Where's all the farmers?

I've noticed lately that civilization lacks a country population. There are the cities, and then there's nothing. Also, the population movement of most countries are not controlled by a government (i.e. building settlers to construct new cities)

It seems like there should be some sort of population point for each tile in the game (except water tiles of course). The population radiates from the cities. The population condenses mostly along the coast, rivers, and roads and RR. The populations gravitate toward regions with valuable resources and easy access to the rest of the empire.

A civilization can then come along and organize the territory into individual cities. Populations can also emigrate from one city to another or a city to the country or vise versa.

The advantage to this is that it:
A) causes natural exploration and colonization.
B) farmland naturally develops from the country folk
that use the land.
C) allows for the organizing of regional militias
in time of war.
D) invading armies are slowed down and even receive
damage as they pass through heavily populated
squares.
E) other country's populations can immigrant to
your land.

The populations will also demand forts and such in order to defend them from hostile neighbors. A lack of defense results in unhappiness. Largely populated tiles construct their own basic improvements, so if a city is organized, then the improvements remain.

[Youngsun]

quote: Largely populated tiles construct their own basic improvements

Irrigation/road do you mean? or city improvement?

A Civ should be allowed to own it own huts(rural pop)
When one of your cities get too crowded, you might see the message showing "500 people left [city name] for better life" then few turns later a random hut,which belong to your civ, should pop up around the city.

You can excercise fairly limited authority over those huts like collecting tax/farm products or raising levies for grand project/war.

[Deathwalker]

Though this is realastic I think it would over complex the game and should be included, though the idea of a civ including a rural opulation is a good one.

------------------
I have walked since the dawn of time and were ever I walk, death is sure to follow

[Shadowstrike]

Maybe you could have the population less likely to pay taxes if you don't adequately protect them (say a unit within 2 or 3 squares). This happened near the end of the Western Roman Empire, when villages became de facto semi-autonomous conclaves when the Empire was unable to protect them.

I think that the rural population would not overcomplicate things. It could be made very user-friendly. Maybe having different shaded tiles for it. Purple or dark red could be heavily populated, and it gets lighter from there.
Let me give an example of how it would work. Every time the population of a city grows, it causes a one point population increase in the surrounding area. Now, if the city is in the middle of a plain, it will continue until all of the squares around the city have one population point. If the city has few plains, and mostly forests, mountains, etc. the plains will fill in first and continue to grow faster than the other tiles. Now, in keeping with reality like the US expansion into the west, roads cause people to migrate as do rivers. So they continue moving down roads and rivers in your territory before anything else. This would not just be in the city radius but outside the radius too.
This will not overcomplicate the game because its happening automatically. It takes a very natural flow. Instead of having to be constantly concerned about moving into those new territories, the game does it for you. And when your ready, you can select a place where people should start building a new city, and the populations will condense there until they build one. And when a city needs a new improvement to grow, the excess population moves to the countryside or another city depending on whats more "promising".

Of course, this does raise other questions. What happens when country populations come spilling into cities with lots of industry? Unhappiness will come fast, won't it? It would become like the beginning of industrialization in the western countries. Too many people looking for work causing overcrowding and unhappiness... maybe they can make some new improvements for stuff like that.

[DarkCloud]

How about in the city screen your building allocation is distributed by moving the population around on the screen.

You can put as many people as you like in the city square or 8-10. The city squares resources would work like the resource squares do now.

You could also put 2-4 people in the squares surrounding the city to plunder the resources.

You can only put 1 person in a shore square and squares more than 1 square around from the land cannot be utilized for production.

[Youngsun]

quote: Maybe you could have the population less likely to pay taxes if you don't adequately protect them

Interesting idea. The further the place from the power centre of your empire the more need for garrison for the control and that should be dictated by available transportation/communication techs or government forms.

quote: This will not overcomplicate the game because its happening automatically. It takes a very natural flow

That's the point Hannibal3. Migration should be conducted by AI especially for early stage of the game for the representation of people's free will. Forced relocation is quite rare case in history. Instead of sending a setter unit to the desired spot, you announce your government's development plan for specific area to attract as many settlers as possible from various other cities. The only thing you have to do is that one click on the square then wait and the rest will be done automatically. You may use other tools for promotion such as advertsing(Gold found!),money offer,etc.

