PROPOSAL: Rework population growth mechanic

[<Nexus>]

I start this thread because I think that the way of cities population growth works is not very good.

How it works now:

When a city is founded, either by a settler or (for barbarian cities) spawned, it starts at 1 population. From there it may grow to any size if it has enough food.

Population growth is computed in the game via an intermediate mechanism called the food bar. The food bar represents a stockpile of food in that city. When a city produces more food than its population eats, it has a food surplus; this extra food is added to the food bar each turn. When the food bar is filled, the city will normally grow (gaining 1 population). This will not happen, however, if the "don't grow" option on the city has been selected. When a city grows and it does not have a granary, the food bar will be reset to zero, plus any overflow. If the city has a granary, the food bar is reset to whatever amount is in the granary (usually, to half-full), plus overflow.

Why is it bad?

Because it is both unrealistic and unbalanced.
Current population growth depends ONLY on food supply. This mechanic is perfect for the ancient era, good in the classical and acceptable in the medieval. But from renaissance onward - when traveling food to greater distances becomes more and more common - local food supply was less and less deterministic in population growth.
A city should not grow large only because there is an abundance of food, but other factors should also influence the rate of population growth - happiness, culture, employment, war threat, migration are a few examples.
The actual mechanic is also bad because it considers that all produced food can be used only locally. This is very far from reality. Think of our modern globalized world traveling food all over the globe or ancient Rome importing food from its provinces (e.g. Egypt).
It is also exploitable, especially now that we have "Hurry food" for the Caravan unit. With it you can boost up a city's population by several levels in a few turns. (Removing the ability to "Horry food" is a solution, but not a good one IMO).


How it should work?

Food production should determine the LIMIT of city population and not the SPEED.

I think that a formula like this could be better:

C*[(100+++CultLvl+)/100] - FoodShortage

C: A constant rate of growth, scale-able by Speed, Map size, Difficulty, Era or whatever is needed.
The happiness of the city. A positive number increases the growth rate, a negative decreases it.
Same as above, but with health.
CultLvl: The more influential a city, the faster it grows.
Food surplus. The abundance of food still increases the rate, by ensuring that there will be enough food for the extra population.
Food shortage: If a city starves it still has to decrease.

It is just a base idea for brainstorming. The formula sure needs some changes, like it should also count with the war threat a city may face.
There are other things that could/should be considered also: Golden Age/Anarchy, Migration, Civics affecting migration, Redistributing surplus food and Granaries (%food stored after growth).

I hope you find my post constructive and useful

 

[Afforess]

Sogroon,

I noticed the proposal earlier but didn't comment at the time. I think taking happiness and health into the growth equation is redundant, they both already affect growth as it is. Same with culture, culture can generate larger city radius, which will affect growth too. So it is also already accounted for.

So I don't see a need, not because your idea is wrong, but rather because your idea already exists and is how the game works...

 

[<Nexus>]

I answer this one here:

Or more likely, us busy people just read it and plain forgot.

It was only my stupidity. I tend to forget that most people are busy during the weekdays and free on the weekends. For me it is the opposite - I work in a library
And "having such a GREAT idea" I thought many will quickly answer good and bad, and... and I was just stupid. Sure it happened with you too. No? Good for you

I think taking happiness and health into the growth equation is redundant, they both already affect growth as it is. Same with culture, culture can generate larger city radius, which will affect growth too. So it is also already accounted for.

So I don't see a need, not because your idea is wrong, but rather because your idea already exists and is how the game works...

Okay, I may not fully understand the growth mechanism (sure I don't), but the main point was not the including of happiness, health, etc, but to make the growth not so "random". I try it an other way:
Now a city may grow with +1 or +15, depending on the tiles worked. I see you try to balance things by modding bonus everywhere, but I think this time we need not the screwer, but a hammer.
I think including a >limit food< number, that limits how much can count towards the growth could make some help.
Example with random numbers:
the >limit food< is 5

surplus produced by city added to growth bar
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 5
7 5
etc 5 always

This way a city growth could be greatly slowed down.


