Civ4 with the same lousy civ growth system?

[apatheist]

You mean 'made the population growth some exponent'...?


Your a hard fella to understand, by "each of these" do you mean each unit of population? Basically suggesting 1 pop unit created for every pop unit every 12 years at 6% growth? A population doubling in 12 years (did you mean to say turns?) sounds like more then 6% growth, even if it means per year.

Sorry, I was trying not to be pedantic. Suppose you have the following formula: 2^(pop points) * 10,000 = city population. That gives you:

Size 1: 10,000
Size 2: 20,000
Size 3: 40,000
Size 4: 80,000
Size 5: 160,000

If you have a city of size 1 and another city of size 4, each of which is growing at a rate of 6% per turn (in number of people, not population points), then the first will be size 2 and the second size 5 after 12 turns. In other words, doing it logarithmically/exponentially means that larger cities don't grow faster in terms of population points, just in terms of absolute people, which has little meaning beyond the trivial in the civ world.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Sorry, I was trying not to be pedantic. Suppose you have the following formula: 2^(pop points) * 10,000 = city population. That gives you:

Size 1: 10,000
Size 2: 20,000
Size 3: 40,000
Size 4: 80,000
Size 5: 160,000

If you have a city of size 1 and another city of size 4, each of which is growing at a rate of 6% per turn (in number of people, not population points), then the first will be size 2 and the second size 5 after 12 turns. In other words, doing it logarithmically/exponentially means that larger cities don't grow faster in terms of population points, just in terms of absolute people, which has little meaning beyond the trivial in the civ world.

Yeah... however a city of a size of 10 would have 5,120,000 people and a city of size of 15 would have 163,840,000 people. Maybe we should a bit tame down the booming...

 

[Marla_Singer]

Anyway, as I see it, the city growth system should be totally revamped.


1st - City borders : Cities should be regions... and there shouldn't manage simply the region at a 2-tile range from it. The shape of those regions would be determined by the culture of each city. It would work exactly like it works in Civ3 at the nationwide level.

To give you a better vision of what it would bring, here's a little drawing I've quickly made. Thick borders are national, thin borders are regional, and the colour-tiles are cities.

2nd - City growth : There should be two criterias. First health would determine growth, but food would be necessary to sustain that growth. We could improve health with city improvements (aqueduct, hospitals, sewer system), but also with technologies (vaccination, cool chain). About food, it should be determined at the level of cities untill nationalism (or railroad) is discovered. Then, it becomes nationwide.

Once the cool chain is discovered, we could even imagine food exchange between deficitary nations and beneficiary nations. The agricultural revolution should directly lead to a massive food boost (like all farmers devellop twice more food). This could simulate the demographic booming Europe has lived in the 18th/19th century, and the rest of the world later.


3rd - Citizens : I would divide the citizens in four categories : workers, merchants, farmers and unemployed. All citizens have the same food costs, workers would produce shield (or hammer), merchants would produce luxury and farmers would produce food. In the Ancient age, food would be hard to produce so we would need many farmers. As such workers and merchants would be a minority. In the industrial age, the food boosting of the agricultural revolution would lead to an increase of workers, and in the modern age, the leading category would become merchants.

In the city screen, farmers would be placed on neighbouring tiles, workers would be placed either in cities or in mines, merchants would be placed exclusively in cities. Only one worker and one merchant could be placed in the city with no improvement. City improvements would be requested in order to place more workers in cities (mills, factories), and in order to place more merchants in cities (artisan shops, bank, stock exchange).

4th - Trade : Trade should be highly dependent on city population and trade routes. An easy mathematical formula could easily determine a level of trade according to the size of the neighbouring cities and their distance. Roads, railroads and harbors would reduce that distance between cities.


What do you think of all these ideas ? Should I post them as a suggestion for Civ5 ?

