Migration

[Akron]

I know that migration has already been suggested in the list of suggestions, but I don't think that migration within a civ has been talked about much.

Really, migration of people was a very important to civilizations throughout history, and continues to be even today. There are two possible types, imigration into a civilization and movement of people within a civilization. Both are very important, but for now I'll just focus on the migration within the civ.

All cities should have some type of standard of living rating based on things such as education, health, opertunities/wealth, pollution, etc. People will flow from cities with lower standards of living to those with higher. Also, ethnicity may play a part in this, with ethnics groups within a civilization where they are badly treated by concentrating in a specific region. Of course, only maybe 1/3 of the population at most will move in a certain amount of time such as 20 years, unless conditions are untolerable in a given region (war, disaster, nuke).

People will be more likely to migrate if transportation systems (roads, railroads, highways) exist between two cities.

Governments will also be able to use certain means (press?, television?, suggestions needed here) to get people to migrate to certain regions. Certain governments will be able to do this better than others.

This type of migration will allow such things as gold rushes to be simulated. It will help players develop newer cities much faster too.

Well, this is just a possible sketch. If this has already been discussed in detail, someone please lead me to the thread. I'll post some suggestions for immigration later.

And please, post any suggestions you have here.

[tniem]

Time periods also play a large role. Today more people move to new cities than in the past in the United States and around the world. Part of this is transportation and another I think is communication. You are more likely to move away from home if you know that you can call your mom at anytime.

[MidKnight Lament]

I quite like this idea. I've got to have a bit more of a think about what impact it would have on the game, but it sounds good on principle.

- MKL

[Par4]

Yes we should talk more about this, it could be impacted by city improvements(for gods sake some say something about my systems idea), communication, jobs, society, standard of living, ethnicity, religion, standard of living, wheter town is a warzone, suburbs(if there are some). A couple of things say some people are moving to a new town for a computer corp job. The religion is ok the ethnicity is ok, communication is there, job obviously, new town/region has same improvements, no wars, high standard of living, but they had lived in suburbs and they want to live in suburbs, they might not go. Society would be if it was a moving society, US, or a non moving society, pro subs against suburbs. So say a coast city with big pop say 10mil is attacked, well if transportation is ok then people flood to other towns they grow, but if there isn't any roads or highways then people won't be able to flee as fast and the city remains semi inhabited as the suburbs/neighbor small towns filled up and grow by 10 fold.

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse

[UltraSonix]

I know tourism's been discussed elsewhere, but if you think about it, tourism related things could apply easily to migration. A city full of tourism attractions is well known, and so people would also want to live there. This could simply represented in the game by a population boom similar to the one you get in Civ2 or SMAC when the amount of happy people exceeds/equals? the amount or normal people.

The suggestion above whereby people would stream of out a well-infrastructured city under attack mightn't work well as then Civs would be prone to 'fake' attacks where disposable units are used to paralyse a particular town.

----------------------
No, in Australia we don't have kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...
[This message has been edited by UltraSonix (edited May 25, 2000).]

[Akron]

Yeah, the war part is very important too. But allowing such fake attacks would be bad, as it could really hurt a city by lowering its population and possibly weakening the area. Remember, only a small number of people, maybe 3% at most will flee during an air stike. Even if there is a reasonably large attack being made nearby, only maybe 15% at most will leave. (This assumes that the government does not urge movement)

As for immigration and emmigration, a government should have the ability to limit it.

Immigrants will most likely settle in an area such as a big city or an area with a high concentration of other people with their same ethnicity.

Immigration to a certain country can only happen if the people know about the standard of living in that country.

Immigration rates to a certain country will be greater as more people immigrate. This is because of the huge risk factor and possible problems such as discrimination. It is much easier if there are others like you who have been successful in a certain country.

People will be far more likely to immigrate to a country that speaks the same language as them. Language will not be based on ethnicity but on how civilizations in the past spread throughout the world. An example of this would be the British Empire before the 20th century and other European civilizations that colonized and conquered other regions.

People will be more likely to move to a country that is friendly to its homeland than one that is hostile. If the two countries fought a war within the last 50 years, this will have an effect.

Immigration will be influenced by the climate of different regions of a civilization. People from a tropical region will be more likely to move to another tropical or maybe subtropical region than a polar or tundra region.

Well, these are some more suggestions, mainly for immigration and emmigration, though they would also apply inside a country too, like the climate point.

