Settlement Growth & Population, Your Opinions

[Drake]

What does everyone think of this concept of population growth affecting the size of the settlement?

It seems a little unbalanced, as growth can take ages and there seem very few ways to actually stimulate any serious booms that you may need, particularly on a frontier where it would very helpful to have the necessary military facilities quickly but can't due to insufficient population. Playing as the Julii I've taken over several Gaulish settlements, occupied and not killed anyone, and some 10 years on still haven't advanced at all even on low taxation. It seems a good idea, but would need tweaked in my opinion to give us more control over the growth rate.

What does everyone else think?

[Dorkus]

enslave and make sure you only have govs in the provinces you want to grow.
(edited for spelling)

I got the imperial palace and marian reforms around 260 bc in my brutii campaign. Made a beeline for carthage with my main force. And enslaved virtually all of greece/macedonia with a secondary force (one REALLy tough fight to take sparta in turn 3 or so; spartan hoplites are really killer), and sent the slaves to carthage and carthage alone.

auxilia are terrible, but the other pm units make a big difference.

[Meneldil]

I think a lot of things needs to be tweaked.

[Taiko]

I noticed that population growth can be effected by tax levels. What doesn't make sense is that a settlement with low tax levels and 2% growth can change to 15% growth when you increase the tax levels to very high. ~:confused: It seems that if you go around every couple of years and change the tax level from one level to another the population growth can go up 25%. It doesn't seem to make a difference if you raise or lower the tax. You can get some pretty big jumps in population this way, but again goes against common sense.

[Sjakihata]

I love how population is relevant. Especially with regards to recruitment!

[Dorkus]

I noticed that population growth can be effected by tax levels. What doesn't make sense is that a settlement with low tax levels and 2% growth can change to 15% growth when you increase the tax levels to very high. ~:confused: It seems that if you go around every couple of years and change the tax level from one level to another the population growth can go up 25%. It doesn't seem to make a difference if you raise or lower the tax. You can get some pretty big jumps in population this way, but again goes against common sense.

your monitor is probably unclear. it's not 15 but 1.5

[Soulflame]

enslave and makes rue you only have govs int he prinvces you want to grow.

I got the imperial palace and marian reforms around 260 bc in my brutii campaign. Made a beeline for carthage with my main force. And enslaved virtually all of greece/macedonia with a secondary force (one REALLy tough fight to take sparta in turn 3 or so; spartan hoplites are really killer), and sent the slaves to carthage and carthage alone.

auxilia are terrible, but the other pm units make a big difference.

I never knew you could send enslaved people to only one city ~:confused:. How did you do it (and whats a beeline?)

[Dorkus]

I never knew you could send enslaved people to only one city ~:confused:. How did you do it (and whats a beeline?)


sorry fast typing.

slaves only go to provinces with a governor. if only one province has a governor, all the slaves go to that province. otherwise, they are distributed between the provinces evenly. i don't have many governors in any event (they're too valubalbe as automatically-refreshing units to be left in a city), but if you have governors in cities you don't want to expand, just take them out a moment before attacking, then put them back in after you take and enslave the city.

On very hard at least, you only get half the total # of slaves indicated by the game. So if the game says you are sending 3000 slaves, in fact, only 1500 slaves are distributed (all 1500 going to one city, if only one city has a governor).

Slaves also become a resource available for trade subsequent to enslavement. in addition to income generation, this will increase the pop growth of cities you export slaves to. (food imports also increase pop growth) Since you cannot control trade, however, it's impossible to manipulate this.

[lars573]

When you enslave the populace of a city the slaves are only sent to cities with governors. Also taxes affecting poulation growth is a good and realistic thing. Besides population growth isn't accomplieshed by your citizens porking each other and making babies, but by people moving from the country side into the cities for a better life. That is urbanization

[Soulflame]

thanks for the clarification. I usually exterminate people now (sorry, but your culture is just not competable with ours, so you need to die :evilgrin: ). But enslaving them seems to have tactical value as well now..

