Quote:

Goonsquad, the population must be the same for both times. Part of what makes this an interesting challenge.

Edit: I just read the last paragraph again and I take it the first save must be in Feb490BC, not before.

[This message has been edited by goonsquad (edited 08-17-2005 @ 07:08 AM).]

Short answer: First save must be in Feb 490 BC, no later and no earlier

Long answer:

Ideally if you only take 5 years to set up the city and all houses are fully occupied (not the case for you it seems), you could/should be able to start the free run period from that time. More specifically the date of Feb 490 BC could be taken as the absolute last date that you can satisfy all the criteria and start the free run. Having said this, anyone who fills up their houses in 5 years will be at a disadvantage compared to those who take 10 years. As a result, it just makes more sense that I asked everyone to submit their city with a save in Feb 490BC to avoid confusion and "help" people produce a valid entry. Note that if your houses are not full, then you cannot be a position to state that your city will not change, so you would still need to let the housing fill up anyway.

CC and GS:

The population may change even though housing levels do not change if more people die than are born in Jan of any year. Therefore the smallest population must be taken when the houses are required to have full occupancy and are henceforth no longer allowed to either evolve or devolve, which I have picked to be Feb 490 BC. I would have chosen Jan 490 but I preferred to make sure any population discrepancies due to births/deaths (unlikely in only 1o years) were taken care of by immigration before the save. If you were worried about someone using ghosting (at only a 50 year run, ghosting should be minimial but quite possible) to reduce the stated population, the earlier date of 490BC eliminates that concern /wink.

Would anyone mind if I added/noted that if you choose to use towers as a defense that your towers are required to have a working barracks as well? (ie people should not delete their barracks once their towers have ballista's)
If no one minds I'll edit the rules above slightly for the challenge, but I'll give it a few days before I do in case someone can convince me I shouldn't for some reason (like they've already completed their map).

The last Polish contest had to be cancelled because they found some problems in it, so it's a sensible idea to get it beta tested.

Provided CC doesn't favour us with Version 2 of his little epic, I should get time after that.

Although a minimum population does make it harder GS, I would certainly recommend people just try and create a stable city first, and if that works out well, then try to reduce the population on a second go or modification of the city near 490 BC. Trying to do both at once might be unrealistic.

This challenge fools people into complaceny I think. It looks quite easy, until you try it . I will be pleased if I get 5 other people who make a valid attempt at this map. From playing this map, my 4th result was by far my best. The first three differed greatly in appearance and housing levels while the 4th took the best ideas from the previous three.

Results of my 4th city (retirement home)

Population an even 2600 (600 less than my previous best)
Funds in Feb 440 BC - 179396

Employees - 735 (could be reduced slightly to at least 725)
- 3% Unemployment in Feb 440 BC

Total Time spent creating 4th city : Approximately 6 hours play time and 2 hours free run time without me at the computer. Note however, that I have spent a lot of time studying aging effects, such that I pretty much have a feel for it now.

Quoted from Naghite:

Quoted from Naghite:

For the first 3 years, the entertainment venues must continuously have shows. After that they need only receive shows provided there are enough workers. Yes, Colliseums and Amphitheatres must both have 2 continuously working shows during this time.

Houses must be full when the save is made anytime within Feb 490 BC.

I often have difficulties with the ageing of my people. Especially on maps with a larger population.Maybe it just takes me too much time, I don't know. I hope this map will teach me how to get a better hold of my workforce.

[This message has been edited by TheTaxAvoider (edited 08-29-2005 @ 02:43 PM).]

Edit: It hasn't taken long to see the problem. Look like lasting 10 years or less. I've tried below average health and that doesn't work. Too many below working age.

I can see what this is all about, but understanding it well enough to manage it for a 50 year free run, particularly with changes of population not allowed, yes that will take some doing. Good challenge Naghite.

[This message has been edited by goonsquad (edited 08-29-2005 @ 09:43 AM).]

