Slitherine

A bit late to ask, but is the food amount needed for population increase still dependent not only on the current region population, but also on the population the region had at the start of the game?

Pocus wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2019 2:03 pm At game start the initial population of each region is used to determine how easy it will be to grow past high level of population (say 20+)

IIRC, after I complained about it, Pocus said it will be replaced by impediments (regional perks).

Pocus wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 9:53 am There is another way of slowing down growth in regions which historically did not saw growth, but you'll have to wait the next official patch. It will be also much more flavorful and also a soft obstacle you can remove

Pocus wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2020 3:01 pm I was referring to impediments, a feature of the DLC that will apply in the normal grand campaign.

So after they were introduced in the DLC, the food amount needed for population increase still depends on the population the region had at the start of the game?

Sorry, it did not work out as well as I thought and the initial population is still used as a limiter (it slows down growth) past 20 population. Impediments are not systematic enough to have done the job here, contrary to what I thought.

It's probably only 1 or 2 lines of editing in the scripts to remove this if you are interested.

Thanks Pocus for taking the time to answer, I know you are busy with the new game, which I can't wait to play. But especially because I want FOGK to be better than FOGE, and more importantly, not worse in any way, here are my thoughts on this issue:

Pocus wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 5:03 pm Sorry, it did not work out as well as I thought [..]. Impediments are not systematic enough to have done the job here, contrary to what I thought.

Interesting, this is the opposite of my overall impression of impediments. I have clearly had a much harder time developing ALL my nation in DLC compared to non-DLC (multiple matches with same nation, both with and without DLC), due to a few regions that had impediments. These regions were very-very slow to develop, unless I manage to make a province and get resources from the other regions in the province without impediments, or I manage to get rid of the impediment. Impediments penalties were so great that a few times while I was at war in MP, even against a human player, I had to keep 50+ or 100+ CP units (out of a total of 300-500CP armies) for quite a few turns to get rid of regional impediments! In general I've managed to get rid of only half of the impediments I started with or got in regions I conquered.

As a side note: I do not like that impediments act as a building, to build tier 2/3 buildings of that type faster. What is this simulating? What is the realistic explanation for this? Also I do not like that impediments at start are random, because it is unrealistic. While this makes it more diverse for replayability, each game without impediments is already diverse enough. And why unrealistic? Because, while the game evolves into alternative-history (but realistic) scenarios, it is supposed to start from an actual historic date, with nations, populations, buildings AND regional impediments that actually existed in reality at that date. There is only ONE version of it, not more like we get now with multiple impediments versions for same regions (when we start multiple matches). I don't remember PDX having this unrealistic randomness at the start of their games. But still, overall, the game is more realistic with impediments (and no initial-population limiter) than without.

Pocus wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 5:03 pm and the initial population is still used as a limiter (it slows down growth) past 20 population

This initial-population limiter is very unrealistic AND breaks game balance. Both are serious:

Realism: The only reason to add initial-population limiter is to force a repeat of history (only regions that developed more in history, will be able to develop more in FOGE). I was hoping to get an alternate-history (but realistic) simulation game, not a game that forces a repeat of history. If I want to experience a repeat of history, I just watch a historic movie or documentary (who will always do it better than a game). I play historic simulation games for the feeling of ME ruling and managing a kingdom; if I want to feel how Caesar/Henry 8th felt to rule, I will just re-watch Rome/Tudor series for the 5/4th time (or any of the 35 historically-accurate movies I've bought). Now that we remembered why we really play the game: If you have 2 currently completely identical provinces, they MUST behave/advance identically; having different past is no excuse. This is how nature (physics) works. If, in history, each region population increased at different rates, it was because of many "current"/existing factors, but NONE because of how many people there were in the past, or at 310 BC (what a special date, right?). To simulate the geographic factors, you introduce regional impediments (which you did, excellent), not this fantasy/unrealistic limiter based on a specific "special" date. Was ever populations growth affected by how many people were at 310 BC? No. No alternate-history simulation should ever include specific dates or regions in their base mechanics (you can only have un-important nation-flavors mechanics, that do not give serious advantages/penalties to that nation; but ideally not even these, since all faction-specifics can be simulated with more general mechanics, like in reality: things all nations can theoretically eventually do, but in practice some much-much harder than others).

