thanks for the work therother. I, and i'm sure others, appreciate it very much.
thanks for the work therother. I, and i'm sure others, appreciate it very much.
Sorry, I messed up my previous post with the Imperial Palace. Will get the data back shortly...
This is the data for the Governor's house. I've stopped at 70 simply because you'd never be able to reach 6000 men without a fair number of slaves, and you'd be crazy not to build the Governor's Villa!
Anyhow, I see the short in the thread title staring back at me with a certain irony.
Pro-Consul's Palace will be up shortly, I hope.
Edit: As it stands, I don't see much point in doing a study with no Government building in place. That and it's much harder to do as I can't mod my usually suspects in to help narrow down the transition point. Does anyone know of a way to train units without a Governor's House?
Code:Sq% Pop Diff Men/PO% 5 1150 10 1900 750 150 15 2650 750 150 20 3400 750 150 25 3850 450 90 30 4150 300 60 35 4200 50 10 40 4550 350 70 45 n/a 50 4900 350 35 55 5250 350 70 60 5600 350 70 65 5650 50 10 70 5950 300 60 ... 125 8560
Last edited by therother; 10-11-2004 at 02:16.
Nullius addictus iurare in uerba magistri -- Quintus Horatius Flaccus
History is a pack of lies about events that never happened told by people who weren't there -- George Santayana
Whew! That's it all completed. Will edit the first post with the new data.
Code:Sq% Pop Diff Men/PO% 5 1500 10 3000 1500 300 15 4500 1500 300 20 6000 1500 300 25 7500 1500 300 30 9000 1500 300 35 10500 1500 300 40 12000 1500 300 45 13500 1500 300 50 15000 1500 300 55 16500 1500 300 60 18000 1500 300 65 19500 1500 300 70 21000 1500 300 75 22500 1500 300 80 24000 1500 300 85 24750 750 150 90 25500 750 150 95 26250 750 150 100 27000 750 150 105 27750 750 150 110 28500 750 150 115 29250 750 150 120 30000 750 150 125 30750 750 150 130 31500 750 150 135 32250 750
Nullius addictus iurare in uerba magistri -- Quintus Horatius Flaccus
History is a pack of lies about events that never happened told by people who weren't there -- George Santayana
One of the most useful parts of your research is finding out the magic number for population growth is 8%. That means we should plan for growth to be around 8%, a little more or less depending on the circumstance. By the time you get to 24,000, squalor will make the net growth to be 0%, which is the best case scenario.
For example, Julii's Arretium has 2.5% base farming bonus, IIRC. Great Forum would add 1%. Three Aqueduct line upgrades would add 1.5%. 3 Ceres temple upgrades would add 1.5% and 3 farm upgrades would add 1.5% for a total of 8%.
Indeed. I've just concocted a worked example:Originally Posted by andrewt
You start as Brutii and Tarentum at 4,500. You want it to reach 24,000 and then stop there.
Tarentum has a basic farm level of 3.5%. You check the table to see that you'll need an 8% growth rate to balance out the squalor with an Imperial Palace at 24,000.
So you decide to build Temples of Juro (up to 2.5% growth), a forum (or above) (1%) for a total of 7%. Now comes the decision on farming. Farms cannot be destroyed, unlike the buildings above, so be careful. Just build up to Communal for a 1% increase, as the increase of various other factors from the pantheon far outweighs the extra income from farming.
(Edit: In fact, looking at the figures, you'd be as well building up to public baths instead of farms, as they give the required 1%, plus a 10% increase in Public Order, for only a small decrease in denarii (~160). This means that you could just build the Arena instead of needing the Coliseum in the example below, and a 10% garrison effect, at 24,000, would take at about 5 units of peasant at 100 denarii each, so it makes financial sense as well.)
So we have 8% growth but 8% growth penalty from squalor. This means that the settlement is in equilibrium, and so the population will always return to 24,000 if any fluctuations happen (disbanding/creating units, slaves, or plague).
If you want to minimise the time to 24,000, build all farms, water supply and Juro temples that you can, then knock down the Juro temples and/or water supply buildings, and build the other temples to rid yourself of the extra growth. Having an arena or hippodrome helps in these situations as you can hold games to offset the public order problem, whilst you switch temples.
