Simcountry is a multiplayer Internet game in which you are the president, commander in chief, and industrial leader. You have to make the tough decisions about cutting or raising taxes, how to allocate the federal budget, what kind of infrastructure you want, etc..
  Enter the Game

Population Limitations (Little Upsilon)

Topics: Suggestions: Population Limitations (Little Upsilon)

slocketer (Little Upsilon)

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 - 01:09 am Click here to edit this post
1. Reduce the effects of the population limitations in countries. I think that these limitations are a bit ridiculous, especially when comparing them to real world countries. For example, China, which has the largest population of over 1 Billion citizens still continues to grow despite such a humongous population. In simcountry, around 80 M people are allowed in a country before population starts to decrease (1 Billion vs 80 Million?) Quite a difference.
If you take my country, New York for example, I have about an 81-83 Million population. And a health index of around 130 (but you can check me on that). Yet each month I continually lose 30,000 people. This causes insane shortages of workers each month.
1. Increase pop. limitation to 100 M
2. Don't cause a decrease in pop. (make it simply not grow or decrease) --This isnt realistic, but neither is the pop limitation. Imaginary problems =imaginary solutions
3. Find some other way to prevent worker shortages in such cases


Brespus (White Giant)

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 - 05:57 am Click here to edit this post
China with its billion people would be looked on as a super county in the SimCountry world. In order to build your own China, you would need multiple smaller countries (or provinces) all of which would be part of a larger economic (common market) and political (federation) base.

If you look at some of the most successful players in the game, they have almost built their own China within the context of the game rules.

Angus88 (Little Upsilon)

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 - 07:05 am Click here to edit this post
If you allowed unlimited population, then W3C could start losing money. And we know they aren't going to let that happen.

Zyna (Golden Rainbow)

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 - 05:10 pm Click here to edit this post
If you want a large empire, you should take more countries. Fitting a billion people into one of these would be like squeezing a billion people into Afghanistan or something; it doesn't make much sense.

And a lot of countries in the real world are experiencing population decreases as we speak, so I don't think it's so unrealistic

slocketer (Little Upsilon)

Friday, June 20, 2008 - 05:13 pm Click here to edit this post
When I said China could fit a billion people, I wasnt actually implying that W3C should let everyone have a billion people in their country.
I was simply saying that the pop. shouldnt simply start declining when you reach 80M because it causes really big shortage problems and because it isnt very realistic. Instead they should make it so that the pop. grows little by little like it normally does. This won't really create a large population. However, to prevent large populations just prevent people from buying pop. in a country once they hit a certain limit.
Which while I think should be about 100M could still be 80M.
Sorry, I realize that I was kinda unclear

John Fire (Fearless Blue)

Friday, June 20, 2008 - 09:24 pm Click here to edit this post
Do you realize the size of the countries here? I could be wrong, but i remember reading somewhere that the approximate size of a country is 200x300km, making for an area of 60,000km. If you fit 80,000,000 people in that the density would be 1334 people per square km. The average population density of the world is 45 people per square km, and China with 1.3B has an average density of 138 ppl/ India has 1.1B people with an average density of 336 ppl/ If China was in SC, then those 1.3B people would reside in approximately 157 Countries. If India was in SC, those 1.1B people would reside in approximately 55 Countries.

It is quite realistic for population to decline at 80M considering that RL countries with this kind of density are either grossly overpopulated or primarily metropolitan areas. Population density, not numbers should be considered before comparing SC population ratios to RL coutries.

Edit: The closest comparison of a RL country to SC would be Bangladesh with a density of 1,045 ppl/ and population of 150M. This density would make the population equate to around 2.5 countries.

FarmerBob (Little Upsilon)

Sunday, June 22, 2008 - 05:14 am Click here to edit this post
Very true, John. The developers have to balance "realism" with meeting the desires of new players and vets alike. A tall order.
Try expanding to GR, Slocketer, and see how big some players can get. :D


Monday, June 23, 2008 - 05:36 am Click here to edit this post
I realize your point about realism. But you have to realize that this game is seriously far from real.
For example, random shortages caused by the gm are created every few real days. In addition, in the real world the 55 countries that India would make up would be sharing workers, resources, etc...
As a result, my point about how population decreases within large pop. countries would be a moot point.
Seeing as this game is not real, sometimes you need to make up some sort of unrealistic solution.
In a perfect, world I would suggest that Wc3 instead of keeping countries separate, combine them into one humongous country. However, this would be incredibly hard to do and they have already declined to add it on several occasions.
I was simply trying to suggest a solution to the worker shortages that have plagued this game for so long. In my opinion it isnt really a fun part of the game to have to manage these shortages, I find them quite annoying. And seeing as massive worker shortages dont occur in the real world as often as they do in simcountry. I would say that an unrealistic solution might be necessary.
This was the only idea i could think of.

John Fire (Fearless Blue)

Monday, June 23, 2008 - 08:22 am Click here to edit this post
My empire on GR was able to go through a period of several RL months with only a few minor worker shortages (as in a few thousand). Not due to some incredible micro-management but I kept a buffer of workers and kept my population growing at all times (high health index and transferring the excess).

Random worker shortages are NOT created by the GM every few days. You are proposing an extremely unrealistic (game-wise) solution by saying that some minor situations are annoying and unrealistic (RL-wise). There is no need to combine countries or allow greater population because of a few worker shortages.

