Suggestions for v0.8

I got an idea from a mod for RTR where only strategically/historically important cities could get past the third tech level (ie minor city) and build walls (as well as revamping the farming system). I think parts of this should be added to EB. I always hate to see in the late game the whole map COVERED in Romes, Alexandrias and Antiochs. I think most cities should be restricted and only important ones allowed to grow to a large/huge cities.
This would not only make certain cities VERY important strategically and financially and accurately convey how important certain cities were to trade and political control but also keep every city from building 'epic' stone walls (AKA 150-foot uber-walls that have gattling guns built in the towers). I'm not sure how to do that though, I'm no modder myself:sweatdrop: what do you guys think?

Slowing down population growth should help with the mega cities, though you're right that the epic stone walls are a little ridiculous.

And a thought I had recently, which happens to be related: could you make wall upgrades, which could grant arrow ability to towers, and then ballista abilities with another upgrade? Or would that require building room that EB does not have?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Imperator

I got an idea from a mod for RTR where only strategically/historically important cities could get past the third tech level (ie minor city) and build walls (as well as revamping the farming system). I think parts of this should be added to EB. I always hate to see in the late game the whole map COVERED in Romes, Alexandrias and Antiochs. I think most cities should be restricted and only important ones allowed to grow to a large/huge cities.
This would not only make certain cities VERY important strategically and financially and accurately convey how important certain cities were to trade and political control but also keep every city from building 'epic' stone walls (AKA 150-foot uber-walls that have gattling guns built in the towers). I'm not sure how to do that though, I'm no modder myself:sweatdrop: what do you guys think?

---

The squalor would be ridiculous though, and new cities can become important. Anyway, EB already has made them very important, as only key settlements, such as Alexandria, Athens and Rome, will pop out lots and lots of juicy ancillaries for your characters to get. Also, larger naval ships are only available in certain provinces too.

Quote:

---

he squalor would be ridiculous though, and new cities can become important. Anyway, EB already has made them very important, as only key settlements, such as Alexandria, Athens and Rome, will pop out lots and lots of juicy ancillaries for your characters to get. Also, larger naval ships are only available in certain provinces too.

---

actually, I think they way the modder did it was to force the population of cities to stop at 6000 for all but select cities so I don't think squalor will be a huge problem...but I might be wrong, it's been a while since I played that mod (and with the RTR forums down I can't check and find out for sure :shame: ) and I think certain cities should have real importance -it should be a catastrophe if you lose your biggest cities. Besides, most cities COULDN'T become Romes or Athens's because of geographical or demographic restraints. Cities like Rome and Carthage were exceptionally good spots for human settlement but I find it unrealistic that just about any city, regardless of resources or location, can grow to become an Ancient Equivelant of New York City :dizzy2: .

Can't you increase the timeline than to about 100 years. Right after Julius Ceasar died and Augustus and Marc Antony took power, thats when Rome started to become an empire.

Imperator: in my RTR PE campaign, the cities keep on increasing in size, but some can''t advance very far, which is a pain, since enslavement means massive population booms at around 8% growth per turn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius

Now for an idea I just came up with:

what about giving Krete the Knossos palace as a unique building?

---

If it was being used in any way really, we might be able to find a way. I don't know if it was though. If it's just ruins and no one was using them, then it won't happen. Earlier ruins are in our game if they are still being used for some reason or way.

I always mod my own game to allow only certain cities to be large or huge. Rome, Athens, and Alexandria are the only huge ones I allow with places like Damascus, Antioch, Capua, etc being large. It is quite easy as long as there are less than 64? hidden_resources used in the given mod. I usually end up editing some base farming in some areas to prevent squallor as well.

I agree that EB should consider city size restriction in some way.

The thing is.. EB is an alternate history, meaning that things which didn't necessarily happen in history can happen in EB, including certain cities' rise to prominence.

Anyway, Athens should be a pretty large city. Same with Carthage. If I remember correctly, Ctesiphon was the largest city on earth at one stage during ancient history.