I hope I was clean enough.

 

[Spirictum]

I think including a >limit food< number, that limits how much can count towards the growth could make some help.
Example with random numbers:
the >limit food< is 5

surplus produced by city added to growth bar
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 5
7 5
etc 5 always

This way a city growth could be greatly slowed down.


I hope I was clean enough.

That would only benefit micromanaging, so if I can't get more then 5 per turn, I'll be sure to make a city I want to grow to have at max 5 surplus, and the rest I'll put on other tiles/specialists. Would the Mayor account for that? If so at least the AI and people who don't like micromanaging wouldn't lose much for avoiding micromanagement.

I know some people don't like revolutions, but it seems to me the best way to stop growth (of course it needs some rebalancing because it's effect is too light for now).

 

[<Nexus>]

That would only benefit micromanaging, so if I can't get more then 5 per turn, I'll be sure to make a city I want to grow to have at max 5 surplus, and the rest I'll put on other tiles/specialists. Would the Mayor account for that? If so at least the AI and people who don't like micromanaging wouldn't lose much for avoiding micromanagement.

...my idea would continue with any above 5 is redistributed to other cities that have less than 5 Especially favoring ones with starvation.

I know some people don't like revolutions, but it seems to me the best way to stop growth (of course it needs some rebalancing because it's effect is too light for now).

I agree, but balancing cannot be based on revolutions, since it is optional.

 

[aggri1]

I too would like to see city growth modified.

I agree with Sogroon in that food should limit the ultimate size.

What I'd like to see is more direct emphasis on the economic aspect, specifically the city's economy. I would like the city's income to affect the growth rate, reflecting the gravitating effect of commerce on city development. People tend to flock toward where there are jobs.

I would propose an increase in growth rate proportional to income per capita. Small villages with almost any commerce will be attractive, whereas a very large city will require a considerable commerce income to affect growth rate. Therefore in the very early game, cities you found near exploitable commerce resources will flourish, reflecting the historical tendency of cities to grow along rivers and trade routes.

We might have a gold-rush simulation: when you mine the gold tile in the village's radius, commerce increases and suddenly people flock to the village to seek their fortune! Cool.

Mechanically, perhaps one could have city growth proceeding as it currently does with the food bar, but that food bar accumulates excess slices of bread AND commerce. When excess bread slices reduce to less than three (?), we either halt population growth entirely (food bar just stays full as it currently does with that button which prevents growth) or we stop also counting commerce, so growth goes back to its current rate (and we end up with a starving person after growth just as we do now). Shouldn't be too hard, right?

So, what is the major flaw(s) with my plan?

I like Sogroon's food distribution idea too, but that's discussed elsewhere.

Cheers, A.

 

[<Nexus>]

I believe that the population growth mechanic in Civ4 is flawed, just like trade routes. Other strategy games handle the food and population issue much better. For me Master of Orion 2 is the master-gauge.
There you had to specialize your colonies as farming, industrial or research colonies. You produced a lot of food with your klackon citizens (racial bonus for farming), built your spaceships with the meklars (industry bonus), researched with your psilon citizens (research of course) and assigned the gnollam populated planets for taxing


Perhaps food could function just like money: You have an income from tiles+buildings+(import from other civs) and a spending for your population+(export to other civs), and the difference would increase or decrease your pool of stored food. This way we could use food in diplomacy too.

 

[Rezca]

I believe that the population growth mechanic in Civ4 is flawed, just like trade routes. Other strategy games handle the food and population issue much better. For me Master of Orion 2 is the master-gauge.
There you had to specialize your colonies as farming, industrial or research colonies. You produced a lot of food with your klackon citizens (racial bonus for farming), built your spaceships with the meklars (industry bonus), researched with your psilon citizens (research of course) and assigned the gnollam populated planets for taxing

For those who haven't played MoO2 I'll summarize:

Basically you have an empire wide food 'storage' and then a fleet of freighters. If a colony is short on food and you're providing an excess of food elsewhere, the starving colony is automatically transfered some of that excess food (Excess food production IIRC also provides some income)

If you have a shortage of freighters, this food can't be transfered and any colony that isn't self-sufficient will start starving.
If you have too MANY freighters, you have to pay upkeep for ships you're not using.