Now you need to balance out the 80% Public order problem. As Tarentum is the capital, usually, there is no distance-to penalty or cultural penalty. As an aside, the former will not be reduced (barring a move of capital), but the latter should eventually subside.
So, let's assume we built the Pantheon of Juro, which gives us a 50% increase in Public Order (25% health/25% native), and you’ve built the Curia (10%), and an Coliseum (15%). That's 75%. So you have 95% public order. Add in a few units, or a governor with some influence, and you have a stable city at 24,000, with easily manageable squalor.
Away from the capital, you might want to explore the water supply buildings rather than the farms, as they give a public order bonus as well as a growth bonus.
Edit: In the above, I've not mentioned tax rates: they are at normal. You can, of course, use the tax rate as a temporary measure to both affect the growth rate and public order.
Last edited by therother; 10-11-2004 at 23:56.
Nullius addictus iurare in uerba magistri -- Quintus Horatius Flaccus
History is a pack of lies about events that never happened told by people who weren't there -- George Santayana
I wouldn't knock population down too much. I'd use the Temple of Juno/Ceres/Aphrodite/etc. to rapidly build up to 24,000 before knocking it down and replacing it. However, if my public order is high enough, I wouldn't mind building a few farm upgrades or whatever until my public order is around 100% on normal taxes. The reason is that trade income is affected by population. I'm not sure by how much so hopefully, that will be your next research project.
I agree entirely. That's why I've been going around arguing against the rebel/slaughter method of dealing with your cities. Newly captured cities on the edges of your empire, yes: your core cities, big no no! That's very bad planning! But there are instances where you may not want to deal with a very large city, i.e. an inland city that you want to use for troop production.Originally Posted by andrewt
Not just tax. Trade is definitely affected too. I still haven't been able to fully justify it, but I believe the larger your city, the more imports you will attract. The problem is that geography has an input, as well as established trade routes. There is also a suspicion voiced by others that trade to a city may be increased by it's local land network, but I have no data to suggest that as yet. Land trade is definitely affected by population though. Of that I have plenty of evidence.Originally Posted by andrewt
I'm ashamed to say it, but a study of the economics was my first project! Other tangential studies, like this one, keep sidetracking me! But I'm still on it...Originally Posted by andrewt
Last edited by therother; 10-12-2004 at 00:18.
Nullius addictus iurare in uerba magistri -- Quintus Horatius Flaccus
History is a pack of lies about events that never happened told by people who weren't there -- George Santayana
I tested a little by building and disbanding peasants and the addition seems fairly small on a one-turn basis. I tried queueing up 9 peasant units in Salamis and Antioch's exports to Salamis dropped from 1614 to 1610. I disbanded 4 peasant units in Salamis and it went up from 1614 to 1616. I'm not sure how this adds up in the end. Maybe the game has some points where it jumps or maybe population affects it very little at all save for allowing building upgrades.
The problem is that you will need a much larger range of population change, without anything else changing (a tip of the hat to Tamur). The best way I've found is to directly modify the memory address containing the population of each individual city.Originally Posted by andrewt
Nullius addictus iurare in uerba magistri -- Quintus Horatius Flaccus
History is a pack of lies about events that never happened told by people who weren't there -- George Santayana
I'm not a programmer so I'll leave that up to you.
Just found the magic 8% growth number. Stability all the way
Basically not assuming any other penalty, this can be countered by roman buildings: 10 (curia) + 35 (pantheon) + 15 (arenas) + 20 (health) = 80%
Taking into acount temples and health buildings, compared to the romans:
- parthians are at 0, since they only get sewers (5 health). But Parthia has only one god temples for 50 (pantheon), compensating that.
- greeks are at -5, for they don't have city plumbing (15 health).
- carthage is at -30, no pantheons, only baths. Worshipping Baal still puts you at -10.
- egypt is at +5, assuming no Isis temple all their pantheons are 50, yet only baths. These numbers may seem small but at 24000 they really do matter.
[- barbarians already have their stable limit at 2%, so they will almost always grow too large. Their buildings are 15/30 + 10 = 25/40%, putting them at -65/40]
Not the place for strategy. When i get around to it, i'll continue this analysis for a full treatment on squalor & public order.
