|Previous Thread:||Public Service Announcement. (Golden Rainbow)|
|Next Thread:||Security Council (Little Upsilon)|
| Saturday, October 8, 2011 - 11:39 pm |
No, actually, David and I both gave reasons for this happening. Of course we cannot be certain because we do not have the data from your country. You, however, can check for yourself. The things you named (welfare, employment, birth/deaths) are not the things you should be looking at. Check these:
1. 0-4 age group and click on the icon to see if it is stable.
2. A bubble in older age groups (probably at, near, or past your life expectancy)
3. Your health index and life expectancy.
| Sunday, October 9, 2011 - 02:31 am |
0-4 age is stable. Hardly moving.
Life expect - 62. Spike appears round 65 - 70.
Index 123. :/
| Sunday, October 9, 2011 - 04:25 am |
regardless of the acutal outcome of high population countries. you can't explain or reason for the increase vs death rate/birth rate.
expect a fix?
| Sunday, October 9, 2011 - 04:58 am |
I believe it works like this:
The algorithms were put in-place long ago to ensure that, once a country reaches approximately 60M+ population, death rate exceeds birth rate. This was done to ensure that no countries got too big.
Recently the GMs took the decision that such a limitation was no longer necessary, but instead of changing the birth / death algorithm, they implemented a 'fix' that tops up the number of 0-4 year-olds to stop the population shrinkage. Thus it does not feature on the birth / death statistics.
However, there is another complication around Health Index and retirement bubbles which also affects the figures. As your Health Index increases, people live longer, and you have more retired people. The death rate then increases, as these people have to die eventually, so the birth / death fix also increases the number of 0-4 year-olds to compensate.
I have no figures to back this up, just years of experience and gut instinct. If anyone can provide a more accurate explanation, please do so.
Hugs and respect
| Sunday, October 9, 2011 - 05:04 am |
Sunny: You found the answer then.
Jo: I think you are exactly right about how they fixed the old population cap. I think it just important to know the birth/death numbers are not the ones to look at. The reason doesn't make much difference.
| Sunday, October 9, 2011 - 08:53 am |
Thanks for your theory Jo.
Next step would be a GM's input i think
| Sunday, October 9, 2011 - 09:06 am |
And a fix of the birth/death rates so people aren't mislead.
| Sunday, October 9, 2011 - 10:11 am |
Sometimes, i ate this game.
Drives me nuts.
I ate it!!!
| Sunday, October 9, 2011 - 12:07 pm |
Population growth was originally unlimited. However, it was very, very, very, very, very slow. That all changed, plus of bit of this and that and some more. And no nobody asked "Where are my peons!?!" again.
But a cap should be put in place, for the same reason one was put in four years ago. Balance the game. Either that or screw with the active population ratio. It is twice the evil and thrice the laughs.