Crazy Population solution?

[henryjai]

Because of world market and constant mechanics shared by all the POPs in the game the growth rate is deterministic no matter what. However it is initially set will be off at some point. Compared to V1 I would prefer to see slightly slower growth at the start of the game and technology and infrastructure increasing growth so by the end world population would probably end being higher than historical almost guaranteed but would vary more by country and the overall population wouldn't be surpassing historic levels until after 1900 at least.

I remember playing Italy and achieving 500 million Italians by 1900 with high plurality and force migrating POPs to highest life rating provinces. That is of course unrealistic in more than just the % growth rate we are talking about but the only reason I even bothered to attempt it was due to the high % growth rate making it worthwhile.

Trying to model realistic curves without actual input on what V2 uses to determine growth rates might be futile. Probably the easiest way is to use technology to speed up growth even though all historical data available points to a correlation between income and pop growth rates. Anything else is likely to lead towards backwards game play as people attempt to max their % growth rates.

I have tried something with my calculator, to have the historical growth rate of New York City, it would be on average around 42% per 10 year.

I think most are immigrants because 42% is just absurd...

 

[Variton]

In terms of Vicky mechanics, there should be limits to the expansion of food RGOs and also there should be more severe consequences for pops which don't meet their food requirements.

Agree totally. I furthermore think that Vic1 game mechanics was so that you would, in a historical sense, care too much for your POP. Because POP was too scarce a resource. Population growth should be fast, so that there are too much "rabble" around and countries cannot provide a living to all. To balance this (so that total pop would not expand too fast) they should also die of hunger etc. more rapidly.

I would also like a model where there are diminishing returns from RGO's. And people would migrate (if possible) to the RGO's with highest returns. Gone be the "slots".

That would have a few nice consequences:
- There would be a limit to the number of persons that can work (efficiently=earn their living) in RGO's. This would naturally depend on the value of RGO.
- Even if the RGO's are not "full" (income<=expenses), people would seek to migrate to areas with better income.

 

[henryjai]

Agree totally. I furthermore think that Vic1 game mechanics was so that you would, in a historical sense, care too much for your POP. Because POP was too scarce a resource. Population growth should be fast, so that there are too much "rabble" around and countries cannot provide a living to all. To balance this (so that total pop would not expand too fast) they should also die of hunger etc. more rapidly.

I would also like a model where there are diminishing returns from RGO's. And people would migrate (if possible) to the RGO's with highest returns. Gone be the "slots".

That would have a few nice consequences:
- There would be a limit to the number of persons that can work (efficiently=earn their living) in RGO's. This would naturally depend on the value of RGO.
- Even if the RGO's are not "full" (income<=expenses), people would seek to migrate to areas with better income.

The vicky mechanics DID represent that (try tax your poor @ 100%), just people don't run out of food for the richer nations. wacko

 

[Variton]

The vicky mechanics DID represent that (try tax your poor @ 100%), just people don't run out of food for the richer nations. wacko

Yep. Tried that, although there was no shortage of money... So one had to forcefully drain the poor out of their money to make them move (did some of them die too??). But there was no real incentive to do that because those workers were much needed to man the RGO's (which you could always expand) and factories. All of the games I played I had worker shortage as the most pressing matter.

 

[henryjai]

did some of them die too??

I suppose yes, or else I can't find another explaination of negative growth. But probably they'll revolt and kill you

 

[unmerged(199559)]

But as POPs become wealthier and move up in the social scale, they have historically had less children on average than previous, poorer generations. This was seen in Western Europe as early as 1900 (and earlier in France) so that even before WWI there was a good deal of public debate over the slowing rate of population growth.

This is what VIP models with that event, it's not just something we came up with out of thin air, but ties to a nation's level of technological advancement, so that it only fired for advanced industrial nations.

not quite..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lindbergh have fun counting the kids.

Nah, fewer kids come from lower wages and long hours, and by such bad incomes and high costs that both husband and wife have to work.
The poor breed well, not bcause they are poor.. but because they have no jobs.

 

[Aeon221]

not quite..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lindbergh have fun counting the kids.

Nah, fewer kids come from lower wages and long hours, and by such bad incomes and high costs that both husband and wife have to work.
The poor breed well, not bcause they are poor.. but because they have no jobs.

Wow, you should really hand over the mind reading device that allowed you to determine that.

I find that I personally can make time for both sex and a job! I'm guessing that many low wage workers can as well, seeing as they have the same 9 to 5 hours that I do! And since back then plenty of lower income employed people were pumping out babies like there was no tomorrow (or at least no condoms!) despite really long hours, I doubt even that part of your comment is true.

We almost always see low incomes correlated with high birth rates -- hence the traditional Dickensian stereotype of the massive poor family -- and higher incomes correlated with low birth rates -- hence the single child aristocratic families. Why? Who the heck knows!

I'm going to guess that aristocrats had plenty of time to get their sexy on, so what's your explanation there? Whip out the mind reading device plox!


Descriptive statistics only provides vague answers unless you include every possible variable and then eliminate the useless ones, as there are plenty of covariant terms that wouldn't normally be apparent if all you're doing is spitballing. We don't have the ability to say that people did this BECAUSE of that, only that people who did this also happened to do that. You need a controlled experiment to establish causality and, unfortunately, I can't seem to get a grant to do an experiment about the effects of income and sex.

Stupid government, refusing to pay for my orgies.

 

[unmerged(138342)]

In my opinion population growth is not so much tied to standad of living, but to emancipation of women. Access to higher education and better jobs led to fewer births.

 

[wilcoxchar]

not quite..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lindbergh have fun counting the kids.

Nah, fewer kids come from lower wages and long hours, and by such bad incomes and high costs that both husband and wife have to work.
The poor breed well, not bcause they are poor.. but because they have no jobs.

Umm... wow, maybe you should actually look at more than one case to base your decision off of. Like, say, the correlation between GDP per capita and fertility rate for today's countries.