Urban Citizens

Shadowstrike · February 14, 2001, 20:52

Crossing my fingers and hoping for a CTP2 like city model (which IMHO is a fine idea), I also hope that the selection of specialists for cities will be better then Elvis/taxman/Einstein. Ideally, they would come in "slots" like units, with the scenario editor allowing you to create as many as you want and change the pictures and the abilities to your liking (through a simple bonus system, allowing the boosting of city resources by a number or percentage). However, barring that I would like to see more variation in city specialists. My idea is that they would become availble and obsolete with technologies, and give different bonuses (i.e. science, tax, science+tax, food+production, etc) and make them somewhat useable. What do you think?

February 15, 2001, 14:09

I agree that the specialist should be more dynamic and able to change with the times. On a related thread titled "Making Trade Essential...", the point was made about adding the "laborer' to the city specialists (to have 4 types instead of the standard 3). I agree that the Laborer should be added to the "specialist pool." I believe that adding the Laborer and making the city specialists more dynamic and able to do more as the civilization developes is an excellent point.

Windborne · February 16, 2001, 04:55

I'd like the laboror, the tax-man, the scientist, the slave, and maybe an old fasioned form of the laboror early on called the craftsman.

Adm.Naismith · February 16, 2001, 09:35

quote:

I'd like the laboror, the tax-man, the scientist, the slave, and maybe an old fasioned form of the laboror early on called the craftsman.

Windborne, I too support "slave" specialist, because slavery had (and has) a relevant place in human history. Of course I'm not speaking of Slave as I red CTP introduced (special unit with super power), but "specialist" you add fighting wars (prisoner), by law or by trading.

About other specialist (e.g. craftsman), I think they fit better in a "Public Work" model, where you have all the available resources in city range (dynamic changing by city growth) automatically worked by your population, with specialist needed to fine tune main production.

So we can have farmer/fisherman for food, etc.

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

Roman · February 17, 2001, 09:34

I would add a labourer and a farmer to the Civ2 system of specialists. Otherwise I would keep it the same.

Wernazuma II · February 19, 2001, 18:49

add a farmer?

that's what 80% of the citizens in civ2 were!

i once made a thread about this but it seems it isn't in the related threads thread anymore

i would suggest following types:

farmers/miners ->create food, 'arrows' and shields
labourers -> manufacture the shields
servicemen -> transform arrows into luxury
upper class -> transform arrows into money and science

i'd suggest the following rules:
a)citizens have to be farmers until all people are fed either by their production or food trade routes
b)the ratio of labourers and servicemen to upper class must be at least 1:1 (not more upper class)
c)servicemen becoming increasingly more important in modern societies
d)if there are no more shields to manufacture or arrows to transform, people are considered unemployed and are automatically unhappy.
e) in industrial age a city can have as many industries as upper class citizens.
e.a) exception for communism: a city can have as many industries as they want but cost a lot of maintainance.

what do you think?
what do you think?

DarkCloud · February 19, 2001, 21:12

OOC: Wernazuma II, about your account; alert the mods in the "Apolyton" section of this site.

What I know about your profile is
-
REG: Aug 12 or 11,2000 or 1999 (cant remember exactly)
POSTS: 302-327

Apolyton crashed a while ago...

Youngsun · February 20, 2001, 01:21

Another great thread which deserve to thrive!

Field workers such as farmers/miners/fishers should be lumped togrther as just "field workers" and they repersent rural population.

Anyone who doesn't engage in basic resource gathering work will do their job in the city and called "specialists" and they represent urban population

"Labour idea" was suggested by monolith94 in resource thread and I like it very much.

Field workers are farmers,fishers and miners who repersent country folks(usually content people but quite disloyal to central authority)

Labours are factory workers,construction labourers who represent lower class or bottom of urban pop(usually dissatisfied,rebellious)

Taxmen are corporate business people and salarymen who should repersent middle class of urban pop(content people)

Scientists are teachers,professors,doctors and researchers who repersent upper class or top of urban pop(happy people)

Entertainers are content~happy people and generate happiness for not very content people.
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited February 20, 2001).]

