Migration Concepts

[MrFun]

Another Apolytoner suggested that I create a separate thread for this -- I guess that would make sense, since there can be different ideas offered for this concept, and it can be more complex than other ideas. So instead of creating multitudes of posts on just this idea in the "Ideas" thread, I set this thread up.

I hope this is acceptable to the mods. Here is a copied and paste post that I put in the "Ideas" thread:



migration

I do not know if this would be too complicated, but if there is a simple way to stimulate migration through the progamming language in designing the game, it woud great, in my opinion.
Here is what I'm thinking the way migration could work in Civilization IV:

1) intramigration--some of your citizens will move from one city to another within your civilization, taking away one or two population points, and adding them to destination city, making population growth and decline more realistic.

2) emigration/immigration--some of your citizens will migrate to another civilization whose culture is significantly higher than yours, removing one or two population points from your civilization and adding one or two population points to that other civilization city that is the destination

as for factors that determine when intramigration and emigration/immigration occurs:

a) odds of your citizens moving from one city to another within your civilization will increase if they live in a city considerably less developed than the one they're attracted to (comparison of city improvements, wonders, and terrain improvement surrounding cities)

and another factor would be if there is a significant greater number of happy faces in city they're attracted to

b) odds of losing some of your citizens to another civilization depends on how much greater the other civilization's culture is compared to yours, and the proximity of that civilization to yours (overseas on another continent, or next door neighbor, or separated from you on same continent with another civilization)

another factor would be if you and other civilization have similar regional identity (European, American, so forth) or if you're more dramatically different



For those who are knowledgeable in computer programming, how difficult would it be to integrate this idea into Civilization IV??

And of course, I'm very interested in hearing other people's ideas on different migration proposals.

[Brent]

I would like this combined with precise number of people. I don't want to have to build a settler to join another city.

[MrFun]

I'm not sure what you mean, Brent.

[Skanky Burns]

Isn't this already covered abstractly by standard city growth?

Or is this like a semi culture-flipping thing where only part of the cities population crosses over to another city?

[Fosse]

I think that this is meant to be actual citizens that already live in cities packing up and moving to greener pastures, and I'm in support of it.

I think that the cities' relative levels of economic success should determine how attractive they are to potential immigrants.

And MrFun, I think Brent was saying he wants cities to have "107,574," people in them, instead of "5 Population." And I agree.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
Isn't this already covered abstractly by standard city growth?

Or is this like a semi culture-flipping thing where only part of the cities population crosses over to another city?

No, I don't think so -- I think the population growth as it is in Civilization III only shows birth rates.

If you say that migration is shown abstractly by population growth, why don't other cities decrease as other cities increase?

And as I have said before -- only part of the population -- a small part -- would migrate or emigrate. Maybe only one or two population points, that would result in a loss or gain of say, 12,500 citizens or 23,200 citizens.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Fosse
I think that this is meant to be actual citizens that already live in cities packing up and moving to greener pastures, and I'm in support of it.

I think that the cities' relative levels of economic success should determine how attractive they are to potential immigrants.

And MrFun, I think Brent was saying he wants cities to have "107,574," people in them, instead of "5 Population." And I agree.

Ok, I understand now. But I disagree -- you can have simple population points and then when you switch to the city view, you see the actual population -- like we do now in Civilization III.
But we could have more realistic population numbers represented -- and much less standardized or monolithic. For instance, in Civilization III, every size 13 city has basically the same population in their city view. I think that is too unrealistic.

[MattH]

I like the idea of having population numbers that actually do something. Combined with an advanced diplomacy system, you could do some really interesting things (like the shutoff of asian immigrants coming to the U.S. in the late 1800's.)

[Trifna]

One MAJOR aspect of immigration is jobs. This means growth. So cities growing fast economically would have an advantage for this and would see people flock there. Of course, if they're coming from another civilization, we could expect a huge part of them slowly going back to their former civilization after.

Factors to be considerated for the "immigration factor":
- happiness
- jobs (=economical growth)
- is it a different civ (then, what's the relation between both civs)
- your own culture strength could slow people from taking off

[MrFun]

Oh, another thing -- when you receive migrants into your cities, they retain their nationality for a set amount of time before becoming assimilated.

[Roman]

This is a good concept. I would also like to combine it with making population growth independent of food production. Sure, food production would set the limit on population growth, but it should not determine it. Just because there is plenty of food in the U.S.A. does not mean its population is growing faster than Ethiopia, where food is much more scarce.

[Fosse]

Originally posted by Roman
This is a good concept. I would also like to combine it with making population growth independent of food production. Sure, food production would set the limit on population growth, but it should not determine it. Just because there is plenty of food in the U.S.A. does not mean its population is growing faster than Ethiopia, where food is much more scarce.