This plan may or may not succeed depends on how attractive the spot is which can be enhanced by your new city's city improvements/infra ,basic resources such as food/water or job opportunity. Brazilia(Brazil's capital)failed to attract many people from Rio(former capital)due to its remoteness and outback image(surrounded by jungle)

quote: How about in the city screen your building allocation is distributed by moving the population around on the screen.

Isn't that already represented in CivI/II? One thing I disliked from CivII city screen is that you can change rural pop(resource gatherer)to urban pop(entertainer,taxman)too easy. Do we really want one simple click change an entire city industry without any problem?

[Shadowstrike]

Maybe we could have a one turn "switching time" to reflect the people travelling to the city and/or country side. But whatever happened to refusal to move?

quote: Instead of sending a setter unit to the desired spot, you announce your government's development plan for specific area to attract as many settlers as possible from various other cities.

Youngsun, I don't think we should completely remove the settler unit from city-building. Afterall, how would we set up new cities on new continents? Besides, I still like being able to set up that little citadel city on the top of a hill or something.

quote: The only thing you have to do is that one click on the square then wait and the rest will be done automatically. You may use other tools for promotion such as advertsing(Gold found!),money offer,etc. This plan may or may not succeed depends on how attractive the spot is which can be enhanced by your new city's city improvements/infra ,basic resources such as food/water or job opportunity.

Some very good ideas. I think the expanding rural population should naturally flow to valuable resources, so hopefully you'll be designating a city where people are already moving to. Also, it should be more attractive depending on their current location too.
As I said before roads and railroads should also encourage people to migrate to a region. After the National Road was built in the US in the late 1700s, towns sprang up all along its way because it connected them. And many people migrated west after the transcontinental railroad, and many towns grew from tiny villages to bustling commerce towns overnight. Thus a city you want to grow faster should have roads, railroads, a river, or a shoreline.
The other thing is about populations moving into the city. I think "job oppurtunity" should be based on whether the city has a factory. Citizens will also be attracted to food/water as long as the city is not at the max population without having an Aqueduct, etc.
But this also raises an important question, which should definitely be included. Brasilia is the perfect example. Brasilia's main problem is the unwanted population. The city was meant for 1/2 million people and currently has 2 million. Beijing and other Chinese cities are in danger of this as well. Tremendous influxes of rural people come into a city that can't handle all of them.
As a result, they set up shanty towns without sewers, plumbing, or electricity. And believe me, I've been in some of Brasil's worst... Thus, what happens if a city with a Temple only, builds a Factory and has a population jump from 5 to 8. That city is in serious trouble. This is something that should be addressed.

quote: Maybe we could have a one turn "switching time" to reflect the people travelling to the city and/or country side. But whatever happened to refusal to move?

Well, its a little more complicated that just changing from urban to suburban. In addition to the rural population moving beyond the frontier and into urban areas, they're also growing, so the existing tiles have higher populations than previous turns.

And about refusal to move... people are ALWAYS willing to move. Look at the United States, the only reason they stopped is because they ran out of land. And even then, they went and annexed Hawaii and bought Alaska.


------------------
"...The highest realization of warfare is to attack the enemy's plans; next is to attack their alliances; next to attack their army; and the lowest is to attack their fortified cities." - Sun Tzu
[This message has been edited by Hannibal3 (edited September 01, 2000).]

[DarkCloud]

:quote:
quote:

How about in the city screen your building allocation is distributed by moving the population around on the screen.


Isn't that already represented in CivI/II? One thing I disliked from CivII city screen is that you can change rural pop(resource gatherer)to urban pop(entertainer,taxman)too easy. Do we really want one simple click change an entire city industry without any problem?

:quote:

[b]What I propose is different, I propose you can 'stack' the farmers to greater increase production/ however the farmers when placed on the squares will be given two options, (Farm,Mine) Farmers produce food, miners produce production.

When you convert a laborer (Miner,Farmer) to a scientist the full effect is not felt for 3 turns. When you convert a laborer to an entertainer/taxman the full effect is not felt for 2 turns while they learn the proper way to do things.