Balance: PDX made me not play EU4 anymore when they introduced penalties tied to the special-land-of-Italian-peninsula, making European factions OP compared to other factions. Ageod introduced in update 1.05 this initial-population limiter which makes the more populous nations at the start of the game, even more powerful, by ensuring that they can advance much more than the others. An experienced player with a small nation (low pop) will never have a chance against an equally experienced player starting with a bigger nation (more pop): not only he is disadvantaged at start, but he gets more (and serious) penalties than the opponent as the match progresses. Even a considerably less-experienced player can beat you with all these advantages.

I don't remember to get a region with an impediment (at start) to pop 20, so the unrealistic initial-population limiter would also kick in, but that, I think, would have been too much. With few exceptions (like capitals), actually none of my regions actually made it to pop 20, in my 10+ MP games I've started in the last year and played more than 50 turns (up to 100+ turns, playing Nubia, Merou, Dacia, Etrusci, but also Maurya conquering Arabia/Ethiopia), because I always move pop to agriculture in the regions with fewest pop (so all regions in a province end up with approx. same pop). Now I've got only 3 MP matches at turns 185, 113, 114 (as I lost the others, except 2 were I won with Maurya and Etrusci), and still very few provinces over 20 pop (most are around 15, all playing Dacia), so I've never felt this start-population penalty affecting me (if it did, I would have complained more about it).

While I think CK3, for instance, is overall much more realistic (PDX even removed the unrealistic "ahead-of-time" penalty I was complaining about for the same reason mentioned above; and I haven't seen anyone else complaining about it), it is worth noting that I still choose to play FOGE instead, primarily because WEGO MP which lets you play tens-of-hours-long matches when you have 1h free time daily, but also gives a smart less-experienced player time to do his best move and beat a less-smart but more experienced player (higher APM will not help you win the game, like in any real-time MP). But just knowing that, after 20 pop, I will get a fantasy penalty that will make me loose the game against the other MP players that started with more powerful nations with more populated regions, it makes me wonder why am I loosing 1 hour every single day playing this game?

I am really hoping to see what other smart players think of this. Am I wrong?

Pocus wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 5:03 pm It's probably only 1 or 2 lines of editing in the scripts to remove this if you are interested.

I am very much interested (since will make the game far better), but can I play MP with this fix? Will the other MP human players get the fix as well? (I will never play SP, even with this fix, since I already know I am clearly better than the AI).

If I cannot play MP with the fix, can you add a 7th option to MP for "No initial-population limiter"?

Hi & sorry for the delay, a combination of being busy on Kingdoms and taking some days off!

The script change I proposed would not work in MP, unless everybody had the same, so I guess it has not much value to you, as you say you would not use it in SP in any case.

The population limiter goal is not to force a kind of manifest destiny, as done by Paradox (from what you say), it's to be sensible about how the population can develop depending on the fertility of a region. As such for Kingdoms it is still there but is being revised, and hopefully, it will please you better: it is now entirely dependent on the nature of the terrain (which is immutable, so you'll be happy on this part with no randomization involved). e.g. a desert will have a certain value, and all deserts will have the same. as all the plains, etc.

Pocus wrote: ↑Tue Jul 19, 2022 3:32 pm The population limiter goal is not to force a kind of manifest destiny, as done by Paradox (from what you say), it's to be sensible about how the population can develop depending on the fertility of a region. As such for Kingdoms it is still there but is being revised, and hopefully, it will please you better: it is now entirely dependent on the nature of the terrain (which is immutable, so you'll be happy on this part with no randomization involved). e.g. a desert will have a certain value, and all deserts will have the same. as all the plains, etc.

Over one or two centuries there have been massive development programs that turned uninhabitable places into productive farmland.

Cut down forests; Drain marshes; Irrigate desert;

Marshes were drained in Western Europe first in Roman times, then from the Carolingian Era. Most of the Netherlands was empty in 400 AD, by 1200 those areas became one the most densely populated areas of Western Europe.

Maybe there need to be 'buildings' with massive impact?

There are already buildings (and they are expanded in Kingdoms) that are about this theme, reclaiming land. I get what you say, some swamps have been reclaimed and made very viable e.g. The issue is about lands that are just not fit for men in the middle age, like deserts. To a less extent, some arid steppes too.

Hi
This topic is driving me crazy. How is the food needed for population growth determined ?

My hills provinces are requiring less food than my plains. And they're both not in ill-healthy, have the same base pop.

There are no modifiers in the tool-tip either. One is 140 the other 180.

This is driving me bananas - I need to understand all the mechanics before I can enjoy

I know you all are the same way !