 

[TruePurple]

Sorry, I was trying not to be pedantic. Suppose you have the following formula: 2^(pop points) * 10,000 = city population. That gives you:

Size 1: 10,000
Size 2: 20,000
Size 3: 40,000
Size 4: 80,000
Size 5: 160,000

If you have a city of size 1 and another city of size 4, each of which is growing at a rate of 6% per turn (in number of people, not population points), then the first will be size 2 and the second size 5 after 12 turns. In other words, doing it logarithmically/exponentially means that larger cities don't grow faster in terms of population points, just in terms of absolute people, which has little meaning beyond the trivial in the civ world.

I get what you say about the numbers, but in civ its all about the pop heads, since they do alot of the work. I mean otherwise your saying larger populations need to eat less and also do less work.

I mean it won't matter if some number mentions city size, what your essentially suggesting is that a city of size 1 grow 4 times faster then a city of size 4 and would force players to expand like crazy.

Unless each pop head produced more in the larger city. A pop head in a size 4 city producing 4 times that of a pop head in a size 1 city.

@marla
Interesting ideas about food distribution but I don't see any ideas in your post that refers to a growth system.

Heres one of my ideas concerning city growth.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=126101

 

[I am the Future]

like the growth sytem ideas Marla but i wouldnt want to be playing a game where i had to know all of those rules inorder to play the game.

 

[Marla_Singer]

@marla
Interesting ideas about food distribution but I don't see any ideas in your post that refers to a growth system.

1. Taking into account agricultural and health development would lead us to a massive demographic booming in the industrial age.

2. City population would be represent only people working in the city (merchants and workers) and not those who work outside the city (farmers and miners). In the Industrial age, the agricultural revolution would lead to a massive booming of the population which would have to migrate to cities in order to find a job. Those would be unemployed untill the facilities necessary to hire them (factories and such) would be created.

3. Taking into account trade attracting migrants would mean that your succesful cities would explode. That would be natural. Just as in reality.

like the growth sytem ideas Marla but i wouldnt want to be playing a game where i had to know all of those rules inorder to play the game.

Most things would be done automatically so you wouldn't have to bother. There wouldn't be more micro-management than in civilization. Trust me, you would very fastly understand how it works and feels comfortable with it. I'm even sure you would enjoy it more afterwards.

 

[andrewlt]

A problem about the previous Civ games I've found is that the economic and production growth of cities is not exponential vs. the population growth. If pop 6 is an exponential growth over pop 1, the economic and production value should be way more exponential because of economies of scale and scope. I want a size 24 city to be a lot more desirable than two size 12 cities.

 

[Marla_Singer]

A problem about the previous Civ games I've found is that the economic and production growth of cities is not exponential vs. the population growth. If pop 6 is an exponential growth over pop 1, the economic and production value should be way more exponential because of economies of scale and scope. I want a size 24 city to be a lot more desirable than two size 12 cities.

Well. Here's how the population figure grows.

n represents the number of citizen heads in the city.

Population = 10,000*(n+(n-1)+(n-2)+...+3+2+1).

As such, it grows this way :

• Level 1 => 10 000
• Level 2 => 30 000
• Level 3 => 60 000
• Level 4 => 100 000
• Level 5 => 150 000
• Level 6 => 210 000
• Level 7 => 280 000
• Level 8 => 360 000
• Level 9 => 450 000
• Level 10 => 550 000
• Level 11 => 660 000
• Level 12 => 780 000
• Level 13 => 910 000
• Level 14 => 1 050 000
• Level 15 => 1 200 000
• Level 16 => 1 360 000
• Level 17 => 1 530 000
• Level 18 => 1 710 000
• Level 19 => 1 900 000
• Level 20 => 2 100 000
• Level 21 => 2 310 000
• Level 22 => 2 530 000
• Level 23 => 2 760 000
• Level 24 => 3 000 000
• Level 25 => 3 250 000
• Level 26 => 3 510 000
• Level 27 => 3 780 000
• Level 28 => 4 060 000
• Level 29 => 4 350 000
• Level 30 => 4 650 000
• Level 31 => 4 960 000
• Level 32 => 5 280 000
• Level 33 => 5 610 000
• Level 34 => 5 950 000
• Level 35 => 6 300 000
• Level 36 => 6 660 000
• Level 37 => 7 030 000
• Level 38 => 7 410 000
• Level 39 => 7 800 000
• Level 40 => 8 200 000
• Level 41 => 8 610 000
• Level 42 => 9 030 000
• Level 43 => 9 460 000
• Level 44 => 9 900 000
• Level 45 => 10 350 000
• Level 46 => 10 810 000
• Level 47 => 11 280 000
• Level 48 => 11 760 000
• Level 49 => 12 250 000
• Level 50 => 12 750 000