[Lonestar]

quote: Where's all the farmers?

At Texas A&M!!!

------------------
"You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you"

"Soylant Green is people. PPPeeeoooppllleee!"

[Youngsun]

quote: I don't think we should completely remove the settler unit from city-building. Afterall, how would we set up new cities on new continents?

If we can remove a settler unit, ICS problem has less effect but I'd like to see labourer/worker unit for tile improvement like the formers in SMAC.

New continent? The same way you do for your old continent just click a desirable spot of the new continent.

Citadel? Building a fortress wouldn't be enough?

I'd like to differentiate hut building from city building.

Hut(rural settlement)
From time to time for various reasons such as overcrowding/famine, overly populated city will inevitablely produces emigrants who want to settle down somewhere else without any government intervention or plan.

You just get message which shows some portion of pop left a specific city for whatever reason. Then few turns later a random hut which is similar to those goodie huts will appear on the map.

Now you have two choices "leave this hut alone" or "Establish your authority by sending troops/bureaucrats/government appointed administrators".

If you choose option No.1 the hut will pay tribute limited amount of farm product/resource/money to your treasury.

If No.2 option was executed, you now have fully functional town which can be developed through city improvements thus it can later be transformed into a city.

America was mostly colonised by this manner and the most part of the World too(people's own will). Of course, careful web of forts/ports which can provide some sort of security would need for those vulnerable huts.

Sometimes enemy civ huts might pop up inside your border which may create border tension and possibley a war.(Some former Indian Reservation districts were invaded by US settlers(for gold?) without the government intention/plan)

City(urban settlement)
Just like Brasilia case, this should be done/planned by the government(your will)for economic/strategic reasons .

From the beginning, you have the full authority over the city which is not different from thay of CivII.

It all sounds complicated but actually it isn't. The "hut case" will be done without your intervention and the "city case" is even easier than ever before.

Also I like the idea of transportation infras effect flow of people.

quote: What I propose is different, I propose you can 'stack' the farmers to greater increase production/ however the farmers when placed on the squares will be given two options, (Farm,Mine) Farmers produce food, miners produce production.

Why give two options since one tile worker can produce both shields & food? Unlike urban pop, rural pop should be difficult to control. They tend to stay their mother land and will do whatever to prevent any forced relocation.

Farmers or miners represent your civ's industry. If you can change your industry structure from 1st(agriculture,etc) to 3rd(service,etc) within only 3 or 4 turns(3~4 years minium) All the third world countries should have joined the League of developed countries by now.

I think class/job allocation should be done by AI and you can only indirectly influence that with your development/education plan or infra construction which will encourage people to move one industry to another.

quote: When you convert a laborer (Miner,Farmer) to a scientist the full effect is not felt for 3 turns. When you convert a laborer to an entertainer/taxman the full effect is not felt for 2 turns while they learn the proper way to do things.

How come those ignorant farmers/miners can be scientists within few years? If we adopt your suggestion, the China problem which is that a civ owns biggest pop is always strong will never be solved. Therefore even if your whole pop is small but well-educated you can out-perform big civ with many serfs but few intellectuals as far as research race is concerned.

Sorry for the continuous disagreement but I had to express my thought.
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited September 02, 2000).]

[DarkCloud]

The reason I say in 2-3 turns for each is within 2-3 years in the modern era or 20-30 years
in the classical era a population can learn enough to be moderatly able scientists or
taxmen and entertainers.

[Jon Miller]

I have a differing veiw

why should it take up to 150 years for farmers to leave the city or even the 2-3 years in the modern era

It would be pretty much instentaeous now and would take a few years (<10) in ancient times

therefore this should (if the idae is implemented) take only 1 turn

On the scientist question, I think it depends on your infrasttructure (only a few years if most your population is studied, a generation (or even 2) if it is not)

Jon Miller

Jon Miller

quote: From time to time for various reasons such as overcrowding/famine, overly populated city will inevitablely produces emigrants who want to settle down somewhere else without any government intervention or plan. You just get message which shows some portion of pop left a specific city for whatever reason. Then few turns later a random hut which is similar to those goodie huts will appear on the map.

