Settlement Growth & Population, Your Opinions

**Drake** · 10-02-2004, 17:05

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** · 10-02-2004, 17:14

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.

**Soulflame** · 10-02-2004, 18:05

Originally Posted by Dorkus

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

. How did you do it (and whats a beeline?)

**Dorkus** · 10-02-2004, 18:16

Originally Posted by Soulflame

I never knew you could send enslaved people to only one city

. 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.

**Soulflame** · 10-02-2004, 18:21

thanks for the clarification. I usually exterminate people now (sorry, but your culture is just not competable with ours, so you need to die

). But enslaving them seems to have tactical value as well now..

**Oaty** · 10-03-2004, 06:25

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.

**lars573** · 10-02-2004, 18:19

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

**Meneldil** · 10-02-2004, 17:15

I think a lot of things needs to be tweaked.

**Taiko** · 10-02-2004, 17:28

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.

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** · 10-02-2004, 17:31

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

**Dorkus** · 10-02-2004, 18:01

Originally Posted by 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.

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

**Turbo** · 10-03-2004, 10:46

Originally Posted by 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?

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