 

[Chose]

Quote jwijn:

" Access to fresh water, eh? Hopefully we will have ways of making it "un-fresh," if you catch my drift..."

"un-fresh" is water that has salt and fresh water is water with no salt like a lake if u catch my drift...........

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Actually, something interesting which I noticed in recent screen shots (though I may be incorrect) is how there seems to be pasture and crops which all seem to be well outside the maximum radius of the nearest cities. Maybe this suggests that not just food resources-but food units too-will be global rather than local. Hope that I am right that food produced isn't tied to individual cities any more!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[TruePurple]

Marla, you still haven't actually described any growth system. Just a food distribution system, a different topic altogether.

As such, it grows this way

Those numbers are meaningless decoration that have no effect on the game at all. Nor does anyone usually pay them any mind. I don't know why you bothered to list them.

Andrew's point boils down that production never matches population size, because it matchs population heads, which is the real population size. Like I said, those numbers are meaningless decoration.

 

[andrewlt]

Let's take for example, population 10 vs. population 11. That would be 550,000 vs. 660,000. In civ 3 and back, that would be a marginal increase of 1-tile. If your city is producing 20 gold and 20 production points each turn at pop 10, at pop 11 you will have 22 gold and production at the most since you usually work the better tiles first and there's a bonus center tile. That's only a 10% increase at the most.

In the real world, though, going from 550,000 to 660,000 is going to be at least a 20% increase in production and commerce in most cases. However, due to economies of scale and scope, which include specialization, the increase in population from 550,000 to 660,000 will increase production and commerce by way more than 20%.

This is what I feel civ doesn't capture. In a sense, civ has basic economic law backwards in this regard. You work the better tiles first, so every marginal gain in population heads result in a marginal gain in commerce and production that is lower than the current average. In truth, however, a marginal gain in population heads should results in an exponential increase in commerce and production.

A clearer example is this: If 10 people could make 20 pies in 1 hour, how many pies could 11 people make? Basic arithmetic is going to say 22 pies since each person makes 2 pies in an hour. In previous civ games, the presence of the center tile and the fact that people work on the better tiles first would put the answer to be less than 22. In the real world, however, somebody could specialize in making the crust, somebody could specialize in making the fruit fix, somebody could specialize in making the syrup, etc. The answer, then, would be higher than 22. The way it works in previous games is just counter-intuitive and I'm hoping they change it in civ 4.

 

[apatheist]

I generally agree with these ideas, though, to be fair, they are less about growth and more about city management. I would slightly change the types of citizens to be farmers, laborers, entertainers, scientists, religious leaders, and maybe one or two other specialties.

The growth rate should be the birth rate minus the death rate. The birth rate should be a function of the economy, education levels, and other non-food and non-health factors. What health should affect is the death rate. A very primitive nation could thus have a high birth rate (5%), but also a high death rate (4%), leading to a net growth rate of 1%, whereas a more advanced nation might have a low birth rate (2%), but an even lower death rate (1%), and thus the same growth. Of course, this is incomplete without immigration/emigration, education, a deeper economic model, yada yada yada.

 

[Commander Bello]

Quite some interesting thoughts in this thread, from which I think Marla's are the most impressive ones.
Yet, they all seem to based on the assumption that pop heads still work as they did in the past. This, I wouldn't like at all, for the good reasons stated above.
Pop size (not pop heads) should really have some meaning - otherwise the small maps problem would disturb me oven more.

