[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Migration (fwd)

[Morgan Jones <morgan.jones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> MOTIVATION
> ----------
> 
> "Migration" is a proposal for a major rule change to Freeciv. It
> would be a significant deparure from the Sid Meier / Bryan Reynolds
> approach to the Civ genre. It is designed to combat the Smallpox /
> ICS problem, and also to be an interesting game mechanic in its own
> right. It should be evaluated in those terms - assuming Freeciv
> developers are willing to make a big leap out of "the typical" way
> Civ is played.
> 
> The core idea is that not all cities are equally desireable to live
> in. A lot of people really don't enjoy living in far-flung farming
> hamlets - as rational a proposition to the military planner as that
> may be. They like the jobs and amenities that big urban centers have
> to offer. Consequently, when a much better quality of life than
> their current circumstances is available, they pick up their stuff
> and move.
> 
> Migrants will even move to the cities of foreign countries, if
> technology, governmental policy, and the military situation permit
> it. Consequently, those civilizations that build big, attractive
> cities have an advantage. The Smallpoxers will have their barbarian
> rabble populations sucked right out of them!
> 
Personally I quite like the idea.  Not a good enough coder to
implement it though :(

 
> DEFINITION OF A MIGRANT
> -----------------------
> 
> A "Migrant" is defined as a unit of 10,000 people. A Migrant is
> equivalent in population size to a Settler. However, a Migrant has
> no ability to create a city. It can only split off from cities and
> join the population of other cities.

I don't like the idea of migrants as a unit.  Why can't the shift
happen automatically via a message along the lines of:

Better opportunities in CityX has lead to a migration of N people from CityY

We don't need to see the movement, it would just clutter up the map.

> OTHER CORE RULE CHANGES
> -----------------------
> 
> Some other basic rule changes needed to make this work:
> 
> --> Settlers can no longer be used to increase a city's size by 1.
> If a Settler is added to a city, it only increases the city's food
> boxes by 10 units. That is because a Settler is only 10,000 people.
> The current Civ / Freeciv system is absurd, where a cheap Settler
> becomes worth an arbitrary number of foodboxes if a player is
> sufficiently bureaucratic and micromanagerial with his unit
> production.
> 
Not sure I like this though.  It should still be possible to force
resettlement of your people, just as long as it's still expensive
(shield production, etc) to do so.

I do see your point though and it makes sense.  Maybe the population
number should represent a linear scale?  

> --> Population booms due to Celebrations in Republics and
> Democracies will no longer happen. All cities must grow normally.
> Instead, Republics and Democracies get a Quality Of Life bonus for
> all their cities. Also they have the usual financial advantages,
> which can be good for sprouting up attractive city facilities in a
> hurry. Removing Celebrations doesn't actually change Republican /
> Democratic strategy all that much. Instead of happy citizens
> automagically appearing, Migrants simply gravitate towards these
> better cities. And there's nothing stopping a Monarch from doing the
> same thing, just building more Cathederals to make up for the fact
> that his empire enjoys no Quality Of Life bonus.
> 
> 
> MIGRANT RULES
> -------------
> 
> Migrants do not require any kind of support. Migrants have the
> nationality of the city they came from. Migrants are subject to zone
> of control rules, but do not exert a zone of control themselves.
> Usual movement rules apply for moving in the same hex as a Migrant.
> If you're the owning civilization or an ally, you can. If you are at
> peace, in a cease-fire, or at war, you cannot. Thus, foreign
> Migrants do take up physical space and can get in the way of things
> you want to do.
> 
> Migrants can be *killed*, even by the owning civilization. If done
> within sight of one of your owning cities, it will cause unrest in
> that city. If done within sight of a foreign city, or under a shared
> vision arrangement, it may be regarded as an Atrocity. This would
> depend on several governmental and diplomatic factors. Even if a
> foreign government frequently commits such Atrocities itself, it may
> want to use the atrocities *you* commit as propaganda.
> 
> Migrants can be *ordered to return home*. Migrants generally don't
> want to go home, so when ordered to return home, several factors
> will be considered. One is whether the situation that caused them to
> leave has improved or not - would they still be better off living
> somewhere else? Another is inherent Resentment that they've been so
> ordered. "'Cuz civilization should be free!" :-) Another is Fear of
> the military unit ordering them to return home. Another is whether
> they're on home soil, international waters, uncharted wilderness, or
> foreign soil. And, who's giving the orders? The ruthless Despot of
> their home country, or some nice foreign Democrats? Depending on
> these factors, a unit may meekly return to their home city, go to
> another city of the same nationality, attempt to sneak away to a
> foreign city, or outright ignore the order.