Must all buildings have access to labor throughout the 50-year free run, or just at the time of the save? I assume that the answer is "throughout the free run", since otherwise it would be possible to give some buildings access to labor with temporary houses and delete those houses just before the save, allowing those buildings to lose labor access early in the free run. (This doesn't affect my current design, since all buildings have good access to labor, but if buildings are allowed to lose labor access during the free run then my design is far from optimal.)

I found the time to complete the design in the usual way (giving up sleep), and am pleased with it. If my calculations are correct then the maximum population is 2177, but I'm pretty sure that I can cut that by a few hundreds.

[This message has been edited by Brugle (edited 08-29-2005 @ 04:23 PM).]

As you guessed, all buildings should have access to employees throughout the free run period.

When I first made the map, I thought the winning entry would simply go under 3000. I know I could lose another hundred down from my current best at 2600 to 2500 with a few small changes, but 2177 seems quite a bit lower - I'll be interested in seeing if you are able to get that, or even lower . Under 2K would be phenomenal.

I wonder if Joshofet is going to surface for a shot at this challenge?

P.S. The game I played before C3 was Everquest. I am glad to say I rarely lose sleep over this game (a few hours here and there only) compared to the game fondly nicknamed evercrack

[This message has been edited by Naghite (edited 08-29-2005 @ 10:39 PM).]

I am laughing at myself as my original population guesses were way too high An invalid (but easily fixed) entry just came in under half of my lowest population (I'll anounce the results once the entry has been corrected). A nice looking city that taught me a thing or two.

I'll be very interested to see if someone can come up with anything better.

Wow, under 1300 people (under 1100 plebians)! Don't wait too long to announce the specifics--I'm curious as to what had to be "corrected".

I've finished my redesign, and hope to build my city (with over 2100 people) soon and then see how many people really are required. I had guessed that its minimum population would be between 1400 and 1700, but maybe it'll work with fewer.

Interesting challenge, I have been playing around with it a little and a sub 2000 entry looks "easily" possible. I was only wondering about the stability criterium. The city has to freerun for 50 years, but you would prefer it if it runs for 150+.

If only 50 years are required, storing all commodities for this period would be a possibility, which makes all industry redundant. This makes a huge difference for the design. So far I have been looking at an "infinitely" stable city design. To reach something like 1300 people I only see using a 50-year stock as an option, but I felt that would be against the spirit of the challenge.
As it is your challenge, what's your opinion about it?

Henrium

I designed each of my cities with the thought of the city running indefinitely (ie 1000 years) so all goods were being produced or imported. The entry I just received stored goods and would eventually crash due to lack of goods, but it probably could go 100+ years before running out of goods. Perhaps there should be 2 categories, one which satisfies the listed criteria, and another which adds in that the city (ignoring ghosting) would be stable indefinitely. For now, this challenge should stay as posted, meaning that if you store up goods for 50 years, that would be acceptable. I'd be happy to note any entries that are indefinitely stable as a separate list though.

EDIT: At the bottom of the first post I have added a placement list. Beside TheTaxAvoider's very nice entry I noted it was not indefinitely stable, and beside mine I noted it was. Of course, his population is under half of mine /wink

[This message has been edited by Naghite (edited 08-31-2005 @ 10:19 AM).]

Naghite,
I'm a little surprised at this part:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

I don't mean to disparage your effort. It's interesting to see how many people are needed for a city that meets the requirements and is also almost indefinitely stable. (Likewise, it would be interesting to see how many people are needed for a city that meets the requirements and also feeds everyone or always has all possible shows or never has a worker shortage or has good health or ...)

[This message has been edited by Brugle (edited 08-31-2005 @ 01:53 PM).]

Henrium

It really starts to get tense at 465BC, when all your first workers (who were 20-25 years at 490BC) are starting to retire. That is why you need alot of births between 490BC-485BC.
I was able to improve birthrate with a few methods.
To mention one,
keeping health low is really important. I could really notice the difference at 465BC between a run with full and poor clinic acces for the common houses.

We can discuss it in full detail after the contest ofcourse .

[This message has been edited by TheTaxAvoider (edited 08-31-2005 @ 02:50 PM).]