Quote:

---

The thing is.. EB is an alternate history, meaning that things which didn't necessarily happen in history can happen in EB, including certain cities' rise to prominence.

---

that's true, but it's also true that certain (or most) cities because of demographic, geological, or meteorological circumstances couldn't become financial or political hubs. Look at the Arabian cities, if I capture them I can grow them to become as big as Alexandria or Antioch, although that would be impossible historically. For a city to become what is represented in the game as a 'huge city' or even a 'large' city it had to have been very important and wealthy for financial, political, or military reasons. As things stand, every city will enevietably become a huge city (ussually by year 100, especially with the 4tpy) and thus no city is really much more valuable than another in the late game. This is one of the most ahistorical 'features' you can find left in EB.

The best way, IMO, to solve this would be to make growth rates MUCH, MUCH, MUCH, lower. (ie, one would have to struggle to keep them above 1%). This would introduce several elements to the game:

1) the loss of a large army would not only mean the loss of money from retraining, but population from your cities. Most nations feared the loss of their citizens and soldiers more than loss of property, after all, what good is a lot of money if there's no one alive to defend it?
2) fertile lands would be much more valuable and farming would become as important as trade to a stable economy
3) Only rich/important cities could grow to become large while the others would remain relatively small, without the need to impose city limits

Right now, it is a given that all your cities' population will grow, the question is at what rate. This is innacurate. The player should have to work to keep the population growth positive, it's not that farfetched that a city should have a negative population growth, in fact it's profoundly realistic. A poorly-managed or impoverished city WOULD be losing population, not gaining. All the EB team has to do is (aggresively) slash all the growth rates of buildings and voila! Certain cities WILL prove to be strategically vital to your country (when the Romans lose Rome, they should FEEL it, when the Ptolomaics lose Alexandria, it should hurt) and an added element of historical accuracy and gaming difficulty would be added in the form of population management.


oh, and sorry for the essay :sweatdrop: , I'm just kinda passionate about this. Nothing in the world bugs me like a map at 100 BC with huge cities all over the map :wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Imperator

The best way, IMO, to solve this would be to make growth rates MUCH, MUCH, MUCH, lower. (ie, one would have to struggle to keep them above 1%). This would introduce several elements to the game:

1) the loss of a large army would not only mean the loss of money from retraining, but population from your cities. Most nations feared the loss of their citizens and soldiers more than loss of property, after all, what good is a lot of money if there's no one alive to defend it?
2) fertile lands would be much more valuable and farming would become as important as trade to a stable economy
3) Only rich/important cities could grow to become large while the others would remain relatively small, without the need to impose city limits

---

And it would kill Barbarians who's towns start off between 1000-2000 people. The ai would burn throught those numbers in probably 5 years at the most even with the script's boosting of AI population when they recruit troops. German towns already start with like 1% population growth on normal taxes, any lower and they won't grow at all.

Quote:

---

And it would kill Barbarians who's towns start off between 1000-2000 people. The ai would burn throught those numbers in probably 5 years at the most even with the script's boosting of AI population when they recruit troops. German towns already start with like 1% population growth on normal taxes, any lower and they won't grow at all.

---

I thought there were EB scripts that kept the AI from completely depopulating its cities by giving them an influx of pop. every time a town went below a certain point, like with their treasury. Am I wrong? :inquisitive:

and an early population crisis should be part of the Barbarian campaign, no? Playing as one Celtic tribe out of many, you SHOULD have population problems, a big part of the reason Celtic Europe remained so devided was the fact that no single tribe had the capacity to overwhelm its foes, probably due to numbers. One tribe controlling 6 others isn't easy, it ought to take the Sweboz years to slowly gain control of Germany

The reason why none of the tribes stayed in central power between others for long was because there was constant infighting.


I don't think it's a good idea to cut the population, while AI cities do get a population boost everytime they go low, ours don't and Sweboz are having it real bad up in the north.

