Emigration

[MilkmanDan]

Not really. The initial effects were a loss of technology (rather, non-military tech; They even made a few ADVANCEMENTS with regards to siege) and decrease in culture, followed by first a gradual increase in both, and then a large leap when they rediscovered the knowledge of the Greeks and Romans.

The majority of people would have been incredibly unhappy during the dark ages, as the majority would have been serfs who were essentially slaves.

Yeah, pax romana made empire wide trade possible and profitable which meant increased specialization. When trade broke down, most local areas only had rudimentary knowledge for how to make basics (pottery for example) and had to relearn/rediscover or just find new techniques.

Which gives me an idea for another way to implement a kind of dark age and make specialists more interesting at the same time. Specialists, become more effective over time but only as long as they're working. A significant population drop would mean losing specialists along with their associated knowledge. How fast a new specialist would improve would depend first on existing specialists in the city (direct training) which would be fast and overall level in the nation (migration, training, etc.) which would be relatively slow. In the absence of any higher level specialist, it would be slowest. Buildings/techs might change this/mitigate loss (libraries, etc), printing press/telegraph/railroad make the national transfer rate faster for example.

 

[Slowpoke]

Looks cool Sounds pretty bad for single player tho? I mean the A.I. gets massive happiness boosts. I'd hate to never get any immigrants

 

[killmeplease]

Looks cool Sounds pretty bad for single player tho? I mean the A.I. gets massive happiness boosts. I'd hate to never get any immigrants

people reported they get them
unhappiness hits AI sometimes when it expands rapidly.

maybe i should to lower AIs happiness boost to make things more fair and interesting.

 

[kolerick]

well... the "benefit" of getting immigrant should change depending the policies u have...
sure, some immigrant can give u cultural, labor work, maybe even some wealth... but see it from a social country... they can cost u too... maybe add a little tweak that for some round, they cost more ressource than they bring if the the country has certain social polices...
also, too many immigrant can produce wearyness in the local population... let's say, if too many come at once, u could make it that for some round, the targeted city get in revolt...
just to be more realistic, migrations don't only give +, they may give some - too if not well handled...
(historical fact, chinese 3 kingdom war, massive migration was used to wear down some opponent cities)

 

[Lilltiger]

Not really. The initial effects were a loss of technology (rather, non-military tech; They even made a few ADVANCEMENTS with regards to siege) and decrease in culture, followed by first a gradual increase in both, and then a large leap when they rediscovered the knowledge of the Greeks and Romans.

The majority of people would have been incredibly unhappy during the dark ages, as the majority would have been serfs who were essentially slaves.

Seem like you where thinking of the "Dark Ages" in the late era of the Roman empire, I was thinking of the Dark Ages in Medival Europe when the church outlawed science, kings went on crusades and art and litterature flurished.

 

[Valkrionn]

Seem like you where thinking of the "Dark Ages" in the late era of the Roman empire, I was thinking of the Dark Ages in Medival Europe when the church outlawed science, kings went on crusades and art and litterature flurished.

Yep, the early dark ages immediately following the collapse of Rome.

 

[MilkmanDan]

Seem like you where thinking of the "Dark Ages" in the late era of the Roman empire, I was thinking of the Dark Ages in Medival Europe when the church outlawed science, kings went on crusades and art and litterature flurished.

I think in historical circles, the term dark ages actually refers from about 500-1000AD, regarding both the drop in quality of life/world understanding and the general lack of written history during this period (for western europe of course). We know more about Roman/Greek politics and significant events a thousand years earlier than we do about almost any of the kings/rulers of the dark ages. Hence, those times are difficult to see into and thus 'dark'. Of course, I could just be plain wrong.

 

[killmeplease]

just to be more realistic, migrations don't only give +, they may give some - too if not well handled...

it will be in revolutions mod, foreigners will water down city population's identity

(historical fact, chinese 3 kingdom war, massive migration was used to wear down some opponent cities)

where can i read about it?

 

[killmeplease]

I think in historical circles, the term dark ages actually refers from about 500-1000AD, regarding both the drop in quality of life/world understanding and the general lack of written history during this period (for western europe of course). We know more about Roman/Greek politics and significant events a thousand years earlier than we do about almost any of the kings/rulers of the dark ages. Hence, those times are difficult to see into and thus 'dark'. Of course, I could just be plain wrong.