[Oaty]

On very hard at least, you only get half the total # of slaves indicated by the game. So if the game says you are sending 3000 slaves, in fact, only 1500 slaves are distributed (all 1500 going to one city, if only one city has a governor).


ALL CITIES with a GENERAL recieves slaves. So that city you just conquered, half those people go back into that city and the other half go to Carthage. I almost never enslave as all it really is doing is shoving the problem off elsewhere.

If you want population growth public health buildings will really help to increase this.

Also it seems there is a lag effect, when it comes to population and taxes.

[Drake]

In response to Taiko, taxation actually would have an effect on population growth, specifically the birth rate. Lower taxes give people more disposable income, which is money to spend on things like food, clothes, luxuries etc.The more money people have the more willing they are to have children as they can afford them. Maybe this wasn't the intent but I can see where the tax link comes from.

[Turbo]

What does everyone think of this concept of population growth affecting the size of the settlement?

It seems a little unbalanced, as growth can take ages and there seem very few ways to actually stimulate any serious booms that you may need, particularly on a frontier where it would very helpful to have the necessary military facilities quickly but can't due to insufficient population. Playing as the Julii I've taken over several Gaulish settlements, occupied and not killed anyone, and some 10 years on still haven't advanced at all even on low taxation. It seems a good idea, but would need tweaked in my opinion to give us more control over the growth rate.

What does everyone else think?

This is one of the best features in the game, in my opinion. The population growth can be increased through various buildings and trade.

[Dorkus]

Your'e wrong. I've already tested it. The number of slaves exported remains fixed regardless of the number of cities to which you are exporting. Under your explanation, the number "lost" would decrease as you exported to more cities. For ex:

I conquer city of 2k. Game tells me 1k are being enslaved.

If I have one governed city, it gets a boost of 500.
If I have two, they both get a boost of 250 (rounding down).

In both scenarios the conquered city has pop 1k remaining.

Moreover, if you check the conquered cities population before and after, there is always a 50% drop -- which exactly reflects the number of slaves the game SAYS are being exported.

1/4 of a city's populatoin, in other words, disappears into thin air. Another 1/4 is enslaved in governed provinces. 1/2 of the populatoin remains. Whether this is bug or feature, I cannot say. THe in-game feedback, however, is clearly bugged.

You're also wrong about taxation. There's absolutely no lag at all. The turn you change taxation will have growth affected accordingly. Test this for yourself.

Finally public health buildings are probably the worst pop growth devices. In addition to providing no income, they have a trade building pre-req -- and it defeats the purpose of exponential growht when you have to wait so long for each upgrade. Public heatlh blds do provide a 5% order bonus/level. But you should be building these in the early game (pop growth is not nearly as valuable in the mid-to-late game). And in the early game, order is not as important and in any event is easily (and more cost effectively) achieved by garrisoning peasants.

Please do not post information so definitively when it is based on pure speculation. If you think there is an alternative explanation for the phenomenon i describe, just say so. Saying things definitively will simply confuse and mislead people.


ALL CITIES with a GENERAL recieves slaves. So that city you just conquered, half those people go back into that city and the other half go to Carthage. I almost never enslave as all it really is doing is shoving the problem off elsewhere.

If you want population growth public health buildings will really help to increase this.

Also it seems there is a lag effect, when it comes to population and taxes.

[Praylak]

Finally public health buildings are probably the worst pop growth devices. In addition to providing no income, they have a trade building pre-req -- and it defeats the purpose of exponential growht when you have to wait so long for each upgrade.


Dorkus, forgive but I'm slow. I fail to see your point here.

The point in these structures is to reduce squalor which has two distinct effects. They produce happiness and allow for higher growth. Growth can be both a negative or positive factor for your empire as a whole depending on circumstances. Fast growth is not always good, sometimes is can put you into a bad situation. Public buildings are a one time cost, garrison of troops has to be paid upkeep every turn. I honestly feel this system works with some realism. It seems more realistic waiting for a town to turn into a city, then waiting 20 years to build a fortress like in MTW.