Apart from farms, most buildings that help the population only give a 0.5% bonus when built, so it would be hard to 'slash all growth rates', as there's no point in having the building if nobody would build it. Would you build a granary if it gave -5% public order and nothing else?

On the fertility, I think EB already has that implemented.

Quote:

---

Apart from farms, most buildings that help the population only give a 0.5% bonus

---

that's the thing. Certain buildings (farms, granaries, etc) SHOULD help population growth, but all other buildings shouldn't. I know you can rationalize anything (ex-trade buildings increase wealth which stimulates growth) however the problem is that the RTW-platform simply doesn't represent population management well. A decline in population doesn't have to mean the city is a gutter, but just that the birth-rate is lower than the death-rate. Since there is no death rate (your cities are populated by ageless people, I suppose:shame: ) the only way to keep growth rates accurate and an actually requiring management is to allow no buildings besides farms and granaries to improve population growth.

I know this would make life as a Barbarian hard, but if EB wants each faction to represent one tribe, then they have to reflect the difficulty facing a single tribe trying to dominate all of Germania/Gaul. It would also add another level of city management to worry about (of which there is lots in EB :juggle2: ), but as far as I can tell, EB players enjoy challange and realism and that's exactly what this brings to the table. A few changes in the EDB folder will not only make EB harder, but prevent every city from becoming a little Roma or Carthago on the map, allow certain cities to become trade hubs without the need to impose city restrictions, and bring a whole new depth to city management and army recruitment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Imperator

A few changes in the EDB folder will not only make EB harder, but prevent every city from becoming a little Roma or Carthago on the map, allow certain cities to become trade hubs without the need to impose city restrictions, and bring a whole new depth to city management and army recruitment.

---

i absolutely agree.
why a town located afar from the trade routs and rich lands would gain a population? realisticaly it would lose it. people would leave to the bigger cities in search of a better life.
the way i see it, there is nothing wrong with certain cities losing population.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Imperator

that's the thing. Certain buildings (farms, granaries, etc) SHOULD help population growth, but all other buildings shouldn't. I know you can rationalize anything (ex-trade buildings increase wealth which stimulates growth) however the problem is that the RTW-platform simply doesn't represent population management well. A decline in population doesn't have to mean the city is a gutter, but just that the birth-rate is lower than the death-rate. Since there is no death rate (your cities are populated by ageless people, I suppose:shame: ) the only way to keep growth rates accurate and an actually requiring management is to allow no buildings besides farms and granaries to improve population growth.

I know this would make life as a Barbarian hard, but if EB wants each faction to represent one tribe, then they have to reflect the difficulty facing a single tribe trying to dominate all of Germania/Gaul. It would also add another level of city management to worry about (of which there is lots in EB :juggle2: ), but as far as I can tell, EB players enjoy challange and realism and that's exactly what this brings to the table. A few changes in the EDB folder will not only make EB harder, but prevent every city from becoming a little Roma or Carthago on the map, allow certain cities to become trade hubs without the need to impose city restrictions, and bring a whole new depth to city management and army recruitment.

---

Well first, your cities aren't populated by agesless people, just more people are being born or moving into the city then are leaving/dieing. Death rate is there just not stated since it doesn't need to be. And it would make life as a barabarian more then hard, if those were the only things to increase pop growth the AI could possable destory your whole population by training if your gaul and they are rome. Even just start a celtic or germania or getai campain to see what I'm talking about. I've had cities stall in growth before hitting 6k untill I built some health buildings. This would be equaly desvasting to the Sarmatians and later, Saka. The population growth in the steppe is very low as well. They need all the help they can get.

Quote:

---

just more people are being born or moving into the city then are leaving/dieing

---

who says? why would EVERY city have more people born/moving in than dying? it's not a given now, and it certainly wasn't a given back then. It SHOULD be an administrative problem: how to keep growing. Why did the Marius reform take place? Because of low population in Italy, not because the Romans just decided "hmm, let's reform! why not?" Population was an important variable on every level of empire management: military, financial, political, and technological.