Why? Isn't this hut just a small city? That brings us back to the original problem. By this, a rural and suburban population would still be non-existent.
Besides, the rural population involves much more than just immigration and emigration from or to cities. It would also be natural growth of the rural population in each tile, expansion by the rural population to other tiles, and it would also involve population immigration from city to city as well. And also it can be assumed that the rural squares would just be lots of little villages and towns anyway.
And in this hut theory, what happens when enemies take the towns? or do they? Would they have to establish authority in the same manner? By this logic, it could allow civs to "steal" other civ's cities without so much as a shot fired or a dime spent, and if the hut should randomly appear in some far-flung location that is closer to an opponent, it could be a very real possibility. Not to mention that should the hut appear on a mountain top, it would be useless for anything other than defense.

quote: Just like Brasilia case, this should be done/planned by the government(your will)for economic/strategic reasons .

Actually, I think Brasilia just goes to show how ineffective such government regulation would be. They built the city before putting anyone in it. Then they got a whole bunch of poor people moving in. And even all that pre-planning by the Brazilian ended up breaking the bank which eventually led to the military revolution of '64.
So, I think that it would be more interesting just to make it possible for a large immigration to just throw a monkey wrench right into your nice public works. That way you have to remedy the problem by building a Temple or Cathedral. Actually if they put "overcrowding" like in CtP in the game, you could require Apartment buildings or Hospitals to remedy the problem.

Meanwhile, as for this tile worker micromanagement in the city, I have no comment. I really have no objections to the old system, and I probably wouldn't object to a new one either.

[Shadowstrike]

Hmmm... maybe we could have two types of citizens, educated ones and uneducated ones, generated when the city grows by the presence of a school of some sore (each type of school would give a percent of chance you get and educated person) and the educated person is a better urban dweller while the opposite is true for the udeducated serfs.

[Youngsun]

quote: The reason I say in 2-3 turns for each is within 2-3 years in the modern era or 20-30 years in the classical era a population can learn enough to be moderatly able scientists or taxmen and entertainers.

Looks alright for enterainers but scientists?

If Farmers/miners(rural pop) come to cities and get a job the most likely ones would be labourer/factory workers which has something to do with industrial production but not necessarily R&D outputs.

quote: Why? Isn't this hut just a small city?

No. The major difference between the hut and city comes from the establishment of central authority.

A hut under your civ's influence/protection pay tribute(possibly farm product/basic resource)to your govenment but you can not develop the hut unless you establish your authority there. It's like a nomad hut paying tribute to you. However a hut can tranform itself into a city without your intervention if circumstances allow it(massive influx of people)which may lead greater autonomy to the city.

quote: Besides, the rural population involves much more than just immigration and emigration from or to cities. It would also be natural growth of the rural population in each tile, expansion by the rural population to other tiles, and it would also involve population immigration from city to city as well. And also it can be assumed that the rural squares would just be lots of little villages and towns anyway.

Of course of course Did I say only city should be producing migrants? When I gave one example up there I assumed you would understand other aspects as well along with that. That's why I didn't make that very long because that's all about common sense.

quote: And in this hut theory, what happens when enemies take the towns? or do they? Would they have to establish authority in the same manner? By this logic, it could allow civs to "steal" other civ's cities without so much as a shot fired or a dime spent,

Throughout history that has been the fate of all the border towns by swithing their loyalty to one civ to another based on whose military presence is stonger. Why are you so confused about cities and huts? Both icons or whatever represent human inhabitants on a specific tile for urban pop(city) and rural pop(hut). If you are so weak to protect your border towns you loose them. Isn't that a commonsense? Cities are too important so there would be garrisons and walls for better protection. Huts do not equally compensate the military expense for the garrisons as cities do so you might be discouraged to protect all huts but possibly building a fort around 4~5 huts so they gives reasonable return on investement.

quote: if the hut should randomly appear in some far-flung location that is closer to an opponent, it could be a very real possibility. Not to mention that should the hut appear on a mountain top, it would be useless for anything other than defense.

