April 23, 2001, 06:31
|
#1
|
Settler
Local Time: 22:58
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: summerside, PEI, canada
Posts: 5
|
Children Per Family
This cut and pasted from civfanatacs. maybe you guys can make sence of it. if so, contact me at weimar_republic@hotmail.com
here is what I have been able to find out on the children per
family:
city size-foodeaten-foodsurplus-children it makes
1-2-4-10.0
2-4-5-8.6
3-6-5-7.0
2-2-1-0.7
1-2-2-6.0
2-4-4-7.3
3-6-6-8.0
3-3-(-3)-(-1.0) size three with 3 food = -1.0 children
4-8-8-8.4
5-10-10-8.6
6-12-12-8.8
7-14-14-9.0
17-34-22-6.8
X=anything
X-2X-0-2.0
^^thats not it BTW
so, whats the formula here? anyone have any ideas?
it MUST have a +2 at the end...
so without the +2 it would be
2-4-5-6.6
2-2-1-(-1.3)
2-4-4-5.3
5-10-10-6.6
and others
...
hummm use a graphing calculator??
------------------
Whats the point of living if you cant do anything stupid?
|
|
|
|
April 23, 2001, 14:33
|
#2
|
Prince
Local Time: 16:58
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nampa, ID, USA
Posts: 401
|
Marquis: in answer to your first question, this is the number for one city, which is averaged with the numbers for the rest of th cities in your civ to get the average cpf for your civ.
There is probably a formula where you take city size*food surplus*some other math junk=growth rate for that city.
|
|
|
|
April 23, 2001, 14:39
|
#3
|
King
Local Time: 18:58
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Maine, US
Posts: 2,372
|
Or you could just say:
The civ with the highest cpf is growing the fastest.......why does everything have to be broken down into a boring scientific formula?
|
|
|
|
April 23, 2001, 18:26
|
#4
|
Prince
Local Time: 16:58
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nampa, ID, USA
Posts: 401
|
quote:
Originally posted by drake on 04-23-2001 02:39 PM
O...why does everything have to be broken down into a boring scientific formula?
|
because we're bored!!! That's why. We have nothing else to do until civ 3 comes out, so why not analyse every aspect of civ 2 so we understand most everything about civ 3 before it comes out.
|
|
|
|
April 23, 2001, 19:11
|
#5
|
Warlord
Local Time: 22:58
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Oxford
Posts: 130
|
2 + (4*food surplus)/(city size + 1)
I think you'll find.
EOL
Edit: That's rounded down to the next 0.1
[This message has been edited by EOL (edited April 23, 2001).]
|
|
|
|
April 23, 2001, 22:42
|
#6
|
Prince
Local Time: 17:58
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: New Jersey, USA, Earth, Sol, Milky Way
Posts: 705
|
I can confirm EOL's findings.
|
|
|
|
April 24, 2001, 00:53
|
#7
|
King
Local Time: 16:58
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: ... no, a Marquis.
Posts: 2,179
|
First question: Were these numbers for a one-city civ?
What IS clear about this jumble of numbers is that children per family (i'll call it cpf) = 2 is steady state, a.k.a. no population growth - 2 children replace the 2 parents. If this was what the designers used, we could suppose that cpf = 4 means the population doubles, cpf = 6 triples, and so on, in a certain period of time (turns? until the next pop. change?). These numbers are clearly rounded off to the nearest tenth.
The cases in which the surplus equals the food eaten graph a classic hyperbola (or is that a parabola? I can't remember any more...). A classic curve, in either case.
It must not necessarily have a +2 at the end, altho that is a likely possibility. The steady state 2 could be part of a numerator...
If rules.txt states that each citizen eats 2 bushels per turn, how can you explain the cases in which city size is not half of food eaten?
Testing should include an array of cities with eaten = surplus, to more accurately calculate the curve, size 1 cities with various surpluses, and some random larger cities/surpluses to sample. Any takers? Or have I volunteered by responding?
------------------
"There is no fortress impregnable to an ass laden with gold."
-Philip of Macedon
|
|
|
|
April 24, 2001, 09:59
|
#8
|
King
Local Time: 18:58
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Maine, US
Posts: 2,372
|
|
|
|
|
April 26, 2001, 00:26
|
#9
|
Prince
Local Time: 16:58
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nampa, ID, USA
Posts: 401
|
I am not one of these people who do the analysing, I just play. I haven't played civ 2 enough to get to the point where all I do is analyse. Though I think I will take your suggestion and play some more .
|
|
|
|
April 26, 2001, 17:15
|
#10
|
Emperor
Local Time: 00:58
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 8,491
|
|
|
|
|
April 26, 2001, 18:47
|
#11
|
Prince
Local Time: 16:58
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nampa, ID, USA
Posts: 401
|
|
|
|
|
April 27, 2001, 06:57
|
#12
|
Warlord
Local Time: 22:58
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Oxford
Posts: 130
|
For more than one city
City size becomes the sum of all the city sizes = total no. of citizens
Food surplus becomes the net surplus across your empire.
EOL
|
|
|
|
April 27, 2001, 07:03
|
#13
|
Warlord
Local Time: 22:58
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Oxford
Posts: 130
|
Perhaps bizarrely, I think that food which goes towards supporting settlers and engineers also contributes to the food surplus for this calculation.
EOL
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 18:58.
|
|