Way too much pop growth...

[PDiFolco]

Huge pop growth is the only thing in the game that I find un-immersive, because totally unrealistic, and even pretty ludicrous..
The world is full of 25-35 cities <by turn 200, and even desert regions have more than 15 pop!!!
And as more pop = more unrest, the player is enticed to limit growth and make starvation "cures"... Totally backward, a good ruler in Ancient times should strive to have more people, not less!

Historically pop in ancient times didn't grow, or did at times, when all went well, then dwindled when crops were bad, epidemics or natural disasters occured, or when war ravaged the land.
Nothing like this here, pop always grow and grow...

I'd really like to have this part more historical and challenging, with changes like :
- buildings produce so much food you don't even need people to work at it... I think the buiding food prod should be cut 30-50%
- terrain don't matter for food production ... really ? Non plains should have reduced food output (building + people), like Hills x0.8, Forest x0.6, Mountain x0.4, desert x0.3
- Natural events & epidemics shouldn't kill 1 pop but 20-50% of a region pop (with maybe some offsetting bonuses due to Health on epidemics) !
- war should kill people : any region at war could lose pop, and a conquered region should lose significant pop through pillage (and enslavement, currently you *create* pop when winning battles !)
- an option to raze cities should exist too (Carthago delenda est!)
- finally troop recruitment should "cost" pop, as the guys don't come out of air, maybe -1 pop/100 manpower ?

[Ragu777]

- terrain don't matter for food production ... really ? Non plains should have reduced food output (building + people), like Hills x0.8, Forest x0.6, Mountain x0.4, desert x0.3

it affect for pop production as i saw in my games
buildings not affected, but you can't build most of them in non-plain terrains

[Ancient One]

buildings not affected, but you can't build most of them in non-plain terrains

Actually most of them you can. You shouldn't be able to, but you can.

[Southern Hunter]

I agree completely. Needs a rework.

[13obo]

I'm guessing you're not building enough loyalty buildings. Loyalty is easily controlled when you have tier 3 culture buildings like the circus. Yes, they add decadence but if you get say 20 loyalty for 0.5 decadence, you can put those extra citizens to culture (which also gives you loyalty) and offset the penalty.

[vakarr]

You must not have any slave cities, it is particularly easy with cities that have a slave trader for the population to grow too fast for the food production. I have many cities where population growth won't occur in less than 7 turns, and many cities where if I take people away from food production, there is no growth or even negative food. I'm playing as Lysimachid, at turn 160. All my provinces have mixtures of building types but I gave priority to growth. What are you doing that makes growth automatic?

[Ragu777]

Actually most of them you can. You shouldn't be able to, but you can.

i can't build large farm in most(so no granary and mill), also irrigation in Arid climate

[PDiFolco]

I'm guessing you're not building enough loyalty buildings. Loyalty is easily controlled when you have tier 3 culture buildings like the circus. Yes, they add decadence but if you get say 20 loyalty for 0.5 decadence, you can put those extra citizens to culture (which also gives you loyalty) and offset the penalty.

Well average empire loyalty (20 some province) in my game is over 100.. I do manage pop to cap at 25.
I don't complain about pop effect on loyalty, but there's just too many population everywhere!
Some similar posts just came out as well...

[Lucasiewicz]

I too agree with some of the things already mentioned in this topic. In general, independent of any specific region, populations can grow to big sizes almost everywhere on the map, which means that from some point onwards you will see big populations spread quite even over the whole map.

Terrain and buildings actually do influence this somewhat. The most notable influence being the farm limited to non-arid terrain types and it's upgrade, the Large Farm, and it's dependant Granary who are restricted to plains. There are some other restrictions in place but I don't know by hearts what they are. Check out Grognerd's guide for more detailed information.