I agree with food not determing growth, but I also do not want food to cap growth. Just look at Ethiopia. If, in Civ terms, food had capped their growth somehow then, well... they wouldn't be starving.

It would be great if that happened in real life! But since it doesn't, let it not happen in Civ either.

[chequita guevara]

Actually, the Ethiopia example brings up something. The problem there in't that they have more people than they can feed, but that the area is prone to regular droughts.

How come we don't have droughts in Civ? Serious droughts can send a civilization into long term decline. Just look at what happened to the Byzantine Empire after the drop in food producitivity in the 6th Century. An event, BTW, that the sent the Avars surging westward.

[Puma]

Well, we'd all like to see more (to our taste) "realism" injected all over civ - 'cause it's already soo cool - and I have to agree I'd like to see migrations and natural disasters. I remember seeing a volcano in one of the c3c mesoamerican snapshots. Just yesterday I was shocked to find one of my musketmen tumbling on his butt because he fortified on a jungle square - that was cool. I want more. I want droughts, hurricanes, floods - even if abstracted for the sake of efficiency. Problem one, I think timelines would have to change to less time per turn. Can a hurricane last 10 years? Problem two, turns would take so much longer to process, and I think that would take a lot away from the game - or not?
We are never satisfied.

[Rasputin]

there is always the balance between realism and game playability...

A lot of people have to realise this is CIVILISATION not The Sims..

I mean by that , that a lot of game stuff is abstracted and not necescerily real..

For instance, the spare food in each city is not jsut a measure of fodo, but is a game abstract for that citys ability to be able to grow, meaning it includes food, jobs etc in that abstraction.

And we have starvation in game once food dries up and citys go down in size.


As for the city number versus population, again for ease of clarity on map the citys have to have a pop number for cuty size as in size 5 , but as people say when you open the civ window you see popualtion real size.

All i would ask is that the range of pop versus city numbers be boradened so that a city size 5 might have between 100,000- 200,000 then a size 6 200,000-500,000 or some such range,..

[Fosse]

Originally posted by Rasputin
For instance, the spare food in each city is not jsut a measure of fodo, but is a game abstract for that citys ability to be able to grow, meaning it includes food, jobs etc in that abstraction.

And we have starvation in game once food dries up and citys go down in size.

I don't buy that. Yes, you're right that we have to interpret it that way for the old games. But our computers are bigger and better now, and game design has matured. We can find better things to base a city's growth potential on than how many irrigated grasslands it has. Like how much commerce it generates, for example. People don't move in droves to Nebraska because it has good farms. They move in droves to New York because that's where the money is.

"Starvation" in Civ currently is almost a nonissue. The game automatically fixes it by removing a pop point. Problem solved. When food suppplies get low, everyone gets less food... but the population doesn't simply readjust in a matter of a year or two.

I strongly support making population growth rely on something besides food, then the player has to supply food to make sure that the people are happy and working.

As for the city number versus population, again for ease of clarity on map the citys have to have a pop number for cuty size as in size 5 , but as people say when you open the civ window you see popualtion real size.

All i would ask is that the range of pop versus city numbers be boradened so that a city size 5 might have between 100,000- 200,000 then a size 6 200,000-500,000 or some such range

Again... we've outgrown that. City size on the map can simply be represented by a graphical size. Like it is now, except with more than four visual sizes.

We can do entirely without pop points. Let's just have 151,354 citizens, instead.

[Roman]

Fosse, but if Western nations would stop sending food aid to Ethiopia, the population would stop growing due to starvation and might well decline, so food does act as a cap even in that situation. But I agree that lack of food, should cause unhappinness first and starvation only later.

I envision having something like this:

Birth Rate: Depends (negatively) on the Level of Culture (represents values), Wealth and is limited by food production. Surpluss food can be exported.
2) Death Rate: Depends on Sanitation/Health, Wealth and Technology Level
3) Migration Rate: Depends on distance, connectedness (is there a road between the two cities), differences in the standard of living (wealth, health, etc.) and culture (you are more likely to get immigrants from the same culture). Each city can only have 3 incoming or outgoing migration routes (think Civ II style trade routes) for the sake of keeping the complexity managable.


As to getting rid of population points and using real population numbers (e.g. 568,954 citizens), I am not opposed to the idea, but how would that work? This single change would force a major redesign of almost everything.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Fosse


I don't buy that. Yes, you're right that we have to interpret it that way for the old games. But our computers are bigger and better now, and game design has matured. We can find better things to base a city's growth potential on than how many irrigated grasslands it has. Like how much commerce it generates, for example. People don't move in droves to Nebraska because it has good farms. They move in droves to New York because that's where the money is.