There is no good reason not to add it, besides the fact that Barbarian campaigners will have trouble with population, and I repeat my point: WHY WOULDN'T THEY? A single tribe trying to unite all of Gaul/Thracia/Germania/Brittania? it's supposed to be tough and the rebels are supposed to represent other tribes that have just about equal military power! The Sweboz ARE competing with 3 or 4 other tribes that are just about equal in manpower!


EDIT: I just came up with another beniefit: Disbanding troops after a long campaign suddunly becomes an attractive concept! It wasn't uncommon for nations at that time (and now too) to keep a small, constant army and when war came up, draft more soldiers. Nations didn't keep proffesional armies really until Imperial Rome, ussually they had small standing armies and when war came to draft up more young men. Why keep all your young men constantly in camp? Get them back home to make money/babies!! ;)

The Marian reforms took place mainly because it was just something inherently wrong with the system: you buy your own equipment, go campaigning for, if you go to a long campaign, up to 5, 10 years? Then, you return home. What happens? You haven't payed your rent, you get evicted. What for? For risking your neck for the Roman system. Marius changed this so the troops would be more loyal to him, as they'd be happier, and staying loyal to him gave them a real reward in the end: a plot of land, citizenship and money.

You know, if we're being completely realistic, we might as well have the pre-Marian Romans to get free troops with free upkeep, since they supply themselves. This probably happened with most of the other factions as well. It would just ruin the whole game, though.

Just think of the ageless soldiers as replacements, and they keep the original soldiers' experience because those soldiers had some kind of a mentor relationship with them, teaching them the tricks of the trade, if you like.

Quote:

---

Just think of the ageless soldiers as replacements

---

?!? It's the ageless civilians that peeve me, not soldiers...I've got no major bone to pick with the army system, just the city population :laugh4: .

Quote:

---

You know, if we're being completely realistic, we might as well have the pre-Marian Romans to get free troops with free upkeep, since they supply themselves. This probably happened with most of the other factions as well. It would just ruin the whole game, though.

---

except for training the soldiers and providing their food and supplies for their camp...

Quote:

---

The Marian reforms took place mainly because it was just something inherently wrong with the system: you buy your own equipment, go campaigning for, if you go to a long campaign, up to 5, 10 years? Then, you return home. What happens? You haven't payed your rent, you get evicted.

---

the result? a huge loss of available soldiers. City population in RTW is just the number of trainable men in the city, but by then so many small farmers or landowners had become jobless urban proletariats, the number of recruitable men plummeted (there was a property requirement to join the army as well as financial and age). Or, in game terms: not enough men available to be trained in Italy, which means a population decline in your cities.


all in all, I've yet to hear a single good reason, historical or otherwise, NOT to reduce population bonuses universally. I've brought up several points, including gameplay benifiets as well as increased realism from demographic, political, military, and economic perspectives and increased challange for all campaigns (barbarians especially). What I want to know is, what part of that doesn't fit in EB? People play EB for all those reasons: hard, in-depth gameplay, intense realism, and to (finally) play a game where the AI stands a chance at BEATING the player!

sorry if I seem a little aggressive, like I said, this is a big deal to me :sweatdrop:

You only gave examples for the roman system. There was not the same as others. You can't 1 out of 21 faction's recruitment/army system to affect all the others. Let's use carthage as an example. Almost all units carthage can "build" are mercenary, every not libyan,levy, or carthagian troops. So if your raiseing an good quailty iberian army, your not taking away all the farmers and reducing population. Your taking away all the well trained profession soldiers who were just sitting around picking their noses. The only unit that would really do what you said was recruitment of large numbers of not african levies. Liybans were pesants, there was always a place for them on the estates when they were disbanded. They had everything *weapons, food, armour* provided by the state, so even the poorest could serve. And the other carthagian units were either made up of
A. Really rich nobles would could afford to spend the rest of their lives not working and still be rich and

B Elite troops support by the extremely rich priesthoods of Baal and Astrate, so money was again no problem.