Now, first off, this is quite a difficult topic, because, if you were to really mimic how populations evolved during this specific time period and you would keep the existing link in game between building slots and pops, that would result in a very boring game. Historically, and this is very generalising, keep this in mind, the population would grow on average around 0,1% in the western Mediterranean, mainly because if the influence of the Roman Empire and around 0,07% in the eastern Mediterranean, which was already more culturally evolved a the beginning of the time period (Scheidel, 2006, https://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/s ... 040604.pdf). Let me rephrase that differently for the maths-wizards among us. Taking the 0,1%, this means that a region with a pop of 10 would take somewhere around 700 years to double to 20. I believe the game spans only 400 years which would leave the region around 15 pops near the end. Freeing up only 5 building slots with the existing game-mechanics, that's a no-go in the current set-up game-wise.

In terms of demographics, don't overestimate the influence of wars either. Even the immense Punic wars didn't really alter the demographical situation of the western Hemisphere as a whole. Armies were a lot smaller than we witnessed the last century and wars were not as taxing on the population in terms of demography. However, because of the makeup of certain armies, and early and Republican Rome are fine examples of this, wars did affect certain social strata of the population, quite hard at times. This could very well be reflected in the game. For example, when Hannibal entered Italia by passing the Alps, he went on and fought a couple of battles directly against Roman Consular armies (Trebia, Ticinus, Cannae, ...). As a result, 1/3 of Rome's senators lay dead and the patrician families, who's men made up the bulk of the Roman armies, were severely decimated. But even this quite catastrophic event, which almost made an end to the Roman Republic, didn't really alter demographics.

I agree that pop-growth might feel a bit rushed though, but mostly because, for me, it momentarily has the most arcade/sandbox-feel in the entire game so far. A region feels almost like any other region right now, somewhat reminiscent of boardgames (apart from the culture of the pops offcourse). Somehow, through the clever use of buildings (maybe even more faction exclusive or even government-type exclusive, because not all types of factions in game were urbanisers), coupled with terrain and maybe other limiters (some regions were simply not interesting at the time with contemporary technical limitations), I would like to see some improved immersion. Though it might as well be the devs vision to keep this sandbox feel to the game. After all, it might not be so a nice experience playing with a celtic faction that's completely unable to have large population centers. It's quite a difficult topic to balance history and playability.

[76mm]

In terms of demographics, don't overestimate the influence of wars either. Even the immense Punic wars didn't really alter the demographical situation of the western Hemisphere as a whole. Armies were a lot smaller than we witnessed the last century and wars were not as taxing on the population in terms of demography.

I'm not so sure about this...from what I've read, the years Hannibal spent in Southern Italy devastated the countryside; IIRC at least one historian even argued that Southern Italy is less well-off than Northern Italy even today because of Hannibal's rampages...

And let's not forget Tacitus' famous quote: "They make a wasteland, and call it peace."

While you're certainly correct that armies were much smaller then, the ability to produce/store/transport food stuffs was also much less advanced, so it seems like there was much less margin for error...if a region couldn't plant for a season, or if a town's grain store was taken by an army (friend or foe), mass starvation could easily ensue.

[PDiFolco]

In terms of demographics, don't overestimate the influence of wars either. Even the immense Punic wars didn't really alter the demographical situation of the western Hemisphere as a whole. Armies were a lot smaller than we witnessed the last century and wars were not as taxing on the population in terms of demography.

I'm not so sure about this...from what I've read, the years Hannibal spent in Southern Italy devastated the countryside; IIRC at least one historian even argued that Southern Italy is less well-off than Northern Italy even today because of Hannibal's rampages...

And let's not forget Tacitus' famous quote: "They make a wasteland, and call it peace."

While you're certainly correct that armies were much smaller then, the ability to store/transport food stuffs was also much less advanced, so it seems like there was much less margin for error...if a region couldn't plant for a season, mass starvation could easily ensue.

I beg to differ, Ancient armies were rather big, Romans may have fielded over 80k soldiers at Cannae... It was only outmatched 2000 years later by Napoleonics armies !
But anyway the game don't have to be historical demographics-wise, only more balanced on population count& growth.

