EC3 New Idea #21 - Advanced population dislocation control system

[korn469]

by LoD

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>Advanced population dislocation control system.
What I mean by this, is a system that would allow you to move citizens between existing cities, without the use of Settlers/Engineers/Colony Pods/whatever.

<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

[The Mad Viking]

I don't think in a democracy you should be able to move people between cities - but maybe in a Monarchy or Fundamentalism...

This may be a digression, but this suggestion may be rooted in the problem of getting people into a high production, low food city. While this can be offset by sending food caravans, (slow and clunky) the population growth model based on food surplus is really daft in the industrial and modern periods, where jobs (trade and production) led to city growth. And where is health? In early days, improved health was critical in population growth, and I don't think Sewer System quite covers it!

[Matthevv]

I would like to see people move between cities, but not just because they are sent. They should emigrate from unhappy cities to happier ones, or maybe there could be an employment level factor.

[korn469]

LoD

if asked why out of the five things to put on the new ideas thread why would this idea belong? what are the greatest strength in adding this idea? and what if any weaknesses or exploits does this idea have?

what would some of the limits to this system be (how much could the government control)? could this system involve refugees and immigrants? how expensive would it be? what game play area would it effect in a positive way?

[Glostakarov]

Immigration/Emigration has great potential, if done right. First set it up so that people will immigrate based on happiness, not just from one city to another, but from one civ to another. This adds to diplomacy by the imposition or lack of restrictions on immigration. Immigration could not be forced, but it could be encouraged. Historically I'm thinking of the land rush in the American west, when they were giving free land to anyone who would work it. Incorporate a button that makes a city of a certain size or less not have to pay taxes for 15 turns, with a resulting bonus to happiness and encouragement of immigration.
In this example, all other things being equal, the government would have very good (if indirect) control of where the people were moving to, though not from. The cost would be the revenue otherwise generated by the target city, and maybe a bit more to cover the infrastructure of the booming city.
As a further thought, the presence of resources should encourage immigration as well (gold rush, anyone?).
Benefits to this system would be the ability to quickly populate cities, subtly and peacefully steal population from other civs, and redistribute the population of overcrowded (and unhappy) cities to other parts of the country. It would also provide a nice benefit for having more than just the minimum happiness level in each city, and the no tax button would be a good way of preventing new cities from starving themselves to death if the civ as a whole is unhappy. (New cities don't have any happiness producing buildings, and are rather susceptible to such things)

[S. Kroeze]

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by Matthevv on 02-21-2000 04:04 PM</font>
I would like to see people move between cities, but not just because they are sent. They should emigrate from unhappy cities to happier ones, or maybe there could be an employment level factor.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Of course any sensible person will agree with this remark. It's quite easy for a government to kill people or to dispel them. Controling were they resettle generally will not succed.

Today lots of people from the "third" world are migrating to the rich western countries. Most governments- mine at least not- hardly can control this continuous flow. The government of 18th century France tried to stimulate emigration to the Americas, but without avail. This was an important cause of the defeat of the French by the British in the colonial wars.

Only the most brutal regimes like that of the Assyrians or stalinistic Russia did succeed while displacing citizens. But then probably more people died on the road than actually did arrive on their chosen destination. Introducing the concept of slavery would be nice though!

[ChrisShaffer]

It would certainly make the game more realistic if population was less controlled than it is now. The ability of a civilization to control the movements of its population could be based on many factors - nutrient availability, jobs (resources), infrastructure (buildings), religion, government restrictions, etc.

This would also allow for rural populations and cities that expand/contract their territory depending on population.

I like this idea.

Think about it - how often did world leaders decide where the big cities would actually appear? Some, yes, but certainly not all.