When I said random that means the best possible/better choice made by AI following the behaviour similar to that of AI controlled civ in CivII not just anywhere.

quote: Actually, I think Brasilia just goes to show how ineffective such government regulation would be

Well even sounds better because in the game both failure & success should be represented by how you plan.

quote: So, I think that it would be more interesting just to make it possible for a large immigration to just throw a monkey wrench right into your nice public works. That way you have to remedy the problem by building a Temple or Cathedral. Actually if they put "overcrowding" like in CtP in the game, you could require Apartment buildings or Hospitals to remedy the problem.

Exactly. Overcrowding should be there.

quote: Meanwhile, as for this tile worker micromanagement in the city, I have no comment. I really have no objections to the old system, and I probably wouldn't object to a new one either.

As long as we have present system of city tile management, we never gonna able to introduce class differentiation, Urban/Rural pop, realistic industry representation. The current system involves full of problems and isn't that our duty to detect a problem and to solve for better CivIII?

quote: we could have two types of citizens, educated ones and uneducated ones,

Good suggestion Shadowstrike! please visit my corporation thread which covers that area in detailed fashion
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited September 08, 2000).]

Thanks, Youngsun, I really just wanted a little clarity on your idea. Sorry for the nit-picking of the plan. I just was not sure what exactly your plan was. One more question: Do you wnat a population in every square or only in huts and cities?

And I think that the best thing would be to have huts gravitating toward areas with strong resources available. It makes it more realistic.

And Youngsun, I also checked out your thread on corporations. It is an interesting concept. I think I might just join in on the city functions discussion if we bring corporations into play.

And here is my vision of the rural population which would be some sort of special view here. Switch it on to see rural progress, otherwise population growth out of cities is invisible.



[This message has been edited by Hannibal3 (edited September 11, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Hannibal3 (edited September 11, 2000).]

[Youngsun]

No need to be sorry about. I undertand limited info. can bring frustration/misunderstanding.

Would you like to see some of my ideas represented on "get rid of 21 squares" thread

Villages can be replaced by huts.

Tell me what you think so we can make a compromise.

Ok. Well, this is going to be complicated… but I'll try to explain. I have a plan that ties in city populations, rural populations, infrastructure, trade, and corporations. I have to do this in sections given its huge size. Youngsun, I want your help with this too, supporting or criticizing…



PART I: CHANGES IN CITIES

Let's start with my fundamental changes. I want to get rid of "Production". After all, what is production? It's not really anything. So instead, I want a Laborforce in its place. It is responsible for the construction of Wondows and Improvement. It is essentially the "Production" in that respect, and it would be based entirely on population. Improvements like Industrial Farms increases the Labor Force, and Factories decrease required Man Hours to complete a structure. I'll explain units later. And when Factories and other industrial buildings are constructed, a point of Labor is taken to work those facilities.

There will also be a Educated Laborforce. It is determined by the Upper and Middle class population, it is increased by the construction of a Public School. For every point that increases here, it decreases from the regular Laborforce. The two always balance. And when a building like a Bank, Library, PS, etc. is constructed, one point is set aside for this.

Also, Trade is gone. Again, "Trade". What is it? It will have a vastly superior replacement. So Research, and Taxes will be based on other things. Taxes are determined by the city's population and what kind of population… (rich, middle class, poor), the number of banks markets etc., and luxury commodities. Research is determined by setting aside funds for research in particular fields of interest that is affected by the number of Labs, Libraries, etc.

Also, Food and Surplus are out. Instead it will be Death Rate and Birth Rate. Really just a change in name. Anyway, the Death Rate decreases through Hospitals and Apartments, Sewers, and Mass Transit, and the Birth Rate increases inversely with this. Immigration will also affect the population, but that goes with the rural population.

The classes are determined by A) luxury commodities (Sugar, Jewels, Clothes, Cars, etc.) B) the number of financial and social improvements C) all immigration will be lower class. So Lower Class must be appeased in the same way as always in Civ. The middle class are kept happy by maintaining their standard of living, and disgruntled middle class people causes disorder. The upper-class is maintained in the same way as the middle-class, but since an upper class revolt would probably lead to a coup that would depose you, the best thing is to just have them leave thereby decreasing the amount of literate people.