So unless your pumping out huge numbers of the totaly useless Poeni Citizen Militia, so won't be facing those problems. I doubt others, like the germans, getai, steppe people, have to worry about their lands being taken away while on long campains.

Quote:

---

who says? why would EVERY city have more people born/moving in than dying? it's not a given now, and it certainly wasn't a given back then.

---

Why wouldn't they be growing. Unless your recruiting a huge number of men, there's something major going wrong*so people leave* or a plaque, there shouldn't be a reason for it not to be growing.

All the point are good and all, but ONLY for reducing the population growth for Rome. You havn't given any reason to reduce the population growth for all factions. Your agurement for reducing the growth for barbarians is simply "because it will make the campain harder".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Imperator

except for training the soldiers and providing their food and supplies for their camp...

---

Pre-Marian Roman soldiers received their training on-the-job. They were supposed to be prepared for war by the family. They had to provide their own equipment, and quite often had to forage for themselves as well. Supply trains are generally something of professional armies.

Quote:

---

the result? a huge loss of available soldiers. City population in RTW is just the number of trainable men in the city, but by then so many small farmers or landowners had become jobless urban proletariats, the number of recruitable men plummeted (there was a property requirement to join the army as well as financial and age). Or, in game terms: not enough men available to be trained in Italy, which means a population decline in your cities.

---

You are completely right, but I think you miss the point. There was no shortage of recruitable men in Rome, there was a shortage of recruitable men who could afford to equip themselves as heavy infantry. Population had little to do with it: it was the disappearance of a social-economic class. Marius solved that by recruiting from another social-economic class and paying for equipment himself. In R:TW this cannot be simulated as there is only one recruitment pool.

I think another point to consider is that a city in EB does not represent one city, but a population center. There were no big cities on the steppe, or in northern and eastern Europe. However, those areas could field sizeable armies when required; the population was just spread over the country side. Similarly, a city the Arabian penninsula may well represent several cities spread over the coast. None of them was as big as Rome, but put together they could hold significant population.

Quote:

---

You only gave examples for the roman system. There was not the same as others. You can't 1 out of 21 faction's recruitment/army system to affect all the others. Let's use carthage as an example.Almost all units carthage can "build" are mercenary, every not libyan,levy, or carthagian troops. So if your raiseing an good quailty iberian army, your not taking away all the farmers and reducing population. Your taking away all the well trained profession soldiers who were just sitting around picking their noses. The only unit that would really do what you said was recruitment of large numbers of not african levies. Liybans were pesants, there was always a place for them on the estates when they were disbanded. They had everything *weapons, food, armour* provided by the state, so even the poorest could serve. And the other carthagian units were either made up of

---

True, but the population of the city represents the fight-capable men of the city. (ie, those who were able to fight and could afford weapons) The only thing my suggestion would affect is population universally- how does this change the Carthage's recruitment system? Fewer men to train, true, but Carthage's military streangth wasn't exactly limitless manpower. Not to mention the number of stacks around will be reduced globally, so it won't really be a problem. I don't understand what this is about, I'm not proposing to alter the recruitment in any way, just to make population growth lower and harder to maintain. All the arguements have been about recruitment but the only affect my changes will have will be to force people to recruit less, and be more careful with armies. Pardon if I sound rude, but it seems people are barking up the wrong tree completely. :juggle2:

Quote:

---

There was no shortage of recruitable men in Rome, there was a shortage of recruitable men who could afford to equip themselves as heavy infantry.

---

....exactly. Population represents people WHO CAN BE ENROLLED AS SOLDIERS.


Look, I've been argueing this case for a long time but it doesn't seem to be terribly popular. (not a tragedy, I could always alter the EDB myself...) I still don't see why, however. All I suggested was to decrease population growth bonuses for every building besides farms/graneries. How this turned into a debate as to the causes of the Marian reform is just a little beyond me. It has nothing to do with it. I suggested it because (read earlier posts) it would put a stop to the late game problem that was every city turning into a Rome. It would also allow certain cities to become trade hubs and important, key cities without needing to impose city limits. That is not only historically accurate, but vastly improves gameplay.