Dark Age concept assumes decline of society.
Historically, there was also not only medieval dark age but ancient as well, when many civs collapsed in ~1300-700 bc.

 

[Mustakrakish]

killmeplease: О я об этом часто задумывался, наконец-то кто-то зделал...

Great job, keep it coming. Will be waiting for THE final polished version.

 

[Valkrionn]

Dark Age concept assumes decline of society.
Historically, there was also not only medieval dark age but ancient as well, when many civs collapsed in ~1300-700 bc.

Yep, that one involved the ancient Mycenaean (Greek) Civilization, and much of the rest of the Mediterranean.

 

[kolerick]

to read about it, if u look for facts, i guess u need to read chinese... other sources are more romanced... when i talk about romanced sources, u can look for old books, or easier, some "fantasy" build with those books (some historical mangas are the easiest way to read about it)
thinking about this problem, we could more talk about refugee than emigrants in the case i mentionned (gong zhou "send" alot of those refugee in the way of the coalition that was fighting him, those coalitions leader wanting to appear "human carring", give rations to the refugee... thus, deplete their way of fighting later, when gong zhou famous general, Lu Bu launch an attack and anihilate most of this coalition...) this actually take place before the 3 kingdoms era really begin...
btw, the hans (main chinese ethnie) used the civilians refugee alot... whenever revolt were raising in the empire, refugee started to move furter to avoid the conflic, emigrating in land owned by other ethnie where they did grow as a large population... later, the empire made those lands join by either political, economical or military way... it wasn't necessary a devised scheme, but more like an opportunity.

btw, when i'm talking about the effect of immigration depending the social policy, just take a look at the difference of cost/income due to the immigrants in say... france and england...
providential state may prove a big problem when u have alot immigrants that don't NEED to work to live (France)... while in England, for exemple, they MUST work to live, since socials helps is alot "weaker" ...
make no mistake, i critisize the social policy, not the immigration itself

 

[MilkmanDan]

might be interesting if a captured city produced extra refugees that move to nearby cities/civs with a temporary negative effect per person if accepted and maybe a negative diplomatic effect if rejected.

 

[killmeplease]

good idea
negative effect may be -5*era for settling expences

 

[Atwork]

I loved CIV4 Revolution mod!!

In Civ5, all local politics is global....that's fine, but I wish there were also local effects as in C4.....I'm glad you're implementing local effects re: happiness/unhappiness.....AND I'm super happy to hear other people eager for a revolutions mod! My confidence in the civ community is constantly proving well placed!

 

[Quiet Man]

I am intrigued by this mod and how well it's been designed and implemented. I have a few random thoughts on this concept. Please keep in mind that I have never created a mod to any game and so I probably don't fully appreciate the difficulty of implementing my suggestions.

That said, have you considered any of the following as elements of your mod:

1. Should the 'receiving' empire stipulate just how many immigrants it will accept per turn?
   Spoiler :

   Rationale: Immigrant populations usually become a drain on resources, and possibly a security risk. Most governments have policies regulating immigration. This also raises the question of what happens to immigrants not accepted by a neighboring country. Would they then become 'soft barbarians?' The extension of this issue would then mean that these wandering folks could fall prey to barbarians ('hard barbarians') and possibly even the military of unfriendly empires/city states and would need to be protected by military forces of some other country/city state as a somewhat less humanitarian gesture than accepting the immigrants into the new empire (for example, sending troops to Somalia).
   
   
2. For a specified duration (1-to-3 turns, perhaps), should the immigrant population contribute to the empire's production at a reduced rate, or not at all?
   Spoiler :

   Rationale: Because of language and cultural differences, assimilation into the receiving population takes time.
   
   
3. If an immigrant comes from an empire that has technology as yet undiscovered by the receiving empire, could points be added towards the research of that technology by the receiving empire once research is undertaken?
   Spoiler :

   Rationale: Many immigrants bring advanced technologies with them [doctors, engineers, etc.] to their new homes. For example, during the world wars, not all emigre from the occupied countries were peasants. Without German scientists, there would not have been the acceleration in the American and Russian space programs that happened following WW II.

As I said, I have no idea of the difficulties or practicalities involved in implementing these ideas but I thought I'd toss them into the ring anyway.

Thanks again for your mod.

