Avoid Growth blocks New Population #12348
Conversation
|
This implementation hard-blocks pop growth it seems, which is only relevant when at -10 happiness, it doesn't adress the Pareto-efficiency issue discussed. When unhappy, we often don't want to prevent population growth, but instead reprioritize our tile yields to take into account the growth penalty. |
|
We already account for the Unhappiness as a huge Food penalty in the tile evaluation. Players though sometimes want to not gain more Pop and micromanage to get 0Food. This would save them the hassle and still get to work tiles even if they produce a few extra Food than Starvation. |
|
My stance on this 100% is "this discussion needs to happen on discord, not here". Whether it's through a poll or whatnot. This has potential gameplay applications that are potentially relevant, and it might have various mod applications (both good and bad, intentional and unintentional). There's also no technical limitations that makes this mandatory (similar to me making upgrading units take separate turns for each upgrade instead of skipping, despite a poll), nor is there a seemingly unintentional oversight/bug (past civ 4, no other Civ game lets you mechanically remove growth) Until such a conversation is had, I would be against. I think it should instead be a unique intended to be in the modOptions |
Ideally, the Default citizen assignement should distinguish between being at -9 or -1 happiness, and adjust the food penalty accordingly. Then Avoid Growth can do as you propose, in cases where people want cities to not gain pop for whatever reason. I changed my mind on this.
Also true, but people tend to report it, as the description ("avoiding growth") doesn't entirely match with the behaviour (valueing growth at 0, but not technically avoiding it). |
That's fair, and people can report it as they see fit. But the discussion still needs to be actually be had, not just assumed, just like any other mechanical hard coded change. If this was done through unique, then at least we can just ignore the topic and at least someone will have a mod of this as a separate "option" |
They do report it though: |
|
Only one of those links are an actual report that avoid growth doesn't work as they felt it should, while the rest are requests for clarification. And none of them are an actual conversation, which is what I'm requesting. I'm requesting explicitly either a poll or a legit conversation (likely a poll is ideal, but I would take either at least for me to say for what people actually want |
|
Also I find it a bit suspicious of this being such a problem if we can only really find 6 or so mentions of it on the server. I can't even really find a discussion on it on GitHub either besides #10840 (comment) |
The third link is indeed maybe more of an inquiry rather that a report, but the first two definitely look like reports to me (you could maybe find more by looking further into the server history). The fifth link I send seems worth investigating furter. @itanasi, did you test how this function behaves in Civ5? Also, keep in mind that most players seem totally oblivious to something as fundamental as growth/citizen assignement; they let the AI manage them and don't notice anything odd, unless the city is actively starving. |
Breaks from Civ5 baseline behavior, but would provide more control for players to not get into unhappiness spirals