1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

More realistic growth system

Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by TruePurple, Aug 11, 2005.

  1. TruePurple

    TruePurple Civ wanna B

    Joined:
    May 18, 2005
    Messages:
    1,074
    . . . Actual population numbers, each head representing so many people. As technology progresses the ratio of people represented by the heads increase. As well the ratio of food to food icons. Land will produce more, with better technology, but people will need to eat the same.

    . . . Population growth would be based on the numbers, not the heads. For example, starting default well fed population growth per 10 years could be 20 percent. Latter on better technology (longer life etc) will cause increase growth rate. (even as turns passed equal less years)

    . . . Fighting units, etc would come from the people, would require population and food support accordingly.

    . . . Well if anyone has any better ideas I'm all ears, but man I hope its not the same population system of food = people. Anyone know of they have something a little smarter in mind for civ4? Even a pop from 2 every 5 turns (everyone needing to eat 2) would be a improvement.
     
  2. warpstorm

    warpstorm Yumbo? Yumbo!

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2001
    Messages:
    7,688
    Location:
    Snack Food Capital of the World
    From the screenshots, I'm nearly positive this has not changed.
     
  3. TruePurple

    TruePurple Civ wanna B

    Joined:
    May 18, 2005
    Messages:
    1,074
    I read your "We ought to close this forum" thread. Well maybe the first part of the idea might be too much at this stage,

    But with some tweaks in the standard civ food model we can still improve it much beyond what it is in the other civ games as there is alot of room for improvement. Like no free food for the base square, the standard growth rate I mentioned in the second half of my post and units taking population and requiring food support shouldn't be too radical a change.

    Thats assuming your assumptions are correct, I looked at those pictures. I saw no pictures of the game that said anything about civ4's growth system. I didn't even see any pictures of in town views, unless you know of pictures other then the gamespot ones.
     
  4. Pacifist

    Pacifist Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    130
    Location:
    Australia
    Even though Civ4 is just around the corner ... :)

    @TruePurple
    An idea regarding your "fighting units require population"

    decrease population by ...
    3 heads for Settler units
    2 heads for Worker units
    1 head for Other units (with some exceptions, i.e. catapults, nukes, etc.)

    Units such as tanks, battleships and fighter planes would still reduce population by 1 head to represent it's crew.

    Units such catapults won't decrease population since they don't require much crew to operate. Artillery are mainly used to support an army so much less are produced compared to the main bulk of an army (infantry, cavalry, etc.) I'm not sure how to handle the production of LOTS of artillery units in-game (i.e. continual production). As far as Civ3 goes, only 1 unit (Settlers, Workers) produced can decrease X amount of population. There is no system that allows population decrease only when a certain unit quantity is reached. I was thinking of making artillery production decrease population when a certain production quantity is reached (i.e. 1 head per 2 catapults, 1 head per 3 catapults ... 1 head per 'X' catapults)
    I hope that makes sense :)

    Units such as nuclear weapons are self-destructing so they obviously don't decrease population. There are probably a few more exceptions but those are the only ones that come to mind ATM.

    This way, not only does your city growth affect Civilization growth (city quantity) but you would now also have city growth affecting military growth. This would certainly affect wars. You would now have to consider the population size if you want to prolong a war. Either that or make sure you minimize casualties.

    As I see it, ONE head represents many people. ONE city-laborer working ONE tile would be equivalent to MANY people working a LARGE area of land. Producing Settler units represents a gathering of people determined to find a new place to live. Producing Worker units represents many people motivated to improve the land. I think the growth system is quite good as is.

    This is why I adopted the same system for units when it comes to producing them. ONE foot-unit represents a group of trained infantry, requiring MANY people to be trained. Producing ONE unit decreases population by ONE head. Same for motorized land units, ships and planes.

    -Pacifist-
    "A hammer is of no use if there is no one to use it"
     
  5. TruePurple

    TruePurple Civ wanna B

    Joined:
    May 18, 2005
    Messages:
    1,074
    Well if one population unit can work the land for resources I'd figure one can work the land to build roads and stuff. 3 heads for settlers might be too much early game. But latter on thats an idea,

    If you read my initial idea then the method for partial population use for artillery should become clear.

    One idea is, these units could use the population, but the population heads remain, as absent military heads. (age dependent military looking with some visual clue as to the fact that they aren't there) The point being, even though they are off fighting a war, they still take up room in the city. (their houses and stuff) If they die, dead military graves take up that space for awhile.

    Don't forget, living troops would also require food support, just like regular civs, as well as money, the quantity of which depends on the government type.
     
