Population Control

[fish_229]

First time Post..

I've looked around the site, and so far I haven't seen anthing related to this, though i did get the idea from "the rise and fall of civs", so thx. Here are my thoughts.
Population control has always been an issue in civ 3, due to unrest and all that. I propose they enter a rome total war system of pop. control. A civilization should be able to set it's own taxes. It's what every government does. In the RTW system, the higher the tax rate, the lower the pop. growth, because of factors like disposable income etc. What if we applyed this to your civ as a whole. This way, you won't have annoying unrest, like constant revolts if you dont have enough luxeries. You can even krank it up so much that your total population is declining instead of growing. A concept like that is only modeled in civ3 if you don't have enough food, but what I think they failed to model was pop. growth depends on a lot more factor than the food supply, as communist rule in Russia taught us in the 1920's.

Thoughts?

 

[Graadiapolistan]

interesting. perhaps you could transport food from one city to another- I would Not like to see Rometotalwaresque thinkg in civ though, seeing as rometotalwar was really just a game with awesome graphics and bad gameplay. I do think you should have more control over taxes- perhaps in a despotism you can't in a republic you devide it by states (groups of cities) same with democracy- with fascism ppl don't complain about taxes and they are always the highest- in a communist scociety you choose for the whole empire, -for monarchy and feudalsim you do it by city but pepole hate taxes

 

[dh_epic]

Population growth is really really complex. America has relatively low taxes compared to totalitarian states, but you won't see its population grow that much except by immigration. Of course, in Civ, all population is good population. I think modelling real population dynamics is much more ambitious than any one or two small tweaks, so focusing on realism in this department probably isn't worth it.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well I think population growth is best handled by civ in its ancient-early industrial period, when the primary thing that limited population was food/health issues..and all population was good population.

Putting some changes in for the modern era, when food is easy to get, but population can be problematic, because it isn't really any good unless you have matching infrastructure/factories for them to work in, and can be bad if you don't have anything besides food to support it with (the problem of the restless unemployed) would be interesting.

It would probably be a good part of any modern era improvements to civ would be inclusion of some government decisions that could affect population growth rate, which in the modern era would slow down immensely. Essentially, in the modern era population should cease to become important, and the primary factor should become the amount of infrastructure that you have (because you can always import population if you have excess infrastructure..even if that does cause cultural problems)

 

[fish_229]

Of course we can't go for all out realism here, same with any other part of the game. But a little realism in my opinion can go a long way. I agree with the fact that taxes would have to be implemented differently based on system of govt, and giving bonuses to some govs (i.e. monarchy) could solve some balancing issues with the governments as well.

But taxes are a really big factor in all civs, whether in the middle ages (Robin Hood anyone?) or the ongoing debate in the US over tax cuts/small goverment or government funded programs. I think a more advanced form of taxation, whatever the system, should definetly be included in civ 4

 

[Trade-peror]

I think a more advanced form of taxation, whatever the system, should definetly be included in civ 4

Fish_229, you are the first person I have heard on this forum so far (besides myself) that advocates a more complex tax system!

Anyway, I see a distinction between "natural" population control (food and space availablility) and economic population control (economic conditions). In the earlier eras, natural population control parameters should be more significant, as natural resources should be relatively abundant. In later eras, this should not change on a global scale, but as far individual civs are concerned, economic conditions should cause some population movement toward more prosperous civs.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Hey, no fair T-P, you know full well that I have ALWAYS advocated both a more complex tax system AND a more complex budgetary system!!
As it so happens, I also support a more 'realistic' approach to population change. Though there is no single method for modelling population change, I think the focus on food is WAAAAYYY to simplistic.
Happiness, available infrastructure, access to food, access to income and consumer goods and migration should all play a role in population change.
R:TW's tax system sounds like a good idea for population control, and the CtP system of income and rations would also help greately too, IMHO!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Trade-peror]

Hey, no fair T-P, you know full well that I have ALWAYS advocated both a more complex tax system AND a more complex budgetary system!!

Oh, sorry, Aussie_Lurker, I meant a tax system as complex as the one found in my Unified Economic Theory II! Although you are right in that fish_229 might not have meant a tax system THAT in depth...