 

[TruePurple]

@bello
Marla's ideas are some of the most off topic ones.

A clearer example is this: If 10 people could make 20 pies in 1 hour, how many pies could 11 people make? Basic arithmetic is going to say 22 pies since each person makes 2 pies in an hour. In previous civ games, the presence of the center tile and the fact that people work on the better tiles first would put the answer to be less than 22. In the real world, however, somebody could specialize in making the crust, somebody could specialize in making the fruit fix, somebody could specialize in making the syrup, etc. The answer, then, would be higher than 22. The way it works in previous games is just counter-intuitive and I'm hoping they change it in civ 4.

Exactly, but that is just a sample of the absurdly flawed current growth system.
Other examples are.

Food directly turning into people

A population of 10,000 growing tens of thousands of times faster(not a percise number but probably not much of a exageration either.) faster then a much larger population.

Imagine this, a city of population size 31 heads produces a settler, that makes it pop size of 29 heads. According the the population decoration chart marla posted, that settler consists of 610,000 people. When these six hundred & ten thousand people resettle, suddenly there is only ten thousand of them. Six hundred thousand people apparently died in the act of settling in a new location Which which is what, less then .01 percent of them survivng a transplant in location?

With the current civ, spreading people out is the only real way to grow them.

I could go on but these should be enough. With civ its all about the head, the city number is just meaningless decoration. Its absurdly unrealistic and cuts majorally into the game fun and quality.

I would slightly change the types of citizens to be farmers, laborers, entertainers, scientists, religious leaders, and maybe one or two other specialties.

Some of you guys are irritatingly off topic. Please keep such comments to marlas thread.

Pop size (not pop heads) should really have some meaning

I totally agree, but in order for this to happen, pop head (which is a cities actual size) needs to actually be connected to the supposed city size.

Yet, they all seem to based on the assumption that pop heads still work as they did in the past. This, I wouldn't like at all, for the good reasons stated above.

This thread is about using a whole new growth system. Civ desperately needs it. If civ4 hasn't got a better system, you got to wonder if theirs any hope for the series ever maturing into something great.

If people want to see one idea for improving the system, please see my sig. If someone has a better idea, Or an idea that improves on mine, please post it. So far I haven't heard anything though.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Your ideas are very good, Apatheist, but I am not sure that Firaxis is quite ready to make so radical a change to its city-growth formula (which is a great pity, IMHO !) That said, though, I definitely feel that this new concept of health will go some large way to breaking the 'food monopoly' on city growth which has existed in previous civ games, and make population growth a more 'holistic' system. For instance, the fact that some city improvements can add to-or subtract from-your city health score really does help to represent the power of these improvements to alter a city's birth rate, death rate, carrying capacity-in any combination (like a hospital or aqueduct, for instance).
What I think this will also do, though, is to remove the need for a city to work every fertile square in its radius simply to maintain its population-as it will be able to instead gain its population growth via a combination of internal food trade and improvements which boost health (like supermarkets and hospitals). This will then free up more citizens to specialise as entertainers, scientists, labourers and tax collectors. Now, if only there is a system for allowing actual food units to spread beyond the city that produces them (beyond the diversity system, that is), then this model will probably be very good IMO.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

TruePurple, you need to remember that some elements regarding population are more about gameplay than realism-something which even I have had to accept over the years. The settler example you use is a case in point (i.e. the population cost was designed to reduce ICS, but a flat population cost doesn't fit neatly with a realistic portrayal of a large city producing a settler) I feel, though, that even if they have simply replaced the direct 'food=population' system with a broader 'Health' model-already specified above-then I reckon that this has gone a huge way in the direction of realism without sacrificing gameplay. Again, thats just how I see it so far, but hope to hear more on these matters over the next 2 months or so!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[TruePurple]

Well the few replies i've gotten to alternative growth system bemoan the realism factor as an excuse against them. Civs system is much more unrealistic.

As far as game play, civs growth system also sucks for that. Its hard to "sacrafice" something thats already pretty broken. If its going to be based on health, instead of direct food, great. But generally speaking, a population twice as big, pop head wise, should produce twice as many people.