You want a larger country, bring up that health index. It is pretty low (I myself have 160 in my 62M pop country). You want fewer worker shortages and stibility in the workforce, don't set extreme numbers in Education Priorities (keep above 4 and below 20). It is not the fault of the game that you have worker shortages and your population is declining, there are plenty of things that can be easily done to correct this in the long term and short term.

The system is fine as it is now. If it is large worker shortages you have a problem with why are you not asking for an increase in the number of workers that can be exchanged each month.

slocketer (Little Upsilon)

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 - 01:24 am Click here to edit this post
How would keeping education priorities between 4 and 20 help?
wouldn't that just make it so there are more LLW, MLW, and HLW?

Keith Allaire

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 - 07:13 am Click here to edit this post
No, the total number of ALL education priorities is what affects how many workers the education system educates, IIRC.

What John R means is try not to set one priority to 99 for a few months or a game year for immediate professionals, because the massive influx of graduates in the aforementioned emphasized profession will become a demographic bubble later.

Setting individual education priorities within a moderate range helps to ensure that the number of graduates to a profession remains somewhat stable and thus provides some measure of protection against demographic bubbles.

Angus88 (Little Upsilon)

Wednesday, July 2, 2008 - 07:08 am Click here to edit this post
I think W3C has created a system in which they can not effectively regulate. Every attempt they make to correct problems creates several other problems.

All they really seam to do is destroy ways a country can become successful, then put in place a bunch of interventionist options which practically make the game play its self because countries aren't successful.

Realistically speaking incredibly high population densities are achievable, Mumbai has a population density of 29,650 per square km. On earth we could if we really wanted to is build a skyscraper a square kilometer of land and build it as tall as it could support human life, fitting it with rooms the size of closets. We don't because no one is that purely capitalistic on earth (or in their right mind admit that they were), and no one in their right mind would live there. But SC is purely capitalistic, there are no real benefits for providing you virtual people a high quality of life (the welfare index has very little impact when compared to paying higher wages), you don't need to worry about revolutions or elections, they have to award additional awards just as an incentive for you to provide social services.

To me the governing part of the game seams so unfinished, and they just seam to only focus on the military aspect now. I guess it does take much more effort to code the government aspects though.

John Fire (Golden Rainbow)

Wednesday, July 2, 2008 - 09:06 am Click here to edit this post
With a high population density, it would mean that the country is highly urbanized which would decrease cropland significantly. Look at my example of Bangladesh, they hardly have enough to FEED their populace and this country is most comparable to an SC empire.

btw... if you fail to provide a minimum of social services there are supposed to be revolts.


Sunday, September 29, 2013 - 01:38 am Click here to edit this post
a President Ought to be able to take his Feature key
onto Vacations and "visits of State"!
with a Long Term finance in mind of course. To those of you who know us from Hay venue of Baltic, on White Giant.

Star Foth

Sunday, September 29, 2013 - 09:49 pm Click here to edit this post
Just my OCD opinion:

It's actually because each country is about 100x100 miles. It needs to be buffed and ranges. Like 700x700 and ranges x7'd accordingly.

Honestly, I just prefer it to be that way. I dun know why I have some 60M people in a 100x100 nation.

ian Cameron

Monday, September 30, 2013 - 02:23 am Click here to edit this post
I say we go with James the fair's Idea and allow countries to be unified into one. Because as we've gone over Britain's empire spanned all kinds of different areas of the world and they became Britain's protectorates, and not part of Britain. Andy said this was the realistic thing and is why you can't do it in the game (combing countries that is), but your forgetting about annexation.

Annexation (Latin ad, to, and nexus, joining) is the permanent acquisition and incorporation of some territorial entity into another geo-political entity (either adjacent or non-contiguous).[1] Usually, it is implied that the territory and population being annexed is the smaller, more peripheral, and weaker of the two merging entities, barring physical size. It can also imply a certain measure of coercion, expansionism or unilateralism on the part of the stronger of the merging entities.

Like Britian did to Scotland (ye bastards will feel our wrath sooner or later) and tried to do to Ireland, countries in the real world can annex other small or equal in size or even larger in size into themselves to increase their own size. If my country *Empire of Metudela* wanted to invade their current "RP ally" *The Independent State of Vibressa* and conquer them then Metudela should be able to annex Vibressa instead of them just becoming a protectorate.

Of course this can have certain rules. If your main country is connected to a country by land and you invade this country you can annex it and then you can do the same to any country it's connected to (Metudela >> Vibressa). And then there is protectorate (the current way) where say Metudela wanted to take Pozana a country that has another country between it and Metudela, if Metudela invades and conquers than unless I have the other country annexed I can only make Pozana a protectorate. And last if I have a protectorate and then annex a country near said protectorate then I can go to the settings of the protectorate and annex it now that is is connected to my main.

BUT..... there will be a special line that still shows the separation of the countries before annexation and instead of loosing the entire large country in a war you only loose the annexed region that was attacked. So for players that have annexed countries their regions get attacked and taken instead of the country. So Metudela would take Vibressa and annex it into The Empire of Metudela but it would be known as the Vibressa region on the war maps.

Empire of Metudela - Metudela Region(Capital)
Empire of Metudela - Vibressa Region
Pozan - Empire of Metudela Protectorate


Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - 03:01 am Click here to edit this post
6ix year old Mex-Diet

Keebir Blue: Have Kent Austin
Contact me Strategically on Air Way
Regs. and Freedom's.

Add a Message