Settlement Growth & Population, Your Opinions

**Morindin** · 10-04-2004, 04:17

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** · 10-04-2004, 05:52

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:

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.

Look how happy these people are, and look at the influence. Hardly any squalor. Also take note of the garrison.

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.

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.

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** · 10-04-2004, 05:55

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** · 10-04-2004, 06:05

Originally Posted by 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?

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** · 10-04-2004, 06:11

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.