If a city size 2 pop head would produce 1 pop head in 12 turns at Y health. A city size 4 pop head should produce 2 pop head in 12 turns at Y health.

UNLESS, pop heads became more productive as more people got represented by them. But really pop heads should represent a standard amount of people according the the age, not according to the city size.

Setting aside the issue of realism altogether,

1.a Your population speed should grow based on health and current size only. Never based on how many cities you have (which is how it currently works) More cities causing much faster reproduction makes for sucky game play that becomes most only about expansion and occasionally defense/offense.

1.b Cities should never receive free food

2. Food should never turn directly into people. Feeding the people should be important for growth. Overfeeding should never cause people to pop up. People aren't food storage bins. Likewise starving civs to death should piss them off, people aren't food storage bins!

3. Military need to be subtracted from the population. 1 pop head per military unit should be fine. The exact number in a army division shouldn't matter, were not talking about realism and if we were then such would beat the other system by miles.

4. Even before industrial age, one should be able to move food from one city to another. Perhaps limits in range depending on current tech and whether the civ has horses yet or not.

 

[apatheist]

Your ideas are very good, Apatheist, but I am not sure that Firaxis is quite ready to make so radical a change to its city-growth formula (which is a great pity, IMHO !) That said, though, I definitely feel that this new concept of health will go some large way to breaking the 'food monopoly' on city growth which has existed in previous civ games, and make population growth a more 'holistic' system.

Thanks. I disagree about Firaxis, though; I think they're most of the way there with health. They may even have gone all the way; given the paucity of information available to us, we can't say for sure.

What I think this will also do, though, is to remove the need for a city to work every fertile square in its radius simply to maintain its population-as it will be able to instead gain its population growth via a combination of internal food trade and improvements which boost health (like supermarkets and hospitals). This will then free up more citizens to specialise as entertainers, scientists, labourers and tax collectors.

Yes. Laborers should be separate from farmers. Shields/hammers/whatever shouldn't come from the land. All that should come from the land are food and resources, both of which require a citizen working the land. Everyone else "works" the city tile.

Now, if only there is a system for allowing actual food units to spread beyond the city that produces them (beyond the diversity system, that is), then this model will probably be very good IMO.

Effective distance ;-)? Food can move 1 turn from where it was grown. Early on, that's 1 tile. Eventually, it becomes more as you discover more technology and build more infrastructure. Each city satisfies its own needs first, then sends food to the nearest friendly (or allied) city with need, then the next nearest, etc. until all cities in range are satisfied or the surplus is exhausted.

If a city size 2 pop head would produce 1 pop head in 12 turns at Y health. A city size 4 pop head should produce 2 pop head in 12 turns at Y health.

Only if the relationship is linear, which it is not, and which it should not be.

UNLESS, pop heads became more productive as more people got represented by them. But really pop heads should represent a standard amount of people according the the age, not according to the city size.

That's confusing. Why bother with that?

1.b Cities should never receive free food

Sure.

3. Military need to be subtracted from the population. 1 pop head per military unit should be fine. The exact number in a army division shouldn't matter, were not talking about realism and if we were then such would beat the other system by miles.

One is excessive. I say multiply all current head counts by 5 or 10 and then make military units take 1 of those.

 

[TruePurple]

1 is not excessive, you want to deal with 5 or 10 times more units then you need to? Who wants to be dealing with that many units? What would it accomplish?

Only if the relationship is linear, which it is not, and which it should not be.

Whats that suppose to mean?

Are you saying you want a pop head to represant more people at larger size? What purpose does that serve? That number is just meaningless decoration.

If a city size 2 pop head would produce 1 pop head in 12 turns at Y health. A city size 4 pop head should produce 2 pop head in 12 turns at Y health. That would make for better gameplay and more realistic game as well.

That's confusing. Why bother with that?

Its really not that confusing and we wouldn't need to if we didn't use the less logical and more annoying to game play system of small cities growing much faster then large cities.