[Servius]

Honest, I don't like it. I think it's just one more barely-affectible variable, yet it has such a large impact on the military side of the game. MTW was more streamlined, this seems to be adding in needless complexity without much benefit or payoff. Adding in this factor doesn't allow me to do more things than I could in MTW, it's just one more limiting factor. The strategic side of the game is looking more and more like Civ and Europa Universalis than Total War. At least that's how I feel currently.

[Dorkus]

Dorkus, forgive but I'm slow. I fail to see your point here.

The point in these structures is to reduce squalor which has two distinct effects. They produce happiness and allow for higher growth. Growth can be both a negative or positive factor for your empire as a whole depending on circumstances. Fast growth is not always good, sometimes is can put you into a bad situation. Public buildings are a one time cost, garrison of troops has to be paid upkeep every turn. I honestly feel this system works with some realism. It seems more realistic waiting for a town to turn into a city, then waiting 20 years to build a fortress like in MTW.

I'm not saying they're bad. I'm saying there are better alternatives. you need the trade buildings to build sewers -- not true of farms. having to wait 2, then 3, then 4 turns before you get your pop bonus hurts the effect. You want to get pop bonuses early and let them compuond.

farms also generate income. income v. order in the early game is an easy decision, especially since the order bonus for each level of public health is so low (5%). One unit of peasants can get you 20% order in the early to mid game. Even the first level of sewers costs 800, and just as importantly, 2 turns of production. And that only gives you 5% order. Peasants on the other hand are always going to be available in your low tech provinces. (so you won't be wasting production time) And unlike sewers, you can shift them to other provinces as the unrest/culture penalty goes down in your recently taken cities.

Unless you have nothing else to build (unit production/upgrades, ports, academcy, etc) public health buildings are a terrible choice.

edit: btw, farms are a terrible choice too. They're just (slightly) better than public health, since they generate income and can be produced more quickly.

best path to pop growth is enslavement, especially to provinces with already high base growth.

[Dorkus]

Honest, I don't like it. I think it's just one more barely-affectible variable, yet it has such a large impact on the military side of the game. MTW was more streamlined, this seems to be adding in needless complexity without much benefit or payoff. Adding in this factor doesn't allow me to do more things than I could in MTW, it's just one more limiting factor. The strategic side of the game is looking more and more like Civ and Europa Universalis than Total War. At least that's how I feel currently.

well, i think it's great. adds a lot more strategy and thought to how you plan and manage your empire.

wish it were better documented, but oh well.

[Praylak]

Ahh, I get you now. Thanks for explaining. I agree. If you want population it's faster and cheaper to steal it than grow it.

I for one would support a change for building pre-requisites. That could use some tweaking I think. I mean really, whats a trade building got to do with sewers?

[Servius]

I'm on my 4th or 5th Julii game (each time I learn something major I start again). Right now I'm working on a strategy of building up the two Julii and two Gaelic cities in the Alps (Segesta takes too long to grow in pop) and using them as my troop-producing center. Everywhere else I gut, sending slaves to those four. The hurdle I'm running into here is that transportation is hard, mainly because transport by sea is slower and riskier. This makes it difficult to reinforce/refit legions in Spain and such. But it helps me focus, requires only 4 Govs, and get me access to the high-level units relatively quickly. It's just the deployment of those troops to the frontline that takes forever now :-)

[Morindin]

I think the civ style population system is great and puts STRATEGY back in the strategy map.

War is not just killing people on the battlefield after all. It's about logistics and population management, many battles the Romans fought against the Gauls for example were putting down rebellions.
That side of things was a bit of a joke in MTW (Hey, lets convert Palistine to being Catholic in 2 years and then garrison the entire province with 100 peasants! Yeah right :).

I must prefer the Civ style management of RTW that adds checks, balances, and avoids the end game tedium of the Risk-style MTW strategic map.