Thanks for posting all your ideas too!

Par4, sorry but I haven't seen your systems idea yet, I'll read it in a sec.

[The diplomat]

I like the concept but we should be careful how it is implemented. If implemented wrong it could mess things up: When you built your second city it would have to have a greater desiriability rating or the pop would immediatly leave to go back to a better city. In this case, you could neve build new cities unless their rating were better. You might run into the situation where your pop would automatically go to the city with the highest rating leaving all your other cities empty. What about foreign cities? would your pop go to a foreign city if it had a better rating.
I don't mean to sound negative. It is a great idea. I'm just thinking about it from all angles.
To address my concerns, I would suggest that it be a small probability based on the difference between the two cities' desirability rating. If the difference were huge, there would be a greater probability that X pop leaves a city to go to the city with higher desirability. A probability would mean that on every given turn, pop would not necessarily leave a city. I think this would solve my concern since pop would not automatically leave every turn.
Also Akron, you said that: "Of course, only maybe 1/3 of the population at most will move in a certain amount of time such as 20 years, unless conditions are untolerable in a given region (war, disaster, nuke)."
That would deal with my concern as well.

Again, I like the idea. I am not attacking it

------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.
[This message has been edited by The diplomat (edited May 25, 2000).]

[ember]

POPULATION

The population of cities are recorded as x.xxx. This allows fractional population points. The fraction has no gameplay effect until it reaches the next number. It allows growth rates to be expressed as an increase per turn. Attacks that hit population centers can now do fractional pop. points of damage. maybe 0.1 or 0.05 per hit. To simulate casualties of war, lose 0.001 pop per HP lost by units supported by the region.

The purpose of this proposal is to seperate growth from straight food production.
Growth rates can be expressed as a percentage per turn, (eg 2.5%) to give a familiar sort of look. What this means for gameplay terms is that 0.025 pop points are added every year. This gives a growth of 40 turns.

Population is recorded as fractional points, but it is easy to convert that to a real pop number.
The formula:
Actual population = 5000 x (population points + 0.5)^2 - 1250
This formula follows the civx model exactly for whole numbers, and can give good values for fractional numbers.

Effects on population growth. All numbers are arbitrary and should vary depending on SE choices and tech. This system is desigened to be compatible with the idea of villages.

I have made use of a "happiness rating," which is (#happy - #unhappy) / #total. This gives 0 for all content, 100 for all happy, and -100 for all unhappy. This can be applied to a city, a region, a civ or the entire world.

Base growth: 10%
Happiness : + city happyness / N. N depends on SE.
Villages : + 0.2% per village
Medicine : + 2%
etc.

Immigration: To take into account people moving around in your civ and between civs.
The advantages of including this is that large unhappy cites will tend to slow down growth or shrink, while your smaller cities will pick up the extra people.

In civ immigration = (city happiness - civ happiness) / Y. Y depends on SE and the overall level of transportation available. In cty immigation tends to have larger volume than between civs.

between civs migration = (city happiness - world happiness) / Z. Z depends on SE and transport of all players. For this calculation government types can influence the happiness used. democracy might add 10 points, while communism subtarcts 10 points, to reflect that democracies never have had problems with too many people trying to flee from them.

Wonder: Iron curtain. Prevents all between civ emmigration. (for gameplay all cities count as average happyness level)

------------------
"Any technology, sufficiently advanced,
is indistinguishable from magic"
-Arthur C. Clark

[The diplomat]

Ember: good stuff there on population. It would really improve civ3 a lot. I can see you put a lot of thought into the idea too.
I believe that pop growth should be a %rate based on happiness and standard of living, not just food. Of course, food determines if your pop eats or starves so it would still play a huge role in pop growth.
[This message has been edited by The diplomat (edited May 25, 2000).]

[tniem]

I think migration in your city could become to complicated and add micromanagement to the game. Although I do think it is a good idea.

I think that one way it could be implemented is the slow assimilation of a people into the main culture and a slow addition of diversity. For example if you have the Zulus and you invade the Greeks, the new Greek city is basically 100% Greek. Slowly over time Zulus move in from other cities as Athens has become a very prosperous city. Plus, Frenchmen in search of jobs came and added people to the city as they searched for these jobs. The Greeks in Athens also slowly add diversity to other Zulu cities in the region on the percentages.

