Have they got population growth wrong?

[Victoria]

Its been bugging me for a long time. As a city gets bigger its growth slows even though it has surplus food.
Personally I know if I am hungry it does not put me off sex.

So... taking that one step further... If while food was not in very short supply your city grew based on the population so it started to snowball in size would the game be more interesting?

 

[Archon_Wing]

Well, when your city lacks food, it literally means people are starving to death. Gotta remember a turn is a bunch of years. So while being hungry isn't gonna stop anyone from having sex, it certainly does reduce their life expectancy and their ability to have children.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

So while being hungry isn't gonna stop anyone from having sex, it certainly does reduce their life expectancy and their ability to have children.

Also people are spending time hunting for food rather than being able to relax and having time for procreation.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Wow. Fascinating topic. Where to start?

How about first of all, the Population number of the City makes no sense from day one, even in civ terms. The city centre tile is being worked and one tile in the field is being worked, so by internal "civ logic" the "true" Population is actually 2 on city founding, not one. Of course, no other game mechanism recognizes this other than the tile working/yield production mechanism.

Then there's the question of what form population growth took in the real world, under most conditions. It probably looks close to the Civ representation, i.e. slow linear growth, until the health revolution. Someone will no doubt cite studies I don't have time to look up right now.

So then we get into questions about what factors truly determine how fast the population grows? Civ 6 has the most complex formula yet, using the traditional food production (but only locally, 'cuz "civ mayors don't share"), the bizarrely named "housing" (which includes the benefits of medieval walls and plumbing), and "amenities" (which is "happiness" in everything but name).

The real world factors likely line up behind available food (and Victoria's right, once basic food needs are met, pop growth isn't faster with surplus food) and mortality rates (more wars = slower pop growth, better health care = fewer infant deaths = high pop growth). So as a game mechanism, some simple way to measure food availability and general population health isn't bad. Food does that, and "housing" kind of does that, though in a mostly silly fashion in Civ 6 (anybody really think you should be able to grow a big modern city without investing in Sewers? and if so, maybe a Tourism hit would be in order?) Not sure amenities/happiness should play into it at all (less entertainment options likely mean more babies - check out stats from black outs).

In terms of game play, linear population growth is likely easier to balance, so mechanics that cause your population to growth gradually over time and avoid "snow balling" probably makes for better overall game play.

 

[King Rad]

i put unsure. it's an interesting concept, and it could add additional 'social' considerations to the late game like the real world issues of large urban cities today. A growth mechanic such as this would probably need to be coupled with some other things, maybe the ability to transport food from a high food production 'rural' area to an urban area and possibly a corresponding transfer of production [or gold] to the rural area - something more than currently available in the trade routes. It could also enhance housing problems, perhaps increasing the importance of neighborhoods, and for sewers - would probably need to reintroduce a health mechanic.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Also people are spending time hunting for food rather than being able to relax and having time for procreation.

I love your optimistic view of how long the procreation process takes.

 

[Peserwin]

It might be a nice new mechanic to let population growth snowball. Actually, I think it's really cool to let food production count empire wide and not just for cities (if connected to road or river). That would mean your cities will always grow and you'll have manage to get enough food in to prevent starvation. The more food, the faster the growth.

Get big cities up fast to get better yields from them, but when food runs out and famine strikes, you'll have to cope with shrinking cities, unhappiness, corruption and even a rebellion or a civil war maybe. Food as a source of amenities in a way.

You can prevent this from happening by importing more food from other civs who have a surplus (or not and force the other civ to starvation) , build more farms around your cities or capture territory to build more farms.

So we may need to think about a new casus belli: war for survival, or maybe unlock war for territorial extension earlier.

It would make late game really challenging as all civs are rampaging to keep their people fed!

 

[Victoria]

Get big cities up fast to get better yields from them, but when food runs out and famine strikes, you'll have to cope with shrinking cities, unhappiness, corruption and even maybe a rebellion or a civil war maybe. Food as a source of amenities in a way.

Great post, along the lines I was thinking of, cities are too controlled now, hard to grow past a point while if they kept growing you really would get into disaster territory.