In any case, I'm a little interested in what CtP's system of income and rations was. It sounds to me a bit like the Caesar series. As it happens, I don't really think the Caesar game engine should be used for Civ, because it is a little too narrow in scope. Nevertheless, I think some ideas could be adjusted so that they fit well with Civ.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, in CtP I and II, you could give your people extra rations-which would make them happier-but would leave less food for supporting and growing your population. Increasing income levels would impact how happy your people are and how hard they work, but would leave you less money in your treasury.
You could also increase/decrease the average working hours of your nation. This would alter the number of shields/science you produce, whilst changing happiness levels. In fact, I could see raising/lowering work hours as impacting on population growth as well.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Trade-peror]

Hmm...I do not think the CtP system would be of the correct scale, then. To be able to control national rations, income levels, and working hours implies an extremely centralized government, and at the most would only be appropriate for a communist government.

On the other hand, I do not know if these controls are as direct as I currently see them...

 

[fourth_wise_man]

It would also be great if instead of growing less because of higher taxes people emigrated to civs with lower taxes. This could also cause tension in their destinaton civ with different types of people in all of your cities being unhappy about various wars.
For example Korea has high taxes so the people leave and go to Mongolia which has lower taxes. When Mongolia goes to war with Korea the Koreans in Mongolian cities become unhappy.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, T-P, on its own its very much as you might have said. I should point out, though, that many-if not all-governments have a role in the setting of wages, through its control of minimum wages, and thats what I see this as representing. With a decent representation of the Private Sector, you could have the faction which represents them placing pressure on you to either raise or lower incomes. Also, work hours (average/maximum) are also a purview of the government, though the private sector can CHOOSE to ignore government dictates in this area. Rations, I confess, are not centralised as they were in CtP I and II but, for gameplay reasons, I think that this should be available in Civ4-though again, with a private sector, your government may not control all of the food in a capitalist government type.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[fish_229]

My basic idea is what you guys just said, although setting work hours may not be that far off. We know Civ 4 is going to be modeling slavery and free speech. I think they'll include more features on dealing with your own population, like less control with democracy or more with communism. Therefore as a way to get people to choose certain govs, maybe dictatoriships (i.e. communism and facism) could have more options in dealing with the economy like minimum work hours and all that, while free govs have less control.

This could represent free market economies vs state controlled ones, and people could mold strategies around the two. Do you want an economy where you control less of it but receive more wealth? Or do you want to know for sure whats going on in your economy, but with a wealth penalty associated with that? I think this could define the different systems of gov. much better than it did in Civ 3.

 

[Trade-peror]

While minimum wage and maximum work hours are certainly government controlled and influential in the economy, I see them more as the boundaries rather than the norm. A government setting these limits should influence the economy not by dictating the economy's actions but by restricting the domain of acceptable economic interaction. Therefore, the player should be able to set minimum wage and maximum work hours, but by no means should this imply that everyone in the empire now has a certain salary or that everyone works a certain number of hours. Instead, no one has below the minimum wage or works for more than the maximum workday.

Again, my exception is communist or otherwise planned economies/governments, where the government would indeed dictate the particular wages, work hours, and even rations of the population, and those values would directly determine economic conditions, rather than allowing a range within particular limits.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, T-P, I do tend to feel that you need some trade-off between realism and gameplay, and I think this one is reasonable-especially given that you represent the Gestalt of your people, rather than any specific PART of your society.
That said, I think a compromise can be reached. If you have the work hours, rations and pay set by you-the player-but then have the amount you can control these settings dictated by you position on the Central Planned/Free Market Economic axis.
In addition, how much each faction ACTUALLY earns will depend on their 'status'-so to speak-and your social engineering settings. So, for instance, the wealthy elite will always tend to earn more than your workers, by a reasonably long way, but by how much depends on your position on the Political Left/Political Left axis, and the Central/Free Planned Axis.
Hope that all makes sense.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[sheerin]

Maybe have VHEMT make an appearance at some point in the game?

http://www.vhemt.org/