This is a lot of micromanagement that would be made unnecessary by not
having migrants as units.

It would be better to have government types automatically handling
this - i.e. some govs allow migration to happen better than others. 
This already covers rapture.  Formalize this as a migration mechanic.

I like the realism of the migration idea but it still needs to be
implemented in a simple way.

> REFUGEES
> --------
> 
> Migrants that are attacked and survive become *Refugees*. Refugees
> do not exert a zone of control, but nobody can enter the hex they're
> in except other Refugees. Thus they get in the way of *everybody*.
> City tiles that have Refugees on them do not produce resources! Too
> many bodies in the way, desperate and trying to live off the land.
> Refugees can be created when a city is attacked and the defenders
> lose. Instead of just arbitrary population decrease by 1, some
> foodboxes are lost (i.e. killed) and some Refugees are sprouted. It
> is a completely legitimate military tactic to clog an enemy with
> one's own refugees, or the refugees of the country you're attacking.
> This actually happened regularly in Grozny, Bosnia, Afghanistan,
> etc.
> 
> Refugees can be granted *asylum*. If the Refugees accept asylum,
> then the granting player can now move through them freely, and the
> Refugees move towards the player's cities for settlement. However,
> the Refugees may not want asylum from that player! Like, between
> Hitler and Stalin, who are you gonna choose? Probably you try to
> flee West and surrender to the Western democracies!

There's another thread somewhere discussing the idea of refegees. 
Though I like the idea it's opponents are right in saying there is a
lot of micromanagement involved.

I wouldn't bother with this extension right now.  Get the migration
itself working smoothly first. 

> IMPLEMENTATION
> --------------

> Comments welcome.
> 
Migration is quite similar in some ways to culture from Civ3.  But
there is a key difference I feel.

Cathedrals and other happiness style improvements shouldn't cause
migration.  Migration should simply be caused by opportunity -
production, infrastructure, etc.

Happiness improvements should still be needed to keep the citizens of
growing cities happy or content, but they shouldn't be the cause of
that growth.

There is an argument that people would shift because of things of
religious freedom and the likes.  This is handled by the culture model
and I guess I'd quite like to see both migration and culture
implemented:  they'd play off each other quite well.

Migration handles the shift of population while culture handles how
well the new population integrates.

Example:

The Mesopotamian player's city Uruk has become a sprawling metropolis
with lots of opportunity and production and the infrastructure to
support it.

The nearby city of Larsa isn't doing so well and migrants are
attracted away to Uruk.  Uruk has quite strong culture, and has
exerted it's cultural influence on Larsa for some time.  The new
migrants integrate well.

However still not to far away the Hittite empire isn't doing so well. 
It's frontier city Mersin is struggling and some of it's people decide
to migrate to Uruk - the city of opportunity, Hittite king be damned.
However Uruk has not exerted such a strong cultural influence on
Mersin and that cultural influence is competing with the influence of
other Hittite cities.

Therefore Uruk's new immigrants don't settle too well and perhaps
start off as unhappy if Uruk's happiness improvements aren't up to the
task.

Anyway I'm getting a bit off topic now so I'll stop.

     -Morgan