Unofficial Poll: Pop Rushing

Inverse Icarus · July 21, 2002, 14:03

what is your stance on Pop Rushing (killing off population points to hurry a unit / improvement)?

IIRC, the rushing causes unhappiness "we cannot forget the cruel oppressio you have forced on us", for 20 turns. This unhappiness can be subdued by temples / military police.

here are your choices:

I would allow Pop Rushing with 20 turns between them.
I would allow Pop Rushing at any time for emergencies / population control.
I would never allow Pop Rushing.

July 21, 2002, 14:09

If it works to the benefit of our current situation, or is absolutely necessary for a desired effect to take place, then pop-rushing is a good measure.

Robber Baron · July 21, 2002, 14:27

Yes, I foresee pop-rushing. In our situation, we need to use any means necessary to survive and expand. Though for the most part I'd hold off on pop-rushing in under 20 turns, except to consolidate our hold on a captured city by population control.

MrWhereItsAt · July 21, 2002, 16:06

Uber, posting a poll on Civil Liberties?

Seriously, though, (

) in the situation we are in, it is easy to stir up enough fervent patriotism to convince a couple of citizens to sacrifice themselves so that we might live as a nation. Only in such dire circumstances as we are in justifies pop-rushing, however.

Kuciwalker · July 21, 2002, 16:20

Manually add +1 to 2nd option (grrr why won't it let me vote!?).

badman · July 21, 2002, 16:33

i usually don't poprush because of the resulating unhappy citizens. if we have unhappy people because of too much population, poprushing won't help us unless we waste 2 citizens or more and that loss of production/commerce usually (if not always) erazes the benefits of a poprushed improvement / unit.
but if we have an emergency, it will be okay so i voted for the second option.

Apocalypse · July 21, 2002, 16:37

If there is a true emergency, then I have no problem with it.

Kuciwalker · July 21, 2002, 17:11

I don't want to forbid this if we need to.

DAVOUT · July 21, 2002, 17:21

I do not like the pop rushing idea, so I don't use it. I think also that until the 19 century, the buiding of great monuments (pyramide) or great works such as railroads or canals, resulted in signicant human losses, even without the intention to kill populations. The only case where civil works were intently organized to exterminate populations are the siberian goulags and the nazi concentration camps : I simply cannot imagine to help demontrating that it is useful or even necessary.
In my opinion, which is as humble as any other, but perhaps more (I like the saying : regarding modesty, I am second to none

), the strategy begins in counting your assets, and continues in choosing those you want to use.

kring · July 21, 2002, 18:03

I voted no. We need to factor in that on Emperor, we don't have that many content citizens born to begin with.

Harovan · July 21, 2002, 18:12

Yes, for emergencies/pop control. When we have hooked up some luxuries, we can rush more often.

OPD · July 21, 2002, 18:23

lol
gald to see all that ethics stuff being ignored

DAVOUT · July 21, 2002, 18:30

OPD,

May I say I agree with O.Wilde ?

civman2000 · July 21, 2002, 21:53

emergencies only. I don't like this so called "population control" being grouped with emergencies thoguh

Epistax · July 21, 2002, 22:04

How could you possibly answer "never"? Have you gone under brain surgery that went wrong? Let me redefine emergency for you: If you don't, that city is no longer yours.

Do you still say never?

alva · July 21, 2002, 22:34

be good to your people

don't kill them !!!

Guardian · July 22, 2002, 04:34

Quote:

Originally posted by civman2000
emergencies only. I don't like this so called "population control" being grouped with emergencies thoguh

Same here!

BigFurryMonster · July 22, 2002, 04:42

I have never pop-rushed. When is this possible? How many shield can it replace ..?

Nubclear · July 22, 2002, 05:43

Quote:

Originally posted by BigFurryMonster
I have never pop-rushed. When is this possible? How many shield can it replace ..?

Population rushing is for EMERGENCIES ONLY. And even then....only for the most DIRE of emergencies.

We don't get that many happy citizens to start out with, and more unhappy citizens can result in a city shutting down, or us having to divert special resources and attention to the unhappy citizens.

We musn't become, er....whip happy. Only for emergencies....

Kloreep · July 22, 2002, 14:38

Emergencies only. BUT, there is one other thing I'd approve it for: Temple rushing. Not only do temples nullify their own rushing unhappiness, but Temple-rushing is one of Religious civs' great advantages, allowing them an early culture jump once they have the time and pop to use it. We shouldn't waste this advantage.

Kuciwalker · July 22, 2002, 16:01

Why vote no? It is possible that we'll need to. You can argue at those times that we don't need to, but there's no reason to get rid of the option altogether.

Epistax · July 22, 2002, 16:03

oh crap skywalker agrees with me

*watches time/space evaporate*

GodKing · July 22, 2002, 18:05

I dislike the notion of killing our own people, but sometime sacrifices must be made. Those who choose to needlessly slaughter our own shall be brought to justice however.

Captain · July 22, 2002, 22:27

Quote:

Originally posted by civman2000
emergencies only. I don't like this so called "population control" being grouped with emergencies thoguh

I agree with civman. it should be a real emergency - as in, we're about to lose this city, or we're about to lose another city if we don't hurry some reinforcements over there.

I'm not convinced population control counts as an emergency. So I say no. At this point in the game, we don't have large populations and culture levels are relatively stable, so population control is not a concern in terms of flipping. Resistance at this era is very easy to quell without resorting to poprushing. It also has no penalties besides not getting the use of those resistors for a few turns. That's better than not getting use of any citizens cuz we've killed them and making the others unhappy.

When we reach size 9+ cities that are close to enemy capitals with lots of culture (and far from ours), then if there is a high probability of flip (resulting in the death of a large garrison), that might count as an emergency.

While I don't like pop-rushing, heavily garrisoning and pop-rushing/starving (by converting to entertainers) any size 12+ city down to a manageable level, is better than razing it outright. But in a real emergency, razing it might be wise too. Hopefully, we don't get ourselves into a war where we're so unprepared that we have to resort to such scorched earth tactics.

Shiber · July 23, 2002, 06:50

There's something that's not getting through to me: why would anyone use pop rushing as a form of population control?
Wouldn't it be better to starve your citizens by moving working citizens to tiles which produce less food but more shields/commerce or changing them into specialists? Other than of course in a situation where we would want to decrease a city's populace FAST, I don't see why else pop rushing should be used as a mean of pop control.

BigFurryMonster · July 23, 2002, 07:18

Don't see Population Control as a goal, but as a nice side-effect (the goal would be to accelerate production).

Guardian · July 23, 2002, 07:30

Quote:

Originally posted by BigFurryMonster
I have never pop-rushed. When is this possible? How many shield can it replace ..?

I've never pop rushed anything myself either, but I some times pay hard currency to have a build project finished early under republic or democracy...

Anyway, the "pop rushing" works under despotism and / or communism. When you get out your whip, you can scrape together 20 shields by "sacrificing" one citizen. For each and every time time you do this, one of the remaining citizens will be unhappy for the next 20 turns.

Guardian · July 23, 2002, 07:54

Quote:

Originally posted by BigFurryMonster
Don't see Population Control as a goal, but as a nice side-effect (the goal would be to accelerate production).

Well, I'd hardly call it nice...

kring · July 26, 2002, 13:42

How was the recent pop rush of a Spearman an emergency? Poor planning on someone else's part doesn't constitute an emergency on other people's parts.

Spiffor · July 26, 2002, 13:49

We needed a searman to go with the settler as soon as possible, to improve our chances the Persians won't get the Iron near the coast.
I don't remember if we quickpolled suring the turnchat on this though.