Quote:

---

All the point are good and all, but ONLY for reducing the population growth for Rome. You havn't given any reason to reduce the population growth for all factions."

---

?!? Yes, I have! Look at average city growh of today's cities. They are ussually just about 0% or increasing or decreasing slightly. The thing that stimulates growth is wealth, and wealth is NOT a universal constant, so why would growth be a universal constant? Balancing and maintaining a strong workforce and population base was a HUGE administrative task (it is today too). Why shouldn't you, as the leader of your people, have to worry about your kingdom's population? What nation enjoyed such perpetual prosperity that they never had to worry about loss of manpower? MANPOWER MATTERED. Rome's superior, almost inexhaustable manpower was part of her survival of the Second Punic War after defeat after defeat. Carthage couldn't keep up. SUFFICIENT MANPOWER SHOULDN'T BE A GIVEN, ESPECIALLY AS A BARBARIAN.

I'm sorry for my shrillness, but it's a fact! Why would the Sweboz magically have more population than all her neigbors? Correct me if I'm wrong, but in 272 she wasn't so much larger than her neigbors, but in EB, she is, and she easily outgrows them.

Quote:

---

However, those areas could field sizeable armies when required; the population was just spread over the country side. Similarly, a city the Arabian penninsula may well represent several cities spread over the coast. None of them was as big as Rome, but put together they could hold significant population.

---

are you telling me that in 100 BC the inhabitants of Modern Day Yemen out-numbered the inhabitants of Latium, or even came close? I'm sorry, but that's not possible.


I've not been given a single historical fact as to why population SHOULDN'T be a concern for the administration of any given nation, or why having 199 Alexandria's on the campaign map by 100 BC is OK, or why building armies SHOULDN'T tax local populations. All people have done is attack minor points, like the real causes of the Marian reform or say "but then the Casse will be too hard!" I don't care if people disagree, but please, for God's sake, disagree with my idea, not my examples! Prove to me that every city always had unlimited manpower, or that dusty desert-towns in the middle of Arabia rivaled Antioch for population and I'll change my mind!

I was using carthage as an example of why they population wouldn't be suffering the affects of lost men due to have large armies campaining.

It turned into a debate about the Marian reforms since you brought them up :laugh4:

Quote:

---

?!? Yes, I have! Look at average city growh of today's cities. They are ussually just about 0% or increasing or decreasing slightly.

---

I don't know what stats your looking at, but cities are not at 0% growth.

Quote:

---

The thing that stimulates growth is wealth, and wealth is NOT a universal constant, so why would growth be a universal constant?

---

Then why is there such large population growth in the africa and the poor regions of asia? Growth tends to slow down with wealth, look at europe. While wealth is important for the training of elite units, is it not for all. Many units are armed with a few spears, a shield, and a helm, thats it. You don't need to be a noble to have that.

Quote:

---

Why shouldn't you, as the leader of your people, have to worry about your kingdom's population? What nation enjoyed such perpetual prosperity that they never had to worry about loss of manpower? MANPOWER MATTERED. Rome's superior, almost inexhaustable manpower was part of her survival of the Second Punic War after defeat after defeat. Carthage couldn't keep up. SUFFICIENT MANPOWER SHOULDN'T BE A GIVEN, ESPECIALLY AS A BARBARIAN.

I'm sorry for my shrillness, but it's a fact! Why would the Sweboz magically have more population than all her neigbors? Correct me if I'm wrong, but in 272 she wasn't so much larger than her neigbors, but in EB, she is, and she easily outgrows them.