 

[Mannu]

I really appreciate all of the work and thought that you've put into this. Here's a small suggestion:

Historically many peoples, when faced with hardship and famine, migrated not to another city or empire, but instead they wandered until they found a place to settle. I'm thinking specifically of all the Germanic migrations in the late roman period. Some of them even ended up in North Africa for a time.

Perhaps prior to a certain social policy, era, or tech, you could instead spawn a unit and a settler, perhaps as a new city state player?

Gameplay should trump realism, but this is something I hope you'll consider, perhaps for a v3.

 

[Atwork]

I think the beauty of this MOD is it's simplicity. A player is doing a poor job of managing unhappiness and therefore population emigrates to other civs or city-states who are doing a better job of managing their unhappiness. Makes sense.

IMO, Quiet Man is over complicating things. Mannu's suggestion of a worker spawning wouldn't be overpowered, but I think that a settler spawning would be overpowered.

IMO, the complexity of this MOD should lie in dealing with the rationality of how severe the penalties should be, how often a player should be penalized, what factors should contribute to being penalized, and who benefits. Along those lines, I like the way the rules are being developed and implemented so far.

As a suggestion though, I think that: within a civ that has become so unhappy, for such an amount of time as a citizen or citizens wish to resettle, the cities that have NOT invested in infrastructure devoted to happiness should be the first in line to lose population.

For example, a city that has built a circus and coliseum should be much less likely to lose its population than a city that has built no such infrastructure.

Also, I think that the size of a city should matter in this equation. In other words, a large city (in relation to other cities in the civ) with no infrastructure should be much more likely to lose population than a small city with no infrastructure.

Also, I think that when population chooses to resettle, they should be most likely to resettle in cities or city-states closest to the city from which they move from.

In other words, when a population chooses to resettle, I think they should resettle in the closest city that will make them happy, i.e. a city with infrastructure AND in a civ that can take on the added population and still remain globally happy.

I would further suggest, along the lines of revolution mod, that the player receive a warning when and where population is about to flee from. The player should then have a chance (3 turns) to keep the population by bribing them or by meeting their demands. This would require a system of reminders or some other visual cue. Revolutions mod had a good system as I remember.

Bribing the population would keep them settled for 5, 10, or 15 turns depending on the size of the bribe (50, 100, 150 gold respectively, but increasing at each era). After which, if conditions in the civ haven't improved sufficient to their liking, then the population would flee .

On the other hand, the population of X may accept a building built in city X to keep them settled. For example, the population might demand a circus in that particular city....the player would then have a fairly short amount of time (10 turns) to fully appease the population by building the building in their city. This could prove difficult because it may take more than 10 turns to get the building built. Thus the player may have to work to raise gold to purchase the project, or the player may need to bribe the population long enough to get the building built.

These suggestions would help add one of the key domestic element missing from C5, local politics! Here, the attitudes of local populace forces a player to pay prompt attention to not only global happiness, but also forces the player to not be negligent in dealing with the needs of local populations. I like the idea of C4/C5 hybrid when it comes to local v. global population!

 

[Dünamünde]

This is great, but you really should take AI's negative influence. Immigration and Emigration can be good in moderation, it can also start wars.. Just a thought.

 

[Tomice]

- people do not emigrate from razing and blockaded cities

I thought about this quite a bit while running some errands today, and it really disturbs me. Half the population of captured cities and the whole population of razed cities simply disappears/dies. While total annihilations happened in history, they were not the rule. I really don't like how razing cities has no visible repercussions or any effect at all.

My idea: Refugees from captured/razed cities could escape to other cities and/or turn into military units.

First, it would be immersive and realistic.

Second, it would work against the effect of steamrolling after the initial battle. We do have the problem that a civ hardly ever recovers after you win against their field army. They might rush-buy a unit or two, but usually once you crushed their main army you can take their empire without problems. And if you can't afford the happiness, you just raze weak cities without a second thought.

So each of the previously disappearing citizens should randomnly either:

- die
- escape to another city of their civ
- escape to some other civ
- turn into a military unit (next to the civ's capital, not in the middle of the battlefield)

The defending civ should receive a unit or two for each lost city, making it harder to rush through their territory.

If I'm thinking right, a civ that just lost a few cities should have enough excess happiness* to afford the escaped citizens in its other cities.



*) We should really replace the word "happiness" with "stability", this sentence sounds so weird otherwise, doesn't it?