I do not think that I want my people to radically change where they live. If I have built a major city that can support the population I do not want them to move to another city that can support the population but may not have enough mines to build as much stuff.

[MidKnight Lament]

People wouldn't just migrate because there's a more desirable city. People should only move if there is a large difference. There could also be a desirability 'bonus' given to new cities. Perhaps citizens could only migrate to cities in near proximity too.

I don't see why it would add micromanagement either. The computations might be complex, but it's simply a matter of keeping your cities desirable. And we do that already.

- MKL

[Par4]

I think jobs are the biggest thing, oh and don't forget pollution, but ethnicity, religion stuff is really really important but would be calculated by the computer, you think the Pope wants to live in Mecca?? Desirability is good, things like pollution, improves, ethnicity(if tollerant society), communication, SoL could be molded into one, but jobs needs to be seperate it is really important. Oh and warzones means ground troops, air strikes don't have the population flee, the population has to have cars to really flee so if your civ doesn't have car corps then there isn't gonna be alot of cars to drive away in. This is good with things like airports and internet could really expand gameplay. Someone should start a thread on jobs.

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse
[This message has been edited by Par4 (edited May 26, 2000).]

[ghazghkull]

Migration would not neccessarily happen just because the city is attacked, or fake attacked, once. This kind of thing tends to happen over an extended period of warfare, as in world war two.

[Akron]

Cool idea ember!

As for people migrating out of a newly built city, that probably would not happen because a new city presents oppertunities.

The best way to work things out would probably be to compare a city's standard of living to other cities in its region. The region would be an area that is within 5 moves of a city. In that way roads and rail would largen the region. If there is a city with a standard of living more than 10% of the standard of living of the city, then people will slowly begin to move there at a rate dependent on government, technology, and other factors.

Remember, it is much easier for people to continue to live where they live than move. If they move, they will have to start a new life, which is not always easy and can be risky. People who have already settled down and are of an older generation will be much less likely to move than those of younger generations who have not yet settled down and are looking for oppertunities. This effect will decrease as technology increases and travel is much easier and moving is not as risky.

Of course, there are probably some other ways too, and migration may need to be somewhat simpler than this so that it can be put into the game without too much extra programming.

Jobs is another thing that needs to be worked out. It will definitely play a large role in migration. Maybe when I have more time I'll start a thread on it, but right now I've run out.

[ember]

With the system I have propose, migration is handled concurently with population growth.
In effect having a net (+) migration will speed up pop growth, and a (-) will slow it.
In most cases teh population will not decline jsut because some city is a bit more attractive, the net rate depends on the deviation from average "desirability". A small difference is going to translate to a small net migration.
Cities will only decline if there are severe problems, like heavy radiation, and short food supply.

------------------
"Any technology, sufficiently advanced,
is indistinguishable from magic"
-Arthur C. Clark

How about economical reasons for migration...

E.G. Gold and Silver rushes
(Eastern Americans --> California)
(Europeans --> South Africa)

Japanese and Chinese migrating to Peru (1600s) to open businesses.

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[vanishpoint]

Population movement (this does not apply to war-induced movement) within a civilization really shouldn't impact the game until societies become fairly advanced -- say around the Industrial Revolution era. Unless, of course, we're just talking about the city just five squares down the road. After all, before the invention of the railroad, most people would be lucky if they visited the nearest "big city" once or two times a year. Sure, a few people were drawn by the larger cities' allure, but I doubt it reduced the population of outlying town by a full Civ population number. Maybe the larger towns, over a span of 25 years or so, draw an extra pop from all the cities within so many miles of it. Each of the cities that lose those people, in turn, suffer maybe an extra 4 turns before a new pop is created. Rather than taking a full Pop from one city, why not a percentage of a Pop from all the nearby cities?
As for post-IR societies, movement within a civilization should come into play, especially as monorails, superhighways, mass transit and airports are added to it.
Just as the iron curtain was suggested as a wonder to prevent people from leaving, how about modifying the statue of liberty's ability so that it draws people from all over the world to settle in your nation?

[Az]

I don't remember who , but some1 has mentioned tourism up there .
I don't know but I think this should be be Implemented in a way similar to Youngsun's Corporations thread , of tour ads taking money from cities , and giving happiness in return.

well about migration I think that goverments should be able to build an " Iron Curtain " and goverments should be able to spread behind enemy lines propoganda material to atract scientists and specialists . do you get my direction?



