social "betters", but their profession is not honorable. Artisans, on the other hand, have social standing dependent upon whom they serve and what they produce. A bowyer or a builder is valued, while an actor or an artist is not (with exceptions). And forget about butchers, gravediggers, and anyone who touches dead things

So if there's going to be a system where certain population class #s produce yield benefits (or have tax variation), it would be interesting and appropriate for there to be method where the player can choose the nature of social structure from a menu of historically representative options. This could be something permanent (unique trait), semi-permanent (religion) or transient (policies).

Example...

Let's say that you have generic system where certain population class thresholds impart some bonus to yields...

upper - stability; wealth; culture
middle - wealth (taxes); production
lower - production; food; instability

Or whatever.

Now, Japan could have a unique trait that shifts food and a greater wealth bonus to the middle class, maybe during specific eras or at a tech threshold. Or, you could do that through religion (e.g. Confucianism), or through policies (Nomin Caste). This could also impart a stability penalty, because many didn't really enjoy the extreme restrictions of their societal role, despite being nominally "superior".

Something like that, anyway...

 

[Gedemon]

Thank you all, good points.

First a precision, in my post I was referring to some extra city yields (what's a city could yield globally depending of it's social structure), not the population yield (taxes when implemented, actual yields of citizen slots, ...)

I find heinous_hat's idea of policies redefining the social structure very interesting, now I'd like to expand that idea to fit the mechanisms in the mod.

Just a reminder of the (basic) mechanism actually implemented:

- Each of the 4th class have it's own birth/death rate value
- To prevent complete lack of class mobility, there are also some minimal/maximal % threshold of total population for each class. The % variation is very basic ATM: some buildings change it (Palace raise the Upper/Middle max and min %, housing buildings raise the max% of their class)
- If a class is above it's max percent, part of that class population is moved one class down (slaves excluded)
- If a class is below it's minimal percent, part of the class under it is moved up (slaves excluded)

That's a part of the code that is a placeholder (and it will break when minimal/maximal percents of two classes overlap), but I've not really thought of the replacement yet and how to integrate government and policies with the actual buildings, not forgetting the cities citizen slots (and for that last part, I'm afraid it will be difficult to break the city size/citizen slot relation on the code size)

 

[heinous_hat]

Are you extending cultural diffusion to the population this time around (à la the revolutions component of the BNW mod project)?

 

[Gedemon]

Are you extending cultural diffusion to the population this time around (à la the revolutions component of the BNW mod project)?

ATM the same code is used, why ?

 

[heinous_hat]

Just curious... something to consider when making suggestions and thinking about other systems that aren't there yet. Along with health, stability, etc there stands to be a lot of potential push/pull on the population and social divisions.

 

[Gedemon]

I mean, what's your ideas ?

In the Culture Diffusion / Revolution mod, the "Culture" values on a tile represent the strength of (the different) national "traditions" for the population on the tile, not the number of people living in that area.

You'd like to separate urban and rural population ?

 

[heinous_hat]

No, wasn't suggesting anything yet. Just wondering if that's part of the plan... I read your design notes a while ago and don't recall.

If I remember the civ5 mod correctly, foreign population would contribute to instability due to either being at war with the parent civ, or if that civ had a superior happiness score. This was one of my favorite elements, since it made an issue out of "relative happiness"... in vanilla civ5, excess happiness had little effect, aside from golden age point accumulation, which was quite dull. The mod created the potential for a foreign uprising, though I don't think it quite hit the balance point where it was as dangerous as separatist sentiment.

The mod didn't have population classes though [upper, middle, lower]. So, I guess my only question at present... if you intend to introduce these population elements again, how do they fit into the current scheme? Is foreign (or separatist) culture to be represented within each population class?

such as... [upper class: 10% foreign 20% separatist; middle class:5% foreign 35% separatist; lower class: 3% foreign 22% separatist]

 

[Gedemon]

I hadn't designed that part yet, the base would be identical to civ5 and I wanted to add different values for unrest in the mix depending on the class but didn't thought of a separate repartition of culture (especially separatists) per class. It's something that makes sense again, and everything could be linked to the discussion about how policies, buildings, etc... could affect the 4 classes.

 

[heinous_hat]

It's another facet where the social model could change depending on culture, period, policies etc. Foreign population could grow at different rates (or not at all) in each social class, depending on policies and such. Too much foreign influence in the upper class (if allowed) could create some interesting scenarios. Disallowing cultural growth in the upper class could then create a different problem elsewhere... e.g. lower class foreign dissent due to lack of representation.

 

[Laurentinum]

How about giving each improvement several Citizen slots?

For example a Farm may have 2 slots.
If you assign a Citizen to the Food slot, the farm will produce food-related crops, while if you assign a citizen to the Production slot, it will produce production-related crops.

As for the AI, a helper could be made to trick the AI into thinking that assigning a citizen will produce that yield directly. So working the Food slot would produce a virtual +1 Food that doesn't actually do anything.