GaryGuanine · February 20, 2001, 04:21

I don't think the laborer is a good idea. I don't think it comes from history. Think of it this way. Up until industrialization (early 19th Century), cities were centers of commerce, not industry. The specialists in the game represent how you spend your "trade". One for coins, one for lightbulbs, and one for happy. The increase in labor efficiency brought about by industrialization is represented by the factory city improvement. It takes a significant amount of time to build, and it is the first (except for the Crusade) improvement that increases production. It is the laborer.

Gary

Wernazuma II · February 20, 2001, 14:21

i have to disagree.
cities before industrialization were as much production centers. from the athenian ceramics production, armor in medieval milan etc. i think there really should be a division of available resources that are "harvested" by farmers and their further use.

February 20, 2001, 14:34

Here's a thought, how about dividing labor into 3 specialists (similar to trade):

1) Craftsman: Adds additional city production.
2) Armorer: Adds aditional military production (This assumes seperate queues for city improvements/military units which I feel is a must)
3) Engineer: Creates Public Works ala ctp
perhaps even a fourth:
4) Corporate: works like capatilism

In this case Capatilism and Infrastructure are no longer needed as "buildable structures"

GaryGuanine · February 20, 2001, 23:20

Cities were certainly not "as much" production centers as they are now. Sure, there was some industry, but I don't think that it warrants a type of citizen. I mean, why would it be called the "Industrial Revolution", and not the "Industrial change in the way of producing goods, though not that drastic." Cities developed as centers of trade, not industry. The entire point of the Taxman/Elvis/Einstein people is to divide up your trade. Why would Europe not have industrialized before it had if there was a "laborer" available to them?

Gary

Youngsun · February 21, 2001, 01:27

Cities have been the centre of both commerce and industry long before the Industrialisation. Massive commercial activities simply can not take place unless there are some industries which produce things in large quantity. What about rennaisance period glass industry in the Italian cities? The Silk industry in Chinese cities through many dynasties perhaps? Of course, the collection of skilled craftsmen are one thing while labours who work in industrial complex is another. Still the present civ resource management system requires some change. Field workers repersenting both resource gatherers and industry workers makes things hardly realistic, furthermore this contributes ICS a lot by giving advantages to those who don't grow their cities well in terms of infra-structures. You simply build more cities rather than nurture existing cities. Only big cities can afford numerous city specialists, which I prefer to put them as Urban population, and by allowing to have labour specialist, who provide extensive labour point, that can be produce primarily by labours, people will be encouraged to have big well developed cities to outproduce the enemies who have many small sized cities which can not afford city specialist.

GaryGuanine · February 21, 2001, 02:45

Actually, Youngsun, I see the laborer unbalancing the game considerably. The ICS strat would be so much more justified. You would have cities of, say, 5 size, maybe even less, with just enough food to support some farmers and the rest laborers. Then all people would do is use the extra shields to make hordes and hordes of military units and settlers. Production would be so inflated that people could mass produce units so quickly. I guess you could figure out some way to change everything, but then it wouldn't be Civ.

And I still think cities were not *huge* centers of industry before Industrialization. Most of the fledgling industries (Italian glass, Dutch textiles, Chinese silk) were very regional and related to very localized resources. THIS IS WHY Civ has special resource squares. That's what they represent. They significantly impact the development of a city, making it an industrial powerhouse (coal, iron), or a huge trading center (silk, gold).

Gary

Youngsun · February 21, 2001, 03:12

quote:

5 size, maybe even less, with just enough food to support some farmers and the rest laborers. Then all people would do is use the extra shields to make hordes and hordes of military units

For the present shield system, that may happen but with the new resource system not a chance!

If cities were not the centres for industry then what was it? country side?

If you are so worried about modern things appear in the middle of ancient era, what about scientist or elvies?
Labour may sound modern but still can represent ancient era craftsmen just as elvies representing ancient era entertainers.

GaryGuanine · February 21, 2001, 21:27

Youngsun,

I'm opposed to any mandatory resource system, as well. It should be like the Civ2 resources system. This is being discussed on another thread.