PART II: THE RURAL PEOPLE

Ok, so here's where we integrate the rural population. Ok, cities do not have anything to do with food production EXCEPT for fishing. Otherwise, independently acting populations in rural squares that begin to appear outside the city develop the land and ship their goods back to the nearest city. They can do this WITHOUT roads within the famous 21 squares. Beyond that they need roads to ship it that far. So roads therefore will naturally increase the population of any rural square faster than others. Settlers construct roads but do not build farms.

But these rural peoples do much more than that… They also gather resources at resource tiles that are used for trading. Again, the 21-tile rules applies without roads. Rural tiles send a small portion of a commodities and food each turn to the city per turn. With roads, they send more. With canals & rivers, they send even more, and with railroads they send the most on land. They can send the most by sea. This also applies to city-city trading.

Commodities are needed for constructing Units, Wonders, and Improvements and supplying units in hostile territory. To build Cavalry, you need a certain number of Horses in inventory whether imported from a foreign country or right from your backyard. Same thing for Elephants. Catapults and ships need large quantities of wood. And so on…

Now, it was always my intention that with the natural commodities in the game, there would be a number that would have to be manufactured. Pottery, Steel, Clothes, Cars, Tires, Refined Oil… These require Potters, Steel Mills, Textile Mills, Car Plants, Factories, and Oil Refineries built in the cities to convert raw materials (Clay, Iron, Cotton, Steel & Tires, Rubber, Crude Oil). Now, you can: A) build these as you see fit, or….

PART III: THE CORPORATIONS

B) charter a corporation for each field by going into the Economic Ministry in the menu.

With this, you provide subsidies, and the corporations automatically construct these improvements in cities that can handle them (Laborforce) and have in-coming supplies of raw materials. They build these structures with no cost to you. Then you direct where the exports go. Also, a railroad corporation can be chartered which with land grants will automatically construct railroads on those tiles you grant to them. The down side is that you can move your units and goods on these rails, but you can not build cities or military structures since it is not public land anymore. Other corporations will also put pressures on you for expansion to new resources and will reak political havoc generally increasing corruption.

PART IV: THE UNITS

Units are not produced. Instead, with various city improvements like Military Base, Stables, Shipwright, Weaponsmith, and Factory, they are purchased from a Ministry window that can be accessed from the menu. It calls for cities with bases to train a certain number of new infantry units, or cities with other features to construct or train siege weapons, calvary, and mechanized weapons like tanks and bombers. It costs money and one turn to produce these things.

Each city improvement allows one of each unit type. So more than one can be constructed in each city. The Defense Ministry will contract those cities with the most to put your orders through. It will not do this if there is an insufficient supply of the commodities needed for the units. Or you can do it city by city in places where you want a specific city to build something (i.e. defense units in a far-flung city).

[Youngsun]

You've been working hard.

I have an important assignment due on next week so comprehensive reply can't be made this time sorry.

will be back within 7 days....

*Bump!*

Hey, c'mon guys, this isn't a 2-person thread. I've expanded to much more topics than rural pop, gimme some feed back here

------------------
"...The highest realization of warfare is to attack the enemy's plans; next is to attack their alliances; next to attack their army; and the lowest is to attack their fortified cities." - Sun Tzu

[Urban Ranger]

My suggestion is: look at the archives. There used to be quite a bit of discussions on these sorts of topics.

Will look at your proposals harder

[Urban Ranger]

Hannibal3,

"After all, what is production? It's not really anything."

What? Production is an abstract representation of the industrial capacities of the city in question.

"There will also be a Educated Laborforce."

Okay, what's the difference?

""Trade". What is it?"

Huh? Trade is the amount of revenues generated through trading. How hard is that?

"It will have a vastly superior replacement."

What might that be?

"Taxes are determined by the city's population and what kind of population? (rich, middle class, poor)"

How do you determine what kind of population are there? How do you improve the poor class to middle class, say? Will it not involve more micromanagement?

"Food and Surplus are out. Instead it will be Death Rate and Birth Rate. Really just a change in name."

No, because you can build caravans to send surplus food. That makes sense. Sending "birth rate" doesn't.