[Morindin]

Keeping squalor under control

It seems influence has a large effect on keeping squalor down. I present you with some screenshots of my current game:

http://www.flyingfish.co.nz/rtw/squalor5.jpg
As you can see, I have plenty of family members to go around :) This shot was taken prior to start the civil war. Id like to add that probably 45/50 of my loses have been naval. I cannot win a naval battle even with superior ships and a number advantage, so ive just given up.

http://www.flyingfish.co.nz/rtw/squalor1.jpg
Look how happy these people are, and look at the influence. Hardly any squalor. Also take note of the garrison.

http://www.flyingfish.co.nz/rtw/squalor2.jpg
Im easily able to keep on top of the squalor here. There are still plenty of "happiness" buildings I can construct here. Note the influence bar is much lower than my governer at my capital.

http://www.flyingfish.co.nz/rtw/squalor3.jpg
Pavatium just got hit by a plague and it still has 23,000 people afterwards, with 2000 dying per turn. Im still easily able to keep on top of squalor with plenty of happiness buildings left to construct. Notice the governer has no influence but a reasonable management score, yet the squalor is much higher here.

http://www.flyingfish.co.nz/rtw/squalor4.jpg
Another one of my larger cities, with hardly any problems with squalor at all.

One thing that all these cities have in common is I am raising troops from them at least every turn, but Pavatium at least had grown quite large (before the plague hit it, twice) and its never been a problem.
You can also see some of my cities dont have much growth, well im purposely keeping them that way. I could easily construct many farm upgrades however If I wanted them to grow.

[Colovion]

I haven't read this whole thread but:

I think that the population should be somewhat like Civlization. In this game what would happen is you can move people from place to place by building Peasants.... or any other unit and then moving them to a city and then Disbanding them within that Province and they will all join into that city - making it possible for you to spread your population out more.

What do you think of that?

[Morindin]

I haven't read this whole thread but:

I think that the population should be somewhat like Civlization. In this game what would happen is you can move people from place to place by building Peasants.... or any other unit and then moving them to a city and then Disbanding them within that Province and they will all join into that city - making it possible for you to spread your population out more.

What do you think of that?

That would be fine - provided it made people very unhappy. I sure would be unhappy if the government took me away from my farm/townhouse/whatever and plonked me somewhere else.

Also immigration/emmigration as per emulated in Lords of the Realm would be nice.

[Colovion]

Well there has to be SOME way to promote migration from one place to another. I know they used to do it and sometimes did forcibly reinhabit cities after plagues and whatnot.

[Encaitar]

Recruit peasants in one city, send them to another, disband them there, they join the local population.

[Dark_Magician]

Recruit peasants in one city, send them to another, disband them there, they join the local population.


genious

[Soulflame]

Morindin; yes, every point of influence increases happiness by 5% (up to a limit I think). I thought it was in the manual or Victoria told me.
Anyway, although this is usefull, you have almost no control over the influence level of your family members. You can build academic buildings for better retinue guys, but that's almost it (the Senate positions and V&V are almost impossible to influence).
You also need a lot of good governers if you want to keep all the large cities happy. And you need to get them there. I mean, taking a governer to Egypt for example can take 5 or 6 turns.
So yes, good governers really help a lot, unfortunately, they are rare to come by so you can't fix all cities...

[Doug-Thompson]

Recruit peasants in one city, send them to another, disband them there, they join the local population.


I found the same thing -- and that just queing peasant units can increase loyalty and reduce squalor. Will post what I saw as a separate topic soon.

[Dorkus]

I found the same thing -- and that just queing peasant units can increase loyalty and reduce squalor. Will post what I saw as a separate topic soon.

probably due to lost population. when you queue a unit, the pop vanishes.

Generally won't happen though (i think)

[Spino]

genious

Truly, but it's also 'gamey'. Since the AI can't pull off such a maneuver it is put at an even greater disadvantage.

[Longasc]

Right, building any military unit MIGHT increase public order.

I do not know if this is due to garrison or due to the slight reduction of people in city.

The problem is: Somettimes the public order stays high even if you un-queue the unit in question!