---

You do have to worry about your population as some faction. For the first 50 years at least for the Sweboz, you have to be careful not to recruit too many troops or you will burn your cities dry. The same goes for the getai for first 10-20 years. *Also carthage didn't loss because of a lack of manpower, they lost because the senate didn't send Hannibal the support he needed, but this is another topic in it's own.*
And the Sweboz doesn't magically have more population then her neighbors. They have the same amount or less. Have you ever played a Sweboz campain? And why shouldn't a barbarian have sufficient manpower?


Have you taken the "dusty towns of arabia" and held them to 100 BC? In fact, the yemen and other coastal areas of arabrian where very rich from trade with egypt and india. They were a very important trading partner between Egypt and India and all the goods there. This was their golden age, they were very strong and were very rich. Yes, there very well might have been more people in one of the yemen proviences then in latium. Have you played a campain as one of the poorer population wise factions such as half the barbarians and the steppe people? Why do you think the Sarmatians are rolled over in every camapain by the armenians. It because all their towns but 1 start with about 450 people and population growth of 1%-2%. Population growth IS limited a lot of proviences, it only the rich good farmlands become large cities.

Your right I havn't given you historical evidence, but I HAVE given you gameplay reasons why not to do this. And EB is about a mixture of gameplay and history.

i have a suggestion to EB 0.8..
my sugestion is to add the ability to have more than 1 settlement per province...
it's possible...it's been done by ppl in the community..the thread is - https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=41715

this would add a much deeper strategic sense to the planing of the development of a province...to be a mining province+agricoltural, or a agricoltural+agricoltural province...and if it would be possible to restrict the building of mines to specific provinces...or hiding the name of the metal mined, so that ppl can't know what is mine here or there..so that one can choose to build mines, or build farming settlements, and have no ill efects to gameplay...its a question of advantages and disadvantages that a player should ponder..e.g. farming settlement+farming output, bigger popular growth, - squallor no in put that would be received from mining activities.... mining -population growth(do to polution and reducing of space to expand) bigger income(like it's now),reduced farming income(a bit less than in provinces with mines), +squallor... and who talks of this two types of settlements can talk about diferent kinds of settlements like the already existing colonias(making them appear in Strat map..) and so on...

personally if this is not implemented in future versions, i'm thinking about doing it myself...although i don0t know how..

as for 0.74 i'm gonna try it...

It`s like the metropolis mod in RTR...

Pity that those settlements cannot be conquered, or represented on the battlefield map. Now THAT would be a huge strategical breakthrough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Imperator

I've not been given a single historical fact as to why population SHOULDN'T be a concern for the administration of any given nation, or why having 199 Alexandria's on the campaign map by 100 BC is OK, or why building armies SHOULDN'T tax local populations. All people have done is attack minor points, like the real causes of the Marian reform or say "but then the Casse will be too hard!" I don't care if people disagree, but please, for God's sake, disagree with my idea, not my examples! Prove to me that every city always had unlimited manpower, or that dusty desert-towns in the middle of Arabia rivaled Antioch for population and I'll change my mind!

---

I apologize if I appeared hostile; I just wanted to point out some things which I considered revelant. Actually, I agree that not every town should become a megapoleis.

I think the general argument of the team against this was that it arbitrarily caps the growth of many cities just because they never became big in history. However, this cities that have been mentioned sofar (Rome, Alexandria, Csetiphon) also became big because they were the hub-cities of large empires. Suppose the Casse succesfully expanded out of Brittain and created a Celtic empire, wouldn't Camulosadae become a megapolis too? There was no lack of arable farmland in Brittain and it was the hub of trade routs between the continent and the Brittish isles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Imperator

....exactly. Population represents people WHO CAN BE ENROLLED AS SOLDIERS.

---

But since Marius recruited anyway there was no shortage of people who can be enrolled as soldiers. The recruitment pool hadn't been depleted, just a certain section of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iberus_generalis

i have a suggestion to EB 0.8..
my sugestion is to add the ability to have more than 1 settlement per province...
it's possible...it's been done by ppl in the community..the thread is -https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=41715

---

I would like to see this too, but I think this was proposed before and the EB team declined because there is no building slot available for this.

