About the slums... its a great idea, but we have to think realistically. Yes, slums do exist, but if your the leader of a modern country, if you want your population to grow, do you really think that they would just build a bunch of slums in their biggest cities? I think most leaders ( at least the democratic ones) wouldn't want to shove massive poverty stricken buildings in the center of their great cities just to store new population. I think the more realistic way is to have a building that is more along the lines of a Residential Highrise Project, if you look at Tokyo for example, their running out of room on the ground, so basically their future is moving their populations up. The slums building should exist in some of the larger cities as a penalty, but I don't think they really be a build able city improvement.
We need more food
- Thread starter Genghis_Kai
- Start date
I just did some research concerning slums. The largest slums in the world does have Mexico City. About 4 million people living in slums while the overall population is 19 million.
This means a relation of about 1/5 of the population living in slums. However, in Bogota for example about 1/3 of the population are living in slums. (8 million population, 2.5 million slum inhabitants).
So this would mean the slum building should raise theby 50%. But it should also add quite an amount of
so the city can't grow by 50% unless you gain a lot of
somewhere.
I now reason that it is not necessary to make the slums building itself gainand
since the slum inhabitants will all become specialists.
So this is what I come up with:
Slums
+50%
+10
+3
+25% maintenance
A bit of alternate perspective here; I don't see why we need the building itself to add Unhappiness because population growth already has that effect (the "it's too crowded" message in the city tab). The culture bonus should be left in, as it's not just that a city will have more exceptional citizens if it's got more population, period; the culture I meant had to do with the fact that alternate cultures are present in the city. The production bonus (and this might unfortunately sound politically incorrect) was suggested because immigrants tend to be more willing to do menial labor for low costs. I still agree on decreased health, but ten is a little extreme, especially since, once again, population growth will create even more unhealthiness.
And for the late game
Arcology (unlocked by Tech "sustainability")
+ 50%
replaces Slums
Is it possible for a building to remove a previous one from a city when you build it? If so, I wasn't aware, but that's a good idea if it is.
It's important to remember that buildings don't need to be able to be constructed by players; all you do is set their "bbuildable" tag to 0. The idea here is to start certain cities with slum buildings. Oh, and as to exactly how many leaders in democratic countries encourage a system that leads to slums, speaking as a Californian, believe me when I say it's a lot more than you think!
ianinsane
Prince
I agree concerning unhappiness and culture. I see your point concerning production. However, I wouldn't like to let Slums itself increase production. I now suggest something different. Since those cities with slums probably aren't developed enough to assign unlimited specialists, a lot of the surplus slum inhabitants will be working as simple unassigned citizens, producing 1
each. Could we have the slum buildings make those citizens produce one more ? That would represent the slum inhabitants, working as unskilled workers at low cost.That's what happens to Coal Plants when you build a Nuclear Plant, am I wrong?
That's the way I see it, too. It would be cool, though, if we had a random event that built slums in a city.
So the new slums building would be:
+50%
+ 5
+25% maintenance
+1
for unassigned citizensSince those cities with slums probably aren't developed enough to assign unlimited specialists, a lot of the surplus slum inhabitants will be working as simple unassigned citizens, producing 1
I'm not sure. If it turns out that unassigned citizens work the same ways as specialists (that is, have some coding in XML) then that can be done, but I don't know if they do.
Again, I'm not sure. I think I remember seeing the effects of power plants stack, but I'll need to play another game and look carefully before I know for sure what the situation is there.
That's the way I see it, too. It would be cool, though, if we had a random event that built slums in a city.
So the new slums building would be:
+50%
+ 5
+25% maintenance
+1
A good idea, except it shouldn't be random; it should be caused maybe by neighboring Civs or Civs with trade routes to your city being unable to care for their citizens.
ianinsane
Prince
Or by immigrants from our immigration modcomp.
FYI: last I heard, that modcomp does not work. (and therefor will be turned off in our mod until someone gets it working properly)
I could be wrong, I'd have to look into it.
ianinsane
Prince
ianinsane
Prince
Too bad...but that shouldn't stop us to include Slums at least as a non-buildable starting building.
Yared
That Guy
How about more corporations?
Mattygerst
Prince
Why not decrease the food penalty from 2 to 1, and also create the new terrain I've mentioned from RFC - the marsh/unihabitable area that dominates Siberia, as well as other areas such as Africa, and South America (rain forests) - ala Rhye's map in RFC. That would enable the cities to grow that need to...and then areas of the earth that won't support massive populations (rainforests, Siberia, etc.) would have an uninhabitable marsh/rainforest tile.
Seems to be a plausible plan of action...and the easiest of all to implement.
Decrease the penalty from 2 to 1, and create the same marsh tile that is in RFC that is always uninhabitable to keep cities that shouldn't grow from growing.
Seems to be a plausible plan of action...and the easiest of all to implement.
Decrease the penalty from 2 to 1, and create the same marsh tile that is in RFC that is always uninhabitable to keep cities that shouldn't grow from growing.
Mattygerst
Prince
After creating the map - it is OBVIOUS that we are REALLY going to need more food. LOTS more.
So, what are the actual suggestions to be done.
I know we've said increase the lighthouse, granary, corporations, grocer, etc.
But - what exact numbers should these be increased by so that it works realistically and well.
So, what are the actual suggestions to be done.
I know we've said increase the lighthouse, granary, corporations, grocer, etc.
But - what exact numbers should these be increased by so that it works realistically and well.
Yared
That Guy
More Money -> More Food.
Yared
That Guy
I just found this thread, it might be something worth looking into...
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=333270
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=333270
Mattygerst
Prince
Not using any mods that aren't standard of RevDCM for merging purposes of future updates.
Yared
That Guy
Still something worth looking into. It'd make crappy cities in the middle of nowhere more useful...
Mattygerst
Prince
I don't disagree with the idea.
But, the creator of the modcomp himself said:
#1: The food import/export deals cannot be canceled once started.
#2: The AI has not been programmed to be able to use the function correctly.
So, until that gets worked out and is working 100% correctly on top of it, it will have to wait.
But, the creator of the modcomp himself said:
#1: The food import/export deals cannot be canceled once started.
#2: The AI has not been programmed to be able to use the function correctly.
So, until that gets worked out and is working 100% correctly on top of it, it will have to wait.
Yared
That Guy
Exactly.
Similar threads