"all immigration will be lower class"

That doesn't make sense though

"The upper-class is maintained in the same way as the middle-class, but since an upper class revolt would probably lead to a coup that would depose you"

Unlikely, since the player is a god, not mere mortal

"the best thing is to just have them leave thereby decreasing the amount of literate people"

This is not necessarily the case. Since in any society the size of upper class is small. What's a few hundred people leaving for a city of millions?

Urban Ranger, here is my response.....

quote: ""Trade". What is it?" Huh? Trade is the amount of revenues generated through trading. How hard is that?

rhetorical question - a question asked only for effect, as to emphasize a point, no answer being expected.

- Webster's New World Dictionary

quote: "After all, what is production? It's not really anything." What? Production is an abstract representation of the industrial capacities of the city in question.

The fact is that production is as you youself said "abstract". I propose to eliminate that by making a real labor force that uses the resources a city has.

And apparently you decided to skip the whole mid-section of the proposal because I explained there about the trade system of the game under my concept. That was the superior form of trading I was talking about.

[QUOTE"Taxes are determined by the city's population and what kind of population? (rich, middle class,
poor)"

How do you determine what kind of population are there?[/QUOTE]

Ok, apparently somebody decided not to read again. I stated that in the proposal, so I won't bother to dignify that with an answer.

However, your next question was a good one. The Public Schools will be one way to bring the poor to middle class. Also the amount of trading the city is doing will move them up, but each time that happens, the laborforce drops as the educated laborforce increases. And no it won't involve even more micromanagement because you will be doing these things anyway.

quote: "Food and Surplus are out. Instead it will be Death Rate and Birth Rate. Really just a change in name." No, because you can build caravans to send surplus food. That makes sense. Sending "birth rate" doesn't.

Perhaps you youself should go check out old threads, friend. Caravans are not good and will not be in the game. The trade screen is the wave of the future. Obviously, Birth Rate would not be an available commodity with which to trade to other cities, but don't worry you can still trade food.

And it does make more sense to have Death/Birth rate because a city has natural growth due to a greater number of births than deaths. It does not grow simply by the existence of food. Food will be an issue of course but not in the current way.

quote: "The upper-class is maintained in the same way as the middle-class, but since an upper class revolt would probably lead to a coup that would depose you" Unlikely, since the player is a god, not mere mortal

Okay, so you just ran out of real quotes with which to bad mouth so you decided to fabricate your own. Alright...
You misconstrued that whole point and only put in part of the sentence. Had you put the whole sentence in it would be clear that it is not what I meant. What I said was that the since in real life that is what would happen, we can't have that happen in the game because otherwise it would just end the game.

quote: "all immigration will be lower class" That doesn't make sense though

quote: "the best thing is to just have them leave thereby decreasing the amount of literate people" This is not necessarily the case. Since in any society the size of upper class is small. What's a few hundred people leaving for a city of millions?

Look, you can't have it both ways. Either the upper class population is a real quantity in the cities or it isn't. What you basically said is that the upper class has a real value coming, but not when its going.


------------------
"...The highest realization of warfare is to attack the enemy's plans; next is to attack their alliances; next to attack their army; and the lowest is to attack their fortified cities." - Sun Tzu
[This message has been edited by Hannibal3 (edited September 22, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Hannibal3 (edited September 22, 2000).]

[Dom Pedro II]

*MAJOR BUMP!*

I thought the new guys would like to read this. I am hoping I can resurrect this relatively neglected post. It was really a two-man conversation, but I want some fresh input.

[DarkCloud]

quote: quote: The reason I say in 2-3 turns for each is within 2-3 years in the modern era or 20-30 years in the classical era a population can learn enough to be moderatly able scientists or taxmen and entertainers. quote: Looks alright for enterainers but scientists?

The first quote was by me... the second by Youngsun.

For scientists you could have them 5-10 years in the modern era and 30-35 in the classical era.

Entertainers 1-3 years in modern era, or 10-15 in classical era.

Taxmen need no training
-
The children of these pioneers will be trained and brought up by their parents in the same ways and thus not have to go through a 'conversion' time.

[Dom Pedro II]

Sorry, DarkCloud. I didn't mean to suggest that NO ONE else contributed. I just meant that I was dissappointed by the original response because few people answered.