One thing I think Oetairos (maybe with others) thought up was using forts to represent small cities. The settlement plan could be altered and a family member could be given an immobile trait. Maybe even diplomats could be continuously spawned every 60 years there or so. The cities wouldn't be permanent, but they would be there as long as the soldiers weren't all destroyed. Still it was intriguing, but we would lose forts, so we dropped it. Those cities actually would show up on the battlemap then. And on the strat map too.

Quote:

---

You do have to worry about your population as some faction. For the first 50 years at least for the Sweboz, you have to be careful not to recruit too many troops or you will burn your cities dry. The same goes for the getai for first 10-20 years. *Also carthage didn't loss because of a lack of manpower, they lost because the senate didn't send Hannibal the support he needed, but this is another topic in it's own.*
And the Sweboz doesn't magically have more population then her neighbors. They have the same amount or less. Have you ever played a Sweboz campain? And why shouldn't a barbarian have sufficient manpower?

---

A) the fact that population is tough for the barbarians at first is a good sign. That's how population management should be universally
B)I didn't say that's why carthage lost. I said that's part of the reason Rome survived the loss of army after army
C)I didn't say the Barbarians should have insufficient manpower. I said they should have to struggle to maintain it

Quote:

---

I think the general argument of the team against this was that it arbitrarily caps the growth of many cities just because they never became big in history. However, this cities that have been mentioned sofar (Rome, Alexandria, Csetiphon) also became big because they were the hub-cities of large empires. Suppose the Casse succesfully expanded out of Brittain and created a Celtic empire, wouldn't Camulosadae become a megapolis too? There was no lack of arable farmland in Brittain and it was the hub of trade routs between the continent and the Brittish isles.

---

I agree with every word you just said :2thumbsup: . That's why my suggestion was to nerf growth universally, not impose caps. That way all cities can become huge cities, but most won't. Just as it was historically.

Quote:

---

It turned into a debate about the Marian reforms since you brought them up

---

oh....so I did:sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Why do you think the Sarmatians are rolled over in every camapain by the armenians. It because all their towns but 1 start with about 450 people and population growth of 1%-2%. Population growth IS limited a lot of proviences, it only the rich good farmlands become large cities.

Your right I havn't given you historical evidence, but I HAVE given you gameplay reasons why not to do this. And EB is about a mixture of gameplay and history

---

but what about the AI population scripts? I thought those kept the AI from having lower than X population, and would give them a little "transfusion" when their cities got too empty. If I'm wrong, then yes, we have a problem. (The AI wouldn't be able to cope with limited population, the player can, if he's smart) Am I wrong about those scripts?

and what are the gameplay issues? If the AI doesn't get population bonuses from the script, then yes, there's one. But what are the others? Tougher Barbarian campaign doesn't strike me as being a game-killer, nor does the prospect of having to manage my cities population.

From what I remember, I think the script gives an AI city 100 men if it recruits 120, and so on. So their cities still lose people, but not by much. Another reason why it's meant for large, if you get a 240 sized unit they will still only get 100. At I think thats how it works... and maybe I jumped the gun before. My last post seems a little too defensive without considering all the facts. Most barbarians/steppe don't have access to many pop boosting buildings, only tier 2 farms and baths anyways. And I don't even know if the Sarmtians get those.

Quote:

---

I agree with every word you just said . That's why my suggestion was to nerf growth universally, not impose caps. That way all cities can become huge cities, but most won't. Just as it was historically.

---

How can we nerf growth while still letting all cities have the potenial to become huge? By a late campain, the AI will turn them all into huge cities. If this could work I'd be for that. The only way I can think is have hidden resorce in all starting capitals and major cities military and economic wise, that lets you build like tier 3+ health/farming/whatever buildings to boost population that you can't normaly build. You wouldn't have an aquaduct running to the large towns, you'd save them for the big ones. I would suggest a new building line but I think they maxed out on the building types.