[76mm]

Armies were a lot smaller than we witnessed the last century...

I beg to differ, Ancient armies were rather big, Romans may have fielded over 80k soldiers at Cannae... It was only outmatched 2000 years later by Napoleonics armies !

Not sure what you're differing about--no one was saying that ancient armies were "small", just that they were "a lot smaller than we witnessed in the last century"?

[Lucasiewicz]

Armies were a lot smaller than we witnessed the last century...

I beg to differ, Ancient armies were rather big, Romans may have fielded over 80k soldiers at Cannae... It was only outmatched 2000 years later by Napoleonics armies !

Not sure what you're differing about--no one was saying that ancient armies were "small", just that they were "a lot smaller than we witnessed in the last century"?

80k is indeed quite a feat, considering the time-period. But let's not forget that total Italic population at that time is estimated around 5 million. Like I mentioned earlier, those defeats (maybe up to 60k killed on the Roman side at Cannae) were quite taxing on the social strata making up the bulk of the Roman army, but, demographically it made little impact. Don't forget that such heavy losses were more of an exception than rule. In fact, it made so little impact, that Rome went on to still achieve hegemony over the Mediterranean a little later. It takes a lot to really have any influence on populations.

[76mm]

Like I mentioned earlier, those defeats (maybe up to 60k killed on the Roman side at Cannae) were quite taxing on the social strata making up the bulk of the Roman army, but, demographically it made little impact. Don't forget that such heavy losses were more of an exception than rule. In fact, it made so little impact, that Rome went on to still achieve hegemony over the Mediterranean a little later. It takes a lot to really have any influence on populations.

But surely battlefield losses were only a small fraction of population loss caused by war--the main losses were to civilians, not soldiers, due to starvation, disease, exposure, massacres, etc. caused by the war. Entire cities were often wiped out/enslaved upon their capture...

[EDIT] I'm currently reading Charles Oman's history of the "Dark Ages" (476-918 AD). According to him, entire regions in Thrace, Northern Italy, and the Danubian Plain were almost completely depopulated at various times during this period, due to incessant warfare (before being resettled by incoming migrating tribes, etc).

[Lucasiewicz]

Like I mentioned earlier, those defeats (maybe up to 60k killed on the Roman side at Cannae) were quite taxing on the social strata making up the bulk of the Roman army, but, demographically it made little impact. Don't forget that such heavy losses were more of an exception than rule. In fact, it made so little impact, that Rome went on to still achieve hegemony over the Mediterranean a little later. It takes a lot to really have any influence on populations.

But battlefield losses were only a small fraction of population loss caused by war--the main losses were to civilians, not soldiers, due to starvation, disease, exposure, massacres, etc. caused by the war. Entire cities were often wiped out/enslaved upon their capture...

True. I'm certainly not a historian myself, just fond of exploring these topics. Though I would like to see or read for myself to what extent army movements really inflicted demographic changes. It would be a very interesting read.

But, more importantly, let's keep the focus on finding plausible suggestions on improving the game itself, without forgetting that it is and will ever be that, a game. The way pop's are implemented in the game-mechanics, it can never be really historical, because, as stated earlier, that would open up like on average 5 building slots per region. So, unless Pocus is willing to change the mechanic completely, which I doubt, we'll have to find other ways to make it more immersible and fun. Completely toning down population growth restricts building slots maybe to much. Maybe the buildings and their food production can be rebalanced somewhat, so that certain buildings and terrain types make more of in impact then is the cases now. Certainly, the way provinces work in redistributing resources mitigates a lot of the effects that terrain types and buildings have right now. I made a suggestion on the Ageod forums concerning this (http://www.ageod-forum.com/viewtopic.ph ... 8c8a9f46ab). What I would like to see is some more variation in the evenly dispersed population growth right now. Maybe even some mechanics that are faction or government specific. That would greatly improve on the already present dynamic to bring a lot of variation to the different factions. And that wouldn't even be completely ahistorical. Certain factions were more inclined in urbanisation and thus benefited greatly from it's effects. Though I would be against a too deterministic setting for Celts as well, to name some more tribal oriented factions.

