Migration/immigration?

[rustyrockets]

After we build a new city .How are people going to come in the city.

Most of the citybuilders till date just simulates that people just show up in huge numbers after you start the city and keep coming into your city , if they are happy or have jobs.

I think The number of people allowed in a city ,should be limited according to the capacity of the transportation networks from the outside world.

Like if you have 1 airport and capacity of 500 people a day , then that should be the maximum number of people coming in a day.You should not be allowed to have your population increase by 10,000 in 1 day , just beacuse you have the space.

I don't know if that can be done , but it will allow for a more realistic city building and infrastructure development motivations.

And it can also integrate policy making in it , where you can totally block outside people coming into your city , to stop inflation or rise in land value or strain on your existing infrastructure.

What do you guys think about that?

 

[delpiero1234]

What you say sounds like a good idea but then I have no idea about Cities: Skylines :ninja:

 

[cshmech]

haha.. you will have a slooooowwww city building experience then.. OR you will always be on cheetah mode ??

 

[rustyrockets]

haha.. you will have a slooooowwww city building experience then.. OR you will always be on cheetah mode ??

Well i think , That will depend upon how you manage your transport infrastructure.So at the beggining , If you just have a train connection , it can easily bring you a 1000 or so people . But as you progress , it will depend upon how you build you networks to Properly manage and take as many people you want in a day.Lets say if u have a big airport , you can have maybe 20-50 flights a day , which is easily about 10000 people or so , then you have ships , trains maybe buses and highways.

I just think , it will make it a little more complex and interesting , than people just appearing in thousands everytime , you have a new house..

But again i am not sure ,If that's something that most of the people will like or not or could be introduced in game at all.

 

[haymosdude]

I have always found it funny that even with high taxes and unhappines people still came into my city if I built new houses in other city sims. Perhaps you need to start with low taxes as an attractive point and work opportunities. In Tropico (the game) the amount of immigrants that immigrate to your island depend on the salary compared to other islands, workplaces available, happiness of people. The better those figures the more immigrants you get. You can also build an immigration office where you can set policies to either block immigrants completely, or only allow educated immigrants in.

 

[TheDorne]

Don't agree with this just keep the game simple.

 

[rustyrockets]

I have always found it funny that even with high taxes and unhappines people still came into my city if I built new houses in other city sims. Perhaps you need to start with low taxes as an attractive point and work opportunities. In Tropico (the game) the amount of immigrants that immigrate to your island depend on the salary compared to other islands, workplaces available, happiness of people. The better those figures the more immigrants you get. You can also build an immigration office where you can set policies to either block immigrants completely, or only allow educated immigrants in.

Ya the immigration policy in tropico was interesting , because it had depth.

 

[cd concept]

I have always found it funny that even with high taxes and unhappines people still came into my city if I built new houses in other city sims. Perhaps you need to start with low taxes as an attractive point and work opportunities. In Tropico (the game) the amount of immigrants that immigrate to your island depend on the salary compared to other islands, workplaces available, happiness of people. The better those figures the more immigrant6s you get. You can also build an immigration office where you can set policies to either block immigrants completely, or only allow educated immigrants in.

.

I think all the policies that were put forward are good. Yes it would make game move slow and tedious . But sometimes you have to anylize things to better yourself in the future of the game. You can always speed the mode up while going through the motion after.

 

[rustyrockets]

.

I think all the policies that were put forward are good. Yes it would make game move slow and tedious . But sometimes you have to anylize things to better yourself in the future of the game. You can always speed the mode up while going through the motion after.

Totally agree. Depth always increases the playbality of any game for longer periods

 

[Metropolitan]

Indeed, I agree that connexions with the outside world should sustain the city growth. I don't know if the good way to achieve so is to link it to the immigration pace though.

I definitely agree transportation infrastructures such as rail stations, airports and harbors should be made necessary to allow your city to develop to the next stage. For instance, your city can devellop fine at the initially stage being only connected to a single motorway... but once it reaches a certain level of population (let's assume 20,000 people), then a regional rail service or a better motorway connexion is necessary. And once the population hits 100,000 people, then an airport or a bigger rail station is necessary.

The true difficulty is that, accroding to the country we live in, we all have strongly different perceptions of what infastructures are decisive or not. Americans will consider rail stations unnecessary because their system only rely on motorways and airports (low density population country), but Europeans or Japanese will consider rail stations as being decisive for any further development (higher density population country). On the other side, cities being located on islands will obviously have smaller interests on land connexions and will prioritize sea or air connexions. Another kind of development which is often overlooked is about high-speed rail connexions, which is another alternative to airports.

That's why I believe that instead of "forcing" the player to build a specific kind of infrastructure, it would give him more freedom to determine an overall passengers/visitors capacity number, and let him decide which infrastructure could allow him to reach it. The further growth of the city should indeed rely on that connexion capacity with the outside world, no matter if it is through motorways, rails, airports or even harbors. There could also be several levels of connexions for the matter... let's say regional, national and international. In such a way that, at a certain stage (let's assume 1 million people), an airport really becomes mandatory, but not before.

 

[rustyrockets]

Indeed, I agree that connexions with the outside world should sustain the city growth. I don't know if the good way to achieve so is to link it to the immigration pace though.

I definitely agree transportation infrastructures such as rail stations, airports and harbors should be made necessary to allow your city to develop to the next stage. For instance, your city can devellop fine at the initially stage being only connected to a single motorway... but once it reaches a certain level of population (let's assume 20,000 people), then a regional rail service or a better motorway connexion is necessary. And once the population hits 100,000 people, then an airport or a bigger rail station is necessary.

The true difficulty is that, accroding to the country we live in, we all have strongly different perceptions of what infastructures are decisive or not. Americans will consider rail stations unnecessary because their system only rely on motorways and airports (low density population country), but Europeans or Japanese will consider rail stations as being decisive for any further development (higher density population country). On the other side, cities being located on islands will obviously have smaller interests on land connexions and will prioritize sea or air connexions. Another kind of development which is often overlooked is about high-speed rail connexions, which is another alternative to airports.

That's why I believe that instead of "forcing" the player to build a specific kind of infrastructure, it would give him more freedom to determine an overall passengers/visitors capacity number, and let him decide which infrastructure could allow him to reach it. The further growth of the city should indeed rely on that connexion capacity with the outside world, no matter if it is through motorways, rails, airports or even harbors. There could also be several levels of connexions for the matter... let's say regional, national and international. In such a way that, at a certain stage (let's assume 1 million people), an airport really becomes mandatory, but not before.

True nothing should be mandatory. I just think there should be a good system of , what is your connection capacity and how many people can come to your city at a time , wether it be train ,air ,water or any.

 

[WilfriedWebber]

Americans will consider rail stations unnecessary because their system only rely on motorways and airports (low density population country), but Europeans or Japanese will consider rail stations as being decisive for any further development (higher density population country).

While this is certainly true for personal transport, I could think that US industry relies much more strongly on railways while European companies favour road transport, which is why some Euro countries try to encourage, or force, goods transport to use rail instead of road.

 

[Metropolitan]

While this is certainly true for personal transport, I could think that US industry relies much more strongly on railways while European companies favour road transport, which is why some Euro countries try to encourage, or force, goods transport to use rail instead of road.

You're right. I was focusing too much on passengers but freight should also be considered.