------------------
Prepare to Land !

vanishpoint - I think that's a great idea (S.O.L.). I'm gonna go post that idea in the WoW thread. (I'll give you credit of course)

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[Father Beast]

it seems to me that migration would not affect the source cities too much, maybe slow them down a bit, but would affect the targets significantly. the desire for frontier pushed people to explore and even move several times within their lives, saying "this place has become too civilized". this might even be a way to release the pressure in cities which have become maxed out.
Tourism has been mentioned, but as someone else said, I don't think this will become much of a factor until large mass transportation systems come into play. the a city with a wonder will draw tourists, and draw additional population to work the jobs that serve the tourists, in a maddeningly self feeding growth cycle.
currently, we have reduction of your city pop to produce settlers which found new cities. I am curious as to what is wrong with that so we would want to replace it.

quote: Originally posted by Father Beast on 05-28-2000 05:59 PM currently, we have reduction of your city pop to produce settlers which found new cities. I am curious as to what is wrong with that so we would want to replace it.

How about level 30 city builds settlers. The settlers built a new city. New city has population 10,000. Level 30 city drops nearly 300,000 people. Where did the other 290,000 people go?

Level 2 city builds settlers. Equivalent to 20,000 people. Can be destroyed by Archers.
Level 30 city build Engineers. Equivalent to 300,000 people. Can be destroyed by same archers (It's possible. Non-veteran too! About 1 out of every three times the attacking archers will defeat the "300,000" settlers.)

How unfair is that. Now is that a good enough reason for a change to be made?


------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[UltraSonix]

Yeah, I'd never even thought about it! This system should definitely be fixed up! It's another one of those things that you wonder why you hadn't realised before...

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

[Urban Ranger]

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat on 05-25-2000 11:33 AM I like the concept but we should be careful how it is implemented. If implemented wrong it could mess things up: When you built your second city it would have to have a greater desiriability rating or the pop would immediatly leave to go back to a better city.

This can be fixed by having population as a negative factor in the desirability formula. That is, people don't want to settle in a very crowned area unless there are many other things that overcomes this aversion.

[rremus]

How about he ancient migrations?
When you started in a bad area of the map, you could decide to migrate your whole civ to a better land. This option would transform all your citizens and resources/gold into settlers and attack units and you would invade the desired area. If is already occupied, you have a tremendous atack force, since all your resources were invested into it. If they're too weak to defend it, they would have to withdraw, eventually triggering another migration. Of course, you can also be the victim, other civ invading you teritory with countless units and forcing you to fight or retreat.
This would be a viable option only in the early stages of the game, as latter the cost of loosing all your cities would be to big.

[The Joker]

These are all great ideas, guys!

I especcially like rremus' idea. It could trigger a whole age of immigration like in the dark ages, where huge quantities of people moved, pushing other people away.

[rremus]

quote: Originally posted by The Joker on 05-30-2000 06:31 AM It could trigger a whole age of immigration like in the dark ages, where huge quantities of people moved, pushing other people away.

Maybe even a stage of the game, when computer could create brand new migrating civ's in unpopulated areas and urge them to invade territories.

[Tiberius]

Great ideas here

I like very much rremus' idea with migrating civs (like the Huns), which can easily move, are great warriors, but somewhere, sometimes they settle down.
Very nice also the stuff about the Statue of Liberty, which draws people from all over the world. Great.

There is one thing that I never saw in CIV2, but it happened to me in CIV1 (tell me if I'm wrong, it was a long time ago): sometimes, when my empire was very well developed, foreign cities JOINED my empire, because they admired so much our standard of living! I enjoyed it very much, and I'd like to see it again.

About tourism: I've just started a new topic with tourism and I used as starting point the EC3 list. If you have better ideas, please put them there.

Migration is a good idea..

To facilitate more migration, you could build road, rail, sea and air (I hope you read the post of mine about these) with other civs.. When it gets to be a problem, engineers could build border posts and/or customs houses on the port of entry (on the road or railway line on the border). These could be upgraded to enhance tourism.

They would control over-immigration and emigration.. Customs houses would bring in tax from trade (I hope you read my ExIm policy post )

------------------
-Shiva
Email: shiva@mailops.com
Web: http://www.crosswinds.net/india/~shiva
ICQ: 17719980