I actually had this idea some time to look at pops as the urban population of the region, not necessarily the entire population. It solves some of the conceptual problems, thought it raises some new problems as well (because offcourse it's not designed this way). But, urban populations were a lot more dynamic with some urban centers being founded, others disappearing, through various reasons (some warfare). If Pocus would be willing to turn into this road, a lot of dynamics that would make for an even greater game, could be implemented.

[76mm]

Though I would like to see or read for myself to what extent army movements really inflicted demographic changes. It would be a very interesting read.

Well, keep in mind it wasn't just "army movements", but warfare itself, with all of the associated burning, looting, massacring, etc.

I haven't read it for some time now, but if you haven't read it already, you might want to check out Caesar's account of his conquest of Gaul. While the numbers of enemy soldiers and prisoners, etc. that he cites are apparently highly inflated (to boost his prestige), there is little doubt that he ravaged Gaul rather thoroughly.

I don't have the game yet, so can't comment on any of the game mechanics. That said, while there is always some tension between making any game "realistic" vs "playable", I thought that one of the major draws of this game was to give a bit greater weight to "realism"?

[Lucasiewicz]

I haven't read it for some time now, but if you haven't read it already, you might want to check out Caesar's account of his conquest of Gaul. While the numbers of enemy soldiers and prisoners, etc. that he cites are apparently highly inflated (to boost his prestige), there is little doubt that he ravaged Gaul rather thoroughly.

I don't have the game yet, so can't comment on any of the game mechanics. That said, while there is always some tension between making any game "realistic" vs "playable", I thought that one of the major draws of this game was to give a bit greater weight to "realism"?

Yes, the Romans were pretty cruel in Gaul, but, it can and has been argued that what happened there was quite exceptional from some points of view. Through their assimilation of Greek culture the Romans had a quite barbarian look upon non-Romans, but, on the other hand they were quite the assimilators themselves actually. They ended up accepting a lot of elements of foreign culture throughout their empire. But, when it came to the Celts, the Romans treated them quite differently. Out of some culturally accepted idea, probably based upon the fact that Northern Italic Celts often sacked the city of Rome in it's early days, they had an enormous disdain of Celtic culture. It was probably one of the few times the Romans sought to actively eradicate a complete culture. That can be seen not only from Caesar himself, but also in the centuries after that too.

[Soar]

- terrain don't matter for food production ... really ? Non plains should have reduced food output (building + people), like Hills x0.8, Forest x0.6, Mountain x0.4, desert x0.3

Food production from workers already appears to be penalized by 40% in arid terrain and steppes and by 60% in desert and mountains, and as other people pointed out, lots of food production buildings (including the most efficient ones) are unavailable in less than ideal terrain.

Still, though, the overall food production in the game is oddly high, isn't it? Citizen pops appear to eat 2 food each, slaves only 1. A single right-ethnic pop in agriculture work generates 5 food by default, and if its associated building slot is also used for a food production building for at least another +5, that means (ignoring wrong-ethnic and terrain penalties) 1 population unit dedicated to food production can support 4 non-food-producing citizens. In reality in this period, a large majority of people would have been engaged in subsistence-level agriculture. Estimates indicating very high percentages of labor dedicated to agriculture in pre-industrial societies are easy to find, but you can also consider data such as this International Labor Organization estimate indicating 44% of employed people worldwide were engaged in agriculture work in 1991.

Wars can technically cause famines in the game as a result of conquest & siege penalties and army supply draw, but in practice, because food production is so efficient, this is not too common outside of wrong-ethnic regions in underdeveloped areas and shortages are typically so minor and short-lasting that pooling all workers to agriculture and infrastructure usually prevents loss of any population or buildings. Slave workers assigned to agriculture are so efficient that they're actually a net positive for food production even after getting hit with the -75% penalty for being in a besieged city.