Immigration/Emigration

[Lottario]

One thing I really like about this game is that the placement of a nation on the map matters.  What I'd like to see is the use of the map expanded, giving a greater overall impact on the game, and causing more player interaction.  So what I would suggest is this:

 

Each nation has a "circle of influence" on the map, with its radius tied to the number of nations in the game (as the game grows in size, the radius shrinks).

 

Decisions nations within your circle of influence make have an effect on your nations population.  Two examples (and I would ask everyone to add more and expand/modify these):

 

1) If my nation has a high level of pollution, some of this carries over to nations within my circle of influence.  My polluting the environment causes a certain percentage of their citizens to emigrate to a nation within their circle of influence with a better environment.  Thus, I've just caused tension with my neighbours, and they either need to live with it, discuss fixing the problem with me, or bomb the pollution away/me into cooperating.

 

2) The size of militaries of nations in your war range, in your sphere of influence should also have an effect (unless they are in your alliance).  So if I have the largest military of the nations in my war range in my circle, my forces provide a feeling of safety to my citizens, making them stay, as well as drawing citizens away from nations within my circle.  Do this enough, and I'll annoy my neighbours into taking military action against me to protect their economies.

 

Probably cap the emigration rate at 20% or somewhere around there.  Enough to make the effect noticeable and cause tension between neighbours who aren't cooperating, but not enough to completely cripple a nation.  Also, something may have to be done to prevent alliances from stacking their nations on top of each other for this to work.

[naTia]

I like this idea but I already see problems.

 

1) I believe that this is dandy, but the emigration might not always go to the person with the better environment. I think that disease, crime rate, and wages would be a larger factor than the amount of pollution. I am not disregarding pollution, but I do not think it would be the number one thing on (many) peoples' minds.

 

2) This could be detrimental to newer nations that are still within the war range of say a raider because they just happened to choose the wrong spot on the map. Also, before this would proceed I would like to better understand is the war range requirement for two nations or just one? For example, if my nation could not attack yours, but you could attack mine, would you still affect me and would I still affect you?

[TheNG]

1) If my nation has a high level of pollution, some of this carries over to nations within my circle of influence.  My polluting the environment causes a certain percentage of their citizens to emigrate to a nation within their circle of influence with a better environment.  Thus, I've just caused tension with my neighbours, and they either need to live with it, discuss fixing the problem with me, or bomb the pollution away/me into cooperating.

 

 

I don't think this rests on particularly sound logic, especially if you're trying to create inter-nation tension. Allow me to give an example.

Nation A is a decently new nation, lets say with a couple 500 infra cities. Since it is newer, it focuses mainly on resource production and refinement, such improvements take up a majority of its slots, which naturally means it is going to have high pollution levels. Nation B is a bit older, and has moved onto a more commerce focused build, which means it has less pollution.

 

By your system, since Nation A has more pollution, its citizens begin moving en masse to Nation B. Now for Nation B, this is great news. It is essentially getting free population, which in this game translates to more money for it. Nation B has no reason to dislike Nation A for its pollution, in fact it has a good reason to want it to be more polluted. For Nation A on the other hand, they are stuck in a bit of a bind, they can either:

1. Do nothing and continue to lose population they need to make money to Nation B.

2. Spend a lot of money on pollution reducing improvements, which may stop the flow of population, but will hurt financially, both with purchasing costs and maintenance, only making an unsustainable money situation worse.

3. Sell a lot of resource buildings and go commerce, which can also be very costly early, and seems like unnecessary pigeonholing.

 

In other words, Nation A loses whatever way you look at it, and Nation B only gains. There is no way warfare would solve this problem, and this system would only serve to help less polluted nations, while hurting more polluted ones. If you are trying to make pollution sting more, or develop tensions, this isn't the way to do it.

[Grillick]

You all are focusing too much on the single example provided. Pollution doesn't need to be the only factor affecting immigration rates.

[Vincent]

i think people migrate due to many other factors besides pollution for example, tax rate, people obviously prefer a nation with a low tax rate, a nation with higer infra level, assuming higher the level of infra means more developed nation? A nation with low crime rate definately sounds more attractive to me , for me to migrate to.