Um . . . tell that to the millions of Americans who DID migrate to western regions such as Nebraska, Iowa, Oregon, and so forth.

[Fosse]

Originally posted by MrFun


Um . . . tell that to the millions of Americans who DID migrate to western regions such as Nebraska, Iowa, Oregon, and so forth.

And were outnumberd thousands to one by people moving to metropolitan areas.

[Rasputin]

Originally posted by Fosse


I don't buy that. Yes, you're right that we have to interpret it that way for the old games. But our computers are bigger and better now, and game design has matured.

Unfotuantly most compuiters havent grown that much, the aqverage user is still on older machines.. Many have complaine dhow slow Civ3 was due to lack of processing speed, so adding more number crunching isnt the best answer, we dont want to force all civ4 buyers to but latest computer to keep up. yes by time civ 4 come sout computers will be bettter anyway, so may not be an issue, but never assume all palyers are playing oin your type of machine.

We can find better things to base a city's growth potential on than how many irrigated grasslands it has. Like how much commerce it generates, for example. People don't move in droves to Nebraska because it has good farms. They move in droves to New York because that's where the money is.

this is true for modern era, in ancient times , people would flock to where the food was, perhaps we need to just add other things to city growth. such as your suggestion of commerce. but even new york has slum areas of peo[ple attracted there but cant get work. so impovements ar eencessary, but i think maybe start ancient era with food a spriority and then as we approch modern times maybe more based on income.

"Starvation" in Civ currently is almost a nonissue. The game automatically fixes it by removing a pop point. Problem solved. When food suppplies get low, everyone gets less food... but the population doesn't simply readjust in a matter of a year or two.

again this is an abstract thing, mainly casued by fact ancient turns are 100s of years not 2 yeears, so in hudnreds of years , yes city would correct it self to lose pop and fix it self.

Again... we've outgrown that. City size on the map can simply be represented by a graphical size. Like it is now, except with more than four visual sizes.

this would mean having to rember what grphic represented which size, i prefer having the number, casue i wouldnt want the city population on main map , but just as a item in city popup window... or on end of game dispaly for large citys list.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Fosse


And were outnumberd thousands to one by people moving to metropolitan areas.

But you said that those people who did migrate west did not do so for good farms.


But that was one of the several reasons those people migrated -- for good land that could be used for farming, but once they arrived in the arid parts of the West, they would be sorely disappointed.

On the other hand, land east of this arid region was definitely fertile, good farmland.

[Puma]

Rasputin: "... but i think maybe start ancient era with food as priority and then as we approch modern times maybe more based on income."
Great idea! A change like that sounds best (to me heh), even if it were implemented using a method of discrimination other/more detailed than the ancient times vs modern times options.

[asleepathewheel]

Culture bomb, say hello to your new friend, migration bomb.

Would love to send my population to a neighboring city to try to take over. Very cool. Cool, I should add, as long as I don't get any cannibals or Ithkuhls migrating to my city

[Fosse]

Originally posted by MrFun


But you said that those people who did migrate west did not do so for good farms.


But that was one of the several reasons those people migrated -- for good land that could be used for farming, but once they arrived in the arid parts of the West, they would be sorely disappointed.

On the other hand, land east of this arid region was definitely fertile, good farmland.

Very true. You have me there.

Well... what if we look at arable land in addition to commercial potential. Clearly throghout history both have been important. Agriculture can be weighted to have more imoprtance in determining migration in the early game, and industry and commerce more in the late game. Like Rasputin suggests.

I like that.

and MrFun, thanks for keeping me honest!

And Rasputin, regarding computers.

I'm trying to bear in mind two things: 1) the game won't come out until 2006 and there is a good chance we'll have all upgraded once or twice by then (though I am poor...), 2) Civ games typically have a long shelf life, so I (personally) am willing to stick to smaller maps sizes for a year or two until I can upgrade, if my computer isn't up to snuff when Civ 4 is released... just like I've done with Civ 3.

And sometimes I just plain ignore what I think is possible in computer terms, concentrating more on what I would like, what seems like good design to me, and what I think others would like. I'll let Firaxis decide what techinical limitations they have.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Fosse


Very true. You have me there.

Well... what if we look at arable land in addition to commercial potential. Clearly throghout history both have been important. Agriculture can be weighted to have more imoprtance in determining migration in the early game, and industry and commerce more in the late game. Like Rasputin suggests.

I like that.

and MrFun, thanks for keeping me honest!

Always a pleasure to discuss these new ideas -- even if they might not ever be implemented.