Moquel,
I think the vacancies and underemployment bonuses are mistakes.
You see, I had let a city's sentiment run down until the people started leaving in droves. Suddenly, the city sentiment changed from "very annoyed" to "indifferent." I interpreted this as being due to the huge shortfall in workers (if unemployment causes a sentiment penalty, why shouldn't a worker shortage give a bonus?).
But I think what I saw was something different; what I didn't realize was that for populations between 200 and 300, the sentiment is always "indifferent." Further work determined that what I thought was an effect due to houses filling up was actually the population increasing to 200.
I've amended the table accordingly.
Most of the data was derived from a test city of 396 people; but when I withdrew food, I think my population may have fallen into the area where the "small population cap" gives out.
Hmmm. That means that the result of withdrawing food will be bad, since the population will have dropped below 300...
I'm taking out the food/entertainment thing, until it can be verified.
JWorth,
My block had physician and police coverage. When it had entertainment and food, the entertainment was a bandstand with entertainers. (Overkill, but I was fighting unemployment!)
Bradius,
You will notice that crime indicators rise much faster when city sentiment is low. I think crime is a side effect of city sentiment, not a contributing factor to it.
--Jimhotep
[This message has been edited by Jimhotep (edited 05-06-2000).]