[Lottario]

I like this idea but I already see problems.

 

1) I believe that this is dandy, but the emigration might not always go to the person with the better environment. I think that disease, crime rate, and wages would be a larger factor than the amount of pollution. I am not disregarding pollution, but I do not think it would be the number one thing on (many) peoples' minds.

 

Those factors could also be considered for sure.  The two scenarios I mentioned were just suggestions of a way this idea could work.  Ideally what I'm after is a way to make location on the map matter more for relations/tension between nations.

 

 

 

2) This could be detrimental to newer nations that are still within the war range of say a raider because they just happened to choose the wrong spot on the map. Also, before this would proceed I would like to better understand is the war range requirement for two nations or just one? For example, if my nation could not attack yours, but you could attack mine, would you still affect me and would I still affect you?

 

I'd say in your scenario, just mine would effect you.  As a nation thats at least 25% bigger, you shouldn't have too much of a problem putting together a stronger military than me.  If you are, then I'm likely having a negative effect on other neighbours as well, so it might be good for a group of you to get together and convince me to decommission troops.

 

I don't think this rests on particularly sound logic, especially if you're trying to create inter-nation tension. Allow me to give an example.

Nation A is a decently new nation, lets say with a couple 500 infra cities. Since it is newer, it focuses mainly on resource production and refinement, such improvements take up a majority of its slots, which naturally means it is going to have high pollution levels. Nation B is a bit older, and has moved onto a more commerce focused build, which means it has less pollution.

 

By your system, since Nation A has more pollution, its citizens begin moving en masse to Nation B. Now for Nation B, this is great news. It is essentially getting free population, which in this game translates to more money for it. Nation B has no reason to dislike Nation A for its pollution, in fact it has a good reason to want it to be more polluted. For Nation A on the other hand, they are stuck in a bit of a bind, they can either:

1. Do nothing and continue to lose population they need to make money to Nation B.

2. Spend a lot of money on pollution reducing improvements, which may stop the flow of population, but will hurt financially, both with purchasing costs and maintenance, only making an unsustainable money situation worse.

3. Sell a lot of resource buildings and go commerce, which can also be very costly early, and seems like unnecessary pigeonholing.

 

In other words, Nation A loses whatever way you look at it, and Nation B only gains. There is no way warfare would solve this problem, and this system would only serve to help less polluted nations, while hurting more polluted ones. If you are trying to make pollution sting more, or develop tensions, this isn't the way to do it.

 

Since a nation is already punished for their own pollution level, I didn't want to hold their pollution level against them twice.  So in your scenario, nation A wouldn't be punished again for their pollution, but nation B would be affected by it.  Nation B wouldn't necessarily lose the population to Nation A, but maybe to Nation C, outside of A's circle of influence.

 

 

So in this mock-up, the yellow nation is polluting heavily.  This drives population away from the purple nation, who is within the yellow nations circle of influence, and to the green nation, who is in the purple nations circle of influence, but not the yellow nations (and is therefore unaffected by the yellow nations pollution).

 

You all are focusing too much on the single example provided. Pollution doesn't need to be the only factor affecting immigration rates.

 

This precisely.  I provided a couple of examples, but I'm more interested in the overall idea, ie using the map to create tensions/talks between nations.

 

 

i think people migrate due to many other factors besides pollution for example, tax rate, people obviously prefer a nation with a low tax rate, a nation with higer infra level, assuming higher the level of infra means more developed nation? A nation with low crime rate definately sounds more attractive to me , for me to migrate to.

 

Tax rate doesn't currently have an effect on the game, so I left that one out, because it would take larger overall modifications to it (if it had an effect on immigration now, everyone could just switch to a far right government with no penalty).  Having infra affect it makes sense, but that would simply benefit the larger nations and hurt the smaller/newer ones, ie not ideal.

 

Crime rate could definitely work with my suggestion though.

Edited October 25, 2014 by Lottario

[WISD0MTREE]

Look at me on the world map (Arabian Peninsula). I'm ready.

[Ollysho]

I definitely think its a good idea to add another level of politics inside alliance politics, so nations talked rather than just massive alliance.

 

But idk... This may have to be worked on a little