The only neccessary management on your part is knowing how many freighters you need and can sustain. Specializing your colonies isn't required, but it helps if you really want to pull ahead over the AIs (Or are planning on attacking the Anterans). The food transferring and system is all done by the computer - you don't have to oversee any of it.

 

[<Nexus>]

The only neccessary management on your part is knowing how many freighters you need and can sustain. Specializing your colonies isn't required, but it helps if you really want to pull ahead over the AIs (Or are planning on attacking the Anterans). The food transferring and system is all done by the computer - you don't have to oversee any of it.

Exactly.
Something similar would be nice in RAND too, spiced by techs affecting how much food one can transfer to other cities (e.g. Refrigeration, Preservatives, etc.)

 

[<Nexus>]

I remember in the past Trade Routes had some bonus with certain civics, which gave me an idea.

How about bringing back Trade Routes in a different mechanic and purpose?


The purpose:
Bring from cities with surplus to starving ones, first to own ones, than to others.


The mechanic:
There would be actually 2 types of TRs: Import and export. Each city would have only the one or the other, and the number of TRs would depend only on surplus or lack.

Import Trade Route
A city would open an ITR for every 3 it lacks. So a city with -1 or -2 has 0 ITR, -3 to -5 has 1 ITR, etc.

Export Trade Route
A city would open an ETR for every 3 surplus. So a city with +1 or +2 has 0 ETR, +3 to +5 has 1 ETR, etc.

Connecting export and import

City with ETR:
. IF civ is vassal FIND master's city with most ITR (master civs always took advantage of their vassals/colonies)
. ELSE
. . FIND own city with most ITR
. . ELSE
. . . FIND friendly (vassal or team member) city with most ITR
. . . ELSE
. . . . FIND nearest connected foreign city with ITR
. . . . ELSE
. . . . . keep the surplus , city grows as in any other case.

An ETR would reduce the output of a city by 3 and and give +1 (or ) if the food is sent to vassal or foreign city. Sending food to own or master's city would not generate income.

An ITR would give the city +1 in Ancient era, +2 in Medieval and +3 from Industrial onward. So it is still more beneficial for cities to be self-supporting in the early/mid game, and in the late game it is not so much a big deal any more.


P.s: I know what the devs gonna say but... I just had to put it down here

 

[dbkblk]

If you ever played to Civ V, there is a simplier mechanism that is also possible as an alternative:
- You have a limited number of caravans (1 new each era starting at 0).
- Each one allow ONE trade route every 30 turns.
- A trade route can be use to generate income, science and / or religion every turn (but that part is not the subject). The trade route can also be a internal trade route where it generates food instead of gold.

So maybe it would be nice to make a simple mechanism which:
- You make a caravan (same one)
- You choose a destination.
- The caravan remove 3 (for example) food to the starting town and add 3 food to the receiving town, in a limited duration.

 

[<Nexus>]

If you ever played to Civ V, there is a simplier mechanism that is also possible as an alternative:
- You have a limited number of caravans (1 new each era starting at 0).
- Each one allow ONE trade route every 30 turns.
- A trade route can be use to generate income, science and / or religion every turn (but that part is not the subject). The trade route can also be a internal trade route where it generates food instead of gold.

So maybe it would be nice to make a simple mechanism which:
- You make a caravan (same one)
- You choose a destination.
- The caravan remove 3 (for example) food to the starting town and add 3 food to the receiving town, in a limited duration.

I haven't played Civ V, but it seems almost the same as Galactic Civilizations II (which I didn't like so much).

My problem with the above is:
- one caravan is always one, regardless of map size
- we have caravan units already, and I think they are just fine the way they are
- how would the AI use it?

What I wrote is passive and the AI has nothing to do with it.

 

[Randomness]

The current caravan system requires a much higher level of micromanagement. The Civ5 system (or something like it) would allow greater control over trade without increasing micro.