Well, when your city lacks food, it literally means people are starving to death. Gotta remember a turn is a bunch of years. So while being hungry isn't gonna stop anyone from having sex, it certainly does reduce their life expectancy and their ability to have children.

What i mean is a city with a pop of 1 and 2 surplus food grows much much faster than a city with a pop of 10 with 4 surplus food. I know there is disease and famine... but pop 10 is a lot of rabbits.

 

[King Rad]

So we may need to think about a new casus belli: war for survival, or maybe unlock war for territorial extension earlier.

It would make late game really challenging as all civs are rampaging to keep their people fed!

I don't think that a new causus belli is needed other than as you suggested, unlocking territorial expansion earlier. Other civs should not reduce their view of your warmongering because you're growing so rapidly that you need more space - in fact, if anything, this should cause them to be more concerned that you will try to come take their lands.

 

[Peserwin]

Great post, along the lines I was thinking of, cities are too controlled now, hard to grow past a point while if they kept growing you really would get into disaster territory.

Yes, it would really add more depth to this game, and some realism too (not that I'm that concerned about realism in a game).

Other than a more complicated diplomacy, terrain management and late game, it would open up the door for global warming/ climate change, and it would have a great impact too.

Wow, the more I thing about your idea, the more excited I get! I hope Fireaxis reads this topic before the next expansion

 

[kryat]

I’d really like to see a few factors more realistically model population dynamics:

One: sigmoidal growth. Basically, cities midway to their housing limit should grow like crazy, regardless of food supply. The current model isn’t too far off, but you rarely feel like you get a city that’s population is racing out of a control because of the dependency on food. But we do know from real world dynamics that the world’s largest cities do start to taper off in population unless some new technical innovation comes along. So the housing model is generally ok.

Two: immigration/emigration. If amenities are lacking, your cities should “leak” population to nearby cities with surplus amenities (using something like a reworked pressure system). I’d love to see newly founded cities start being flooded with citizens from civs who have over expanded.

Three: re-worked food distribution. Food should be handled empire-wide like amenities. The heartland of America is not the most populous. The cities with the most amenities and appeal should be where food and growth get priority.

 

[Victoria]

Wow, the more I thing about your idea, the more excited I get! I hope Fireaxis reads this threat before the next expansion

So in essence I feel they have it wrong and it could be more interesting but not 100% sure amd it’s nice to see others projecting themselves out of the box amd seeing that it may in fact spice the game up.

 

[Unconquered Sun]

It's inherited from Civ I. Back then population points had values in real population, starting from 10,000 and going into the 100,000s.

 

[King Rad]

So in essence I feel they have it wrong and it could be more interesting but not 100% sure amd it’s nice to see others projecting themselves out of the box amd seeing that it may in fact spice the game up.

@Victoria, tks for starting this thread. This is exactly the type of thing we need on this forum. I love CivVI and think R&F was a great expansion. And while there's nothing 'wrong' with the way population grows, per se [as we seem to keep reminding ourselves, it's a game!], you've opened up a thought-filled process of what could be other/better alternatives which could lead to an even more enjoyable game in the future. I think this could also lead to some very interesting late-game issues with some of the ideas addressed above, and it could possibly have an effect on other future mechanics such as the [in my case, anyway] longed for diplomatic and possibly economic victories. I could see poor living conditions for your people having a negative effect on diplomatic victories; and the production of corporations having potential positive and negative effects on population and growth. Lots of ways this could play out.

 

[_hero_]

In old civ games, there used to be an actual number of people associated with a city pop. A 1 pop city might represent 1000 a 2 pop city 6000 a 3 pop city 21,000 etc. Ultimately it meant that each city pop was not actually a linear increase in population but an exponential one. In Civ 6, the actual amount of people doesn't seem clearly defined anywhere as far as I know, but I imagine it is still intended to follow the same idea of exponential growth. This presents another problem though, because while population might be exponential the rewards for growth are diminishing in this game. You start off using 2 hexes. Grow and you're using 3 for a 50% increase in potential yield. Grow again to 4 hexes for a 33% increase. Grow again to 5 for a 25% increase. To 6 for a 20%. On and on constantly gaining less percentage of value per additional pop while costing exponentially more food to grow.