  6. Che Guava

    Che Guava The Juicy Revolutionary

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    5,955
    Location:
    Hali-town,
    I don't know too much about the logistics of military operatioins, but assuming 1 unit is equal to a division, how many soldiers would serve in a single division? I know currently a 'head' or 'citizen' in civIII can be anywhere between 10 000 and 200 000, depending on city-size. I realize that the point of this thread is to change that model, but how many people would a head represent in your model (to begin with, at least). And would that work in terms of being true to city size (would they have to start out tiny, like 1 000 people, to accomodate the 1 head founding size?) and military division size (100 000's of solders per unit?).

    Not a bad idea, but I'm not sold yet...
     
  7. TruePurple

    TruePurple Civ wanna B

    Joined:
    May 18, 2005
    Messages:
    1,074
    well in civ3 heads don't really stand for any size. The city size number below the city names are just meaningless decoration.

    Listen, any idea has its strong suites and its flaws. But the current city is so illogical arbitrary and unrealistic. I don't need to come up with a perfect system, just one better then the current system. I'd say I've done so by light years, mainly because its not hard to do.

    What numbers would I assign to this or that? The current system doesn't care. So use what ever numbers you think are best for a improved replacement.
     
  8. TruePurple

    TruePurple Civ wanna B

    Joined:
    May 18, 2005
    Messages:
    1,074
    I was thinking, at each age one pop head could represent 4 times as many people as it use to. Also each pop head would be 4 times as productive whether working squares or specialists.
     
  9. The End Is Nigh

    The End Is Nigh Repent!!!

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    Messages:
    213
    Location:
    Athens
    I just hate the fact that even though I have managed to build a strong and powerful civilization, with loads of money in the bank, my people are still dying from starvation as my cities reach their maximum growth potential. That really sucks. Civ4 should address this issue (I am not talking about unlimited growth - there has to be a limit - but the idea of people dying from starvation in the most advanced civs really sucks)
     
  10. apatheist

    apatheist Emperor

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2005
    Messages:
    1,270
    Yeah, we don't have more people moving to Tokyo or New York City because of health; it's because it's too expensive for many people to live there, which slows the growth rate.
     
  11. TruePurple

    TruePurple Civ wanna B

    Joined:
    May 18, 2005
    Messages:
    1,074
    I agree with you guys, there should be immigration as well as food movement depending on the technology of the day. But those are slightly separate issues.

    You guys got some thoughts on growth systems? Especially the main issue, that of population growth being the generally the same (aside from overcrowding) whether you have many or few cities. Which is much different then the other civ games where the more cities you have, the faster your population grows.
     
  12. Che Guava

    Che Guava The Juicy Revolutionary

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    5,955
    Location:
    Hali-town,
    I'm not quite sure I follow you here: do you mean that having a larger population (in total, spread over many cities) should result in faster growth of individual cities within your empire? Do you mean that two civilizations with identical total populations should have different growth rates if one has more cities than the other (ignoring mechanics like overcrowding)?
     
  13. TruePurple

    TruePurple Civ wanna B

    Joined:
    May 18, 2005
    Messages:
    1,074
    . . . No, thats how it currently works, in civ 2 or 3, the more cities you have. The faster your overall population grows and the effect is absurdly dramatic. Having twice as many cites but the same population as another player causes you to grow twice as fast.

    . . . Two populations of the same size should grow at the same rate irregardless of the number of towns you have (setting aside the issue of overcrowding)

    . . . I want population of a city to grow as a result of the number of people inside the city. So that a city of pop size 10,000 (1 pop head) would produce half as many people as one of pop size 20,000 (2 pop head)

    . . . BTW thank you guava for that opportunity to clear that up. I really appreciate it when people don't understand what I'm saying, that they ask me. :)

    . . . 10,400 people might be be rounded down to 1 pop head. Even if the half head isn't productive. It would still contribute to city growth. As city growth should be a percentage of the population size, not head quantity.

    . . . More then one pop head could work a space as well. This way fraction populations could still be used.

    . . . As part of this, I want pop heads to represent a standard amount of people irregardless of city size. If its going to stand for more people, it also needs to produce more. Each age could cause pop heads to stand for twice or four times as many people, also being twice or four times as productive and allowing more people to work each square.

    . . . As far as military units coming from population. Perhaps military "units" could be of different sizes, Since heads would be more numerous, the more population used in a military "unit". The stronger it is. A "unit" made of 2 pop heads would be twice as tough as one made of 1 pop head. These units can be joined and separated.

    Yes this would mean more then one head working a square.
     
  14. TruePurple

    TruePurple Civ wanna B

    Joined:
    May 18, 2005
    Messages:
    1,074
    . . . Your population should grow if your population isn't getting enough food or aren't healthy enough, if people then starve to death or otherwise die from poor living. Discontent should be sown. (in other words, you pay)

    . . . It should be a task to get food to feed your population, not a task to get population via food and creating cities. Much different priorities that would play much differently as well.
     

Share This Page