Population density, i.e. Japan vs. US

[KefkaTheMad]

Ever since Civ 1, I think that there's been too much emphasis on the amount of land a country controls. Now, I realize that land area is very important in the real world, however, there would be no way in Civ that a country like Japan could take on Russia (which they did in real life) or the US (which they also did). A Civ model of Japan wouldn't have enough land to do to support the population that the real life Japan has.

The problem is that Civ doesn't take into account the population density that many countries have. Even if you were to pack in cities super close to each other to simulate a dense population, it wouldn't have enough food to reach 7+ sizes.

I suggest having the ability to trade food, like in Civ2. It happens in the real world doesn't it? Furthermore, countries should be able to import and export food.

I've tried thinking of other ways to simulate why some countries have denser populations, but I can't think of any that would specifically benefit smaller countries without being abused by the larger countries. For example, a city improvement called "High rise apartments" designed to model dense cities could also be abused by a Civ-modeled US suburban cities.

On the flip side, there could be an effect where larger population doesn't necessarily mean more food/shields/etc. For example, China and India's huge pop. densities are actually a detriment, but this isn't currently reflected in Civ.

Keep in mind also that this is mainly limited to the modern age. The fact that modern society only has a small fraction of it's population and land devoted towards food production is not reflected in Civ.

 

[dh_epic]

I agree with a lot of the things here, but wouldn't know how to implement them without totally overhauling the game.

 

[troytheface]

yes, good point (although maybe Macedonia vs Persia would be a better analogy- i mean Japan lost due largely in part to the size (resources and industery) of the us.
Surprised no one thought about it in all these years, myself included-

 

[Trade-peror]

I agree that Civ has never reflected the various population densities of reality with its system of population, as well as very much limiting the sharing of critical resources such as food that flow freely in the real world. My model for addressing these problems is in the Integrated Interface/ Urban Sprawl thread, as well as in my UET thread (links to both threads are in my signature). While it seems to me that my models remedies these defects quite adequately (at least much more than Civ has), unfortunately for dh_epic, they require total overhauling of the game. If you would consider a radical change to Civ, then please look at those threads (for the UET, maybe just the summary). Any critique is welcome!

Anyway, population density and food trade would add a new and exciting layer of strategic considerations to Civ4.

 

[dh_epic]

Hey, you know, I wouldn't be against an overhaul of the game if I thought it would be for the better.

It's really unfortunate for all of us... because there's no way they're gonna overhaul Civ 3 on the way to Civ 4. It will have a few new features, and simplify a few old ones, but they know they'd risk too much in starting from scratch.

 

[thestonesfan]

If you let multiple citizens work on a single square, total land area becomes less important.

 

[dh_epic]

If you let multiple citizens work on a single square, total land area becomes less important.

That's the way it is in reality.

Look at the pinnacle of Japan, Germany ... smaller nations.

Compare that to Brazil, or even China. They will be superpowers in the future, but not yet ... land isn't everything.

 

[thestonesfan]

Maybe each square could have a "quality" that determines how many citizens can work on it. A value ranging from 0-3. A level 3 grassland can be worked on by three citizens, while a level 1 grassland can only be worked by one.

That wouldn't be that huge of a change, and would certainly make terrain much more interesting. It would give Frederick the Great a reason to invade Silesia.

 

[AKtionFich]

in generally civ shell take more care of industrialization.
popullation density is one point. but an other is how u get production and food.
in this forum there are serval threats in which player looking forward to get awaiy from the "simply" style productivity and agricultural output are set.

the system like its now is only realisctic up to the middle age.
in modern countrys onle a few percent provide more food than millions in less developt countrys.

i think in civ4 the production/food system shell start like its now. then technologies change it into a system like its now.
so that in modern age citizen just live in the citys. extra farms and factorys use them, the city is now for the inhabitants, city improvment provide them education, the access to food, entertaiment and healthcare
the factorysoutput shell depending on the avaibel resources/premanufacturedparts, and workforces.
so u can decide if u create a huge civ or a small but highindustrial one.

only cities with certain cityimprovment ar able to provide enough food undepending from where it is.

 

[EddyG17]

To implement this idea, the PC should place a buch of starting location very close together (to keep civs small) and make the terrain around the highly productive. Then somehow make the AI not to war each other to death but look on to other countries and help each other. Next, we need civil wars, because what is keeping this civ from conquering another civ and then another and other and so on, we need something to keep the small. So in the Ancient age to the industrial age many civil wars would happen and the option win by conquest should allowed. in the modern age the only option left to win a game is diplomatic.

 

[Sark6354201]

If you let multiple citizens work on a single square, total land area becomes less important.

I love this idea! It makes perfect sense.

 

[Trade-peror]

Yes, allowing multiple citizens to work on a single square would be interesting and reasonable. In my Integrated Interface/Urban Sprawl idea, I allow this, and limit the number of citizens per tile by having each citizen derive only a certain amount of resources from the terrain--therefore, barren terrain will naturally be sparsely populated, while fertile grasslands could see dense populations (that become even denser with improvements like irrigation/farmland/railroad added).

 

[Diogenes183]

Good idea.

Food could become a lot like gold. From a central screen (Agrigcultural Advisor?), cities could be assigned to add or detract some amount of food per turn from a civ wide food pool. Food could be also be bought or sold to other civlizations, both on a per turn and lump sum basis. Naturally, the city would have to be part of the trade network to partipate in sending or receiving food from the pool. Perhaps a city should also have to have a granary to partipate in the pool.

This would be especially usefully for cities that are wasting food because they have reached their max population (because it doesn't yet have an aqueduct or hospital). Using the food pool, you would have the option to funnel food within your civ from cities that have that have a glut of food to cities that have enormous shield production capacity (hills, plains, and trees) but mediocre agrigculture. You could also funnel some food away from certain cities because you don't want them growing too fast because they don't yet have the hapiness infrastructure (temples, cathedrals, etc.) to make use of the extra population. Another idea - pump food into a settler/worker factory?

Neatest of all, this would not effect the learning curve. Begining players could ignore it entirely and food would continue to work as it does now. But advanced players could use it cleverly to get an extra edge.

Civ II had something similar, but it is was labor intensive and not as versatile.