You ask what the centers for industry were before industrialization. There were none. Some stuff got made, sure, but there were not devoted "workingmen", as we think of today. I think the present system does a great job in making production pretty steady until Industrialization. As it should be.

As for the elvis thing. Come on, it's a picture that represents "Entertainer (technically, producer of luxuries)" in a city. They're not claiming that rock and roll existed in Ancient times, it's just a symbol that doesn't affect gameplay. What I'm saying is that we should not claim a large middle class devoted to mass production of goods existed in ancient times. That would affect gameplay, in a way so that it would diverge from the course of history dramatically.

Gary

Youngsun · February 22, 2001, 00:22

I thought you read this in resource thread.

quote:

Originally posted by Youngsun on 02-15-2001 01:29 AM
labours: providing labour points?(maybe after the discovery of Industrialization-by replacing obsolte craftsmen from Ancient era)

GaryGuanine · February 22, 2001, 01:48

Youngsun,

Actually, I had read that. My last few posts were regarding the anachronicity (?) of the laborer class. OF course, in my first post I stated that the industrial city improvements (Factory, Man. Plant, Power Plant) already perform this function. If you want a laborer around after Industrialization, take out those improvements. Otherwise, it's "double jeopardy", sort of.

Gary

Youngsun · February 22, 2001, 01:55

For your information, city improvement like Bank, Temple and University are the same sort of redundant bonus booster.

Banks are redundant with Taxmen
Temples are redundant with Entertainers
Universities are redundant with Scientists

So what's wrong with having Labours and a Factory together?
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited February 22, 2001).]

GaryGuanine · February 22, 2001, 02:10

Youngsun,

You're absolutely right. The more I think of it, maybe I don't like the specialists.

Gary

Youngsun · February 22, 2001, 02:24

Do you have personal grudge on labour party, labour class,labour union or anything that is related to the word "Labour"?

Biddles · February 22, 2001, 08:33

quote:

Originally posted by Youngsun on 02-22-2001 01:24 AM
Do you have personal grudge on labour party

Not after Queensland.

GaryGuanine · February 22, 2001, 21:20

Of course I do, youngsun, why should anyone make a fair wage for a day's work?

Gary

Youngsun · February 23, 2001, 01:09

quote:

Not after Queensland.

Indeed..

quote:

Of course I do, youngsun, why should anyone make a fair wage for a day's work?

Haha! you are the true evil capitalist

Grumbold · February 23, 2001, 10:18

Cities were certainly production centres before the industrial revolution. All the revolution did was dramatically increase the amount of production that could be output by a single worker through mechanical support. Cities grow up around sites of production which require manpower. They then become trade centres if the goods they sell are in demand, making the inhabitants rich so they can afford imported goods.

Henrik · February 23, 2001, 10:28

Before the industrial revulotion labourers could be called "Artisans", since that is what the factories replaced.
The whole systems whit Aprentices, Journymen and Masters where the industry before the industrial revulotion.

Straybow · February 23, 2001, 16:35

Too few city improvements add trade, which should be the basic production of cities. Those Athenian potters didn't help arm soldiers, they just provided opportunity for trade.

There was a legendary thread called "From Terrain to Urbanism: an Innate Conceptual Fault" in which Vagabond posted his ideas for modelling urbanization as a source for trade and shields. His basic idea is: each city structure employs citizens just like terrain tiles (boxes beside the city terrain display would be added when the improvement is built).

A structure would grant a certain level of increased production/gold, then placing a citizen in the box would boost the benefit incrementally.

Optimizer · February 23, 2001, 18:00

The president of our university (The Royal Swedish Institute of Technology) just loves to talk about the 3-17-80 ratio - which means that in a low-industrialized country, 80% of the population are farmers, 17% are industrial workers and 3% worked with services. In a post-industrial society, it is the other way around. This should be the greatest distinction between life today and a hundred years ago.

The model for resource production should be changed, so that an industrialized city would need less workforce to grow and mine the surrounding lands. This would leave place for more specialists.