This is largely why playing wide in Civ games is generally favorable to playing tall. After all, if you can have 3 4 pop cities for a total of 15 hexes being used, isn't that better than 1 12 pop city with only 13 hexes? Not only that but if it's exponentially harder to grow but the reward is diminishing, it gets to a point where adding more population is hardly valuable. Not only that but it's even worse in Civ because not only are you getting a smaller percentage increase in hexes used, but because you use the best hexes first, you're getting less value from individual hexes the more you grow. This is the opposite of how it should be IMO.

Not to mention, military not significantly being influenced by population growth is beyond idiotic.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

This is largely why playing wide in Civ games is generally favorable to playing tall. After all, if you can have 3 4 pop cities for a total of 15 hexes being used, isn't that better than 1 12 pop city with only 13 hexes? Not only that but if it's exponentially harder to grow but the reward is diminishing, it gets to a point where adding more population is hardly valuable. Not only that but it's even worse in Civ because not only are you getting a smaller percentage increase in hexes used, but because you use the best hexes first, you're getting less value from individual hexes the more you grow. This is the opposite of how it should be IMO.

Not to mention, military not significantly being influenced by population growth is beyond idiotic.

Population spread over a large number of cities should be able to generate more food, whereas the same amount of population concentrated in a small number of cities should be able to produce more culture and science. To me, that's what specialists should be about - people who are "surplus" to the need to create food. But the Civ 6 economic engine doesn't work that way, as creating specialists reduces food production, and per Victoria's original post, that means having people living in cities reduces population growth compared to having the same number of people working the fields.

Military units in Civ 2 used to cost food. Simple solution to creating an opportunity cost to having a big army and to limit the maximum size of your military. Not sure it's the best solution from a game design perspective, but it created more interesting choices than the current one. You could also reassign what city was supporting each military unit, which allowed for a form of empire wide population growth management.

 

[Archon_Wing]

What i mean is a city with a pop of 1 and 2 surplus food grows much much faster than a city with a pop of 10 with 4 surplus food. I know there is disease and famine... but pop 10 is a lot of rabbits.

Well, it's not just the people in the city having children. I imagine the availability of food encourage people from elsewhere (abstract, yes) to come in for a new city.

Otherwise we're gonna have a lot of birth defects.

Also in Civ 4, population numbers were exponential, so the difference between a 11 pop and 10 city is much greater than a 2 pop from a 1 pop.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Well, it's not just the people in the city having children. I imagine the availability of food encourage people from elsewhere (abstract, yes) to come in for a new city.

Otherwise we're gonna have a lot of birth defects.

I just thought of another benefit to establishing trading posts in foreign cities ...

 

[Gedemon]

Its been bugging me for a long time. As a city gets bigger its growth slows even though it has surplus food.
Personally I know if I am hungry it does not put me off sex.

So... taking that one step further... If while food was not in very short supply your city grew based on the population so it started to snowball in size would the game be more interesting?

Would the game be more interesting if population grew more accurately?

Oh yes, I'd like that, but IMHO it also calls for more complex mechanisms like stockpiling/trading food between cities and reintroducing real population numbers (as well as more "growth control" mechanisms). I'm unsure if it can be streamlined into civ6 (or following iteration) design as intended by Firaxis.

We've discussed this for my mod design too, and, one mechanism leading to another (using population for units creation/reinforcement was already a thing), we may try to also "unstack" population from cities and implement rural/urban population while simulating "activities" (type and availability) on tiles or in cities to generate migration.

 

[cinattra]

Well, I'm guessing these are some of the micro managing things that Firaxis dispensed with or didn't consider because it was too much micro management to have a more accurate way to grow the population. This game is going to have to have some level of micromanagement. You can choose to ignore micromanaging things or not. The original governors helped a bit and then in later games advisors would try to keep you up to task.