"We Health the King Day"

[Baskedyt]

I love playing this ROM mod - I really do!

But there is one issue that annoys me, and it has been around all the way through CIV4.

If I have a double than there is a chance that the city will celebrate "We Love the King Day" - with the benefit that follows (no city maintenance).

But what if I have double than ? Is far as I know, I have nothing to gain from having excessive (other than it prevents effects of poisoning the the water supply).

If the population is über healthy they live longer and the population should grow extra fast. So here is my suggestion.

If a city has at least double as many as , there should be a 5% chance per round that your city would get a +1 population. That means that if you have 5 city with a 2:1 ratio of /, on average one of them will grow ekstra every 4th round.

That way there is also a incitement to have a lot of before the industrial age.

Any comments?

PS. At the moment I play ROM 1.x, if this issue has been addressed in later editions.
Edit: No, I actually play ver. 2.2 - I forgot I upgraded

 

[Bastian-Bux]

What happens whn you have surplus health but not happyness? Should the pop till grow by 1?

 

[Baskedyt]

Good point. In my opinion, no. If there is Unhappiness in the city, it shouldn't get the extra pop bonus.

So it should be kind of an AND-function. You should have double surplus of AND no more than in the city in order to get the bonus.

I've though whether there should be some sort of size restriction, but I don't think so. Because when the city pop is low you would like it to grow fast, and when you get a big city, the chance that you have a 2:1 ratio is very low.

 

[hgthechinese]

It seems possible; although it does take away from the stretegic planning a bit (because of the uselessness in extra health, you should only build buildings when necessary....so more pick-n-choose going on hence more planning)

In fact, as far as my playing style goes, I never bothered to get extra happiness either; sure every once in a while having no maintainance is nice, but it only saves a tiny bit of money and seems irrelevant compare to the effort of building those happiness buildings.

 

[Chiyochan]

how would you ever get double the health, and why would having the health grow population faster? if anything I'd think they;d be more productive.

 

[hgthechinese]

how would you ever get double the health, and why would having the health grow population faster? if anything I'd think they;d be more productive.

Well, it could be REALLY easy....you can
A) have a small city, especially if it is newly built;
B) have a national park type of building in the city;
C) if your citizens release no waste and can photosynthesize

 

[Baskedyt]

how would you ever get double the health

Like hgthechinese said, its pretty easy with a small city, say size 3. You have only 3 from population, and if there is no floodplains or "bad" resources, that will be the only you'll have. Then you might have like 3 from difficulty level, and 2 from civ, and 3 resources that gives , in all 8 , more than double your .

and why would having the health grow population faster? if anything I'd think they;d be more productive.

True, if you think of as workers being sick - less workers being sick, the more work they can produce.
I think of it in terms of lifespan. If you live long and healthy you will have more offspring, and the chance that your offspring will live long and healthy is also greater, which will make the population grow quickly.

In CIV4 relates to , not , that's why I think it should influence grows, not production.

although it does take away from the stretegic planning a bit (because of the uselessness in extra health, you should only build buildings when necessary....so more pick-n-choose going on hence more planning)

Where it annoys me, is for instance when a IA-player offers me a health resource I don't have, in pre-indusdrial age, if I allready have enough health resources- why have 7 when 6 allready means no ? But if that extra resource meant that more of my cities might grow faster, I would be more interested in it.
True, it wouldn't be a big part of my strategy, but it could make enough difference to the outcome of a game - like having incense or not, if you have a incense related religion.

And you could make it so, that people could choose where to have the feature or not in their game - and it wouldn't bother me that it was turned of by default.

 

[ezolak]

I don't get it. Excess health capacity in a city does not mean everyone in that city is especially healthy. It simply means the city has the capacity to grow without causing unhealthiness. Think of it this way...if an island has food enough for two people to live a lifetime, but only one person is stranded there, he/she does not get to live twice as long. Extra food/water/etc only goes to waste unless there are more people to consume it.

 

[hgthechinese]

I don't get it. Excess health capacity in a city does not mean everyone in that city is especially healthy. It simply means the city has the capacity to grow without causing unhealthiness. Think of it this way...if an island has food enough for two people to live a lifetime, but only one person is stranded there, he/she does not get to live twice as long. Extra food/water/etc only goes to waste unless there are more people to consume it.

True. Although the argument could go that he WOULD live somewhat longer, for there is less prossibility of starvation (hurricane blows a lot of food away?) and a more banlanced nutrition (he has bananas AND apples).

However, I do find that "we health our king day" to be a minor change that would require a not-so-minor increase in computer's workload, with a random number generator that works and collects info from ALL cities and then process some of the for many cities, then possibly has to worry about if happiness allows for it....all in all it seems to be something that would slow the computer down for nothing.

Moreover, we DO have something like we health president day already in place; we have quite a few random events enabled by good health, and I think one of them (abundance of food event?) actually does grant an extra population.

 

[Bastian-Bux]

Like hgthechinese
I think of it in terms of lifespan. If you live long and healthy you will have more offspring, and the chance that your offspring will live long and healthy is also greater, which will make the population grow quickly.

Actually the reality is proving your assumption to be wrong. Countries with a very high lifespan usually have a very low birth rate, and vice versa.

Plus there is some research going on in epigenetic factors, which point to the following conclussion:

If a man has to hunger during the development of his reproductiv cells (usually broadly around the 10th year), his children and even grandchildren will have a higher life expectancy, and especially a much lower risk of diabetes. The same is probably true for the female side, though there the development of the reproductive cells starts already prior to birth, so is less open to "hunger".

This might sound counterintuitive and against all genetical dogma, but it seems truly to be this way.

Which could also explain why the life expectancy in developed countries is going down, and cases of diabetes is rising. Its not just that our current generations are eating "too good", but also our parent and grand-parents didn't have to hunger like our great-grandparents during WWI and II.

The highest birthrates can be found in countries that switch from a rather hard lifestyle (where many children tended to die prior to reaching maturity) to a less dangerous lifestly. But only 1-4 generations later the birthrates drop significantly.

So no, neither better food, nor higher life expectance PER SE are increasing birth rate. Only the SUDDEN increase of avaible food, medical possibilities and opportunities for kids coupled with a reproductive strategy adopted to an harsher situation (lets have 7 kids so that at least 2 may survive) will see a "baby boom".

Your event should fire when specific inventions are made, but THEN the birth rate should explode EVEN if that means that the cities become unhealthy and unhappy. Look at what happend during the industrial revolution in Europe, and what happens now in Africa. Surely you will not call the african megapolis-slums a happy and healthy envionment? But still the birthrate will stay as high for maybe another generation, till prosperty realy kicks in (the nuts).

 

[civhelp121]

bastian, actually there is an alternative explanation to lower birth rate in more industrialized nations. In industrialized nations things that prevent pregnancy are far more widely avaliable and knowledge about such tools is more widespread, so while reproduction is still wide spread, pregenancy occurs far less often. This is especially true in socially conservative industrial areas like South Korea, where they have an extremly low birth rate.