Last edited by sunsmountain; 04-10-2005 at 20:42. Reason: philosophy on distance penalty
in montem soli non loquitur
(\_/) (>.<) That's what happens with bunnies
(x.X)(_)(_) who want to achieve world domination!
becoming is for people who do not will to be
On the note of squalor, has anyone tried adding Effect Squalor -x to a buildings list of traits? Seems like since a general can affect city stuff a building might be able to do all the same traits/abilities that aren't diplomacy related.
Ah, so this is the thread where Froggy got her advice to maintain maximum total population growth before squalor at 8%. I should have guessed AndrewT would be involved.
I'll quote what I just wrote in the Colosseum in the thread about what level of farm you should aim for:
I will try to work out how large much quicker 9% growth is than 8% to get an Imperial Palace.Originally Posted by Owen
Well, I took a short conceptual case in a spreadsheet, and assumed a starting population of 12000 with all the necessary province improvements in place for either a 8% or 9% total growth percentage before squalor.
8% gave a population of 24k after 42 turns. 9% gave a population of 24k after 24 turns, with an extra 5% happiness penalty at turn 30 and a further 5% at turn 40, after which it stabilises.
Are those extra 18 turns worth putting up with a hit of 10% to happiness later on? I suspect it is, though it's a no-brainer if your proconsul building or equivalent is of a different culture.
I should point out that this assumes that the rounding of growth rates to 0.5% steps is a real effect rather than just a display effect. Of course, if it is just a display effect then 8% is a very bad choice, because you'd never reach 24000 population, not even by 2004 AD.
Growth rate penalty is capped at 25%, which is reached at a population of 61500 (with the Imperial Palace). Updated first post with the info.
Nullius addictus iurare in uerba magistri -- Quintus Horatius Flaccus
History is a pack of lies about events that never happened told by people who weren't there -- George Santayana
I was wondering the same thing....Originally Posted by Sleaker
Afaik, buildings do not reduce squalor. Some temples and farms increase the growth rate, which increases squalor, rather.
The character traits that reduce squalor do not work for buildings
sorry
Last edited by sunsmountain; 06-18-2005 at 22:39.
in montem soli non loquitur
(\_/) (>.<) That's what happens with bunnies
(x.X)(_)(_) who want to achieve world domination!
becoming is for people who do not will to be
There's one thing that shouldn't need pointing out, but which is misunderstood time and again, the relation between public health and squalor. Because occasionally people will give the advice to demolish anything related to population growth in order to diminish public unrest.
0.5% additional population growth equals -5% public order through squalor, that's obvious. it also means -0.5% population growth through squalor at the same time, so those public health buildings and temples, and also the highest level of trade buildings, which also give an equivalent increase in happiness, perfectly balance out the additional loyalty loss through squalor they produce.
If you have 0% growth and 100% happiness, and then build sewers, you will still have 0% growth and 100% happiness after squalor rises, but with a greater population and hence more tax and trade income.
The only real problem lies with farms and temples of farming and growth.
Last edited by Weirwood; 06-21-2005 at 14:55.
I appologize for straying a little off the topic, but as players often read the Ludus Magna to pick up possible tips to improve their play, I felt it is necessary to point out that while Weirwood is correct in saying they balance out, the reason to destroy the various buildings is to decrease population, thus the garison present in the city will have a bigger impact. Such actions are only needed in situations where a player is unable to control the unrest in a city through other means.There's one thing that shouldn't need pointing out, but which is misunderstood time and again, the relation between public health and squalor. Because occasionally people will give the advice to demolish anything related to population growth in order to diminish public unrest.
0.5% additional population growth equals -5% public order through squalor, that's obvious. it also means -0.5% population growth through squalor at the same time, so those public health buildings and temples, and also the highest level of trade buildings, which also give an equivalent increase in happiness, perfectly balance out the additional loyalty loss through squalor they produce.
If you have 0% growth and 100% happiness, and then build sewers, you will still have 0% growth and 100% happiness after squalor rises, but with a greater population and hence more tax and trade income.
Again, sorry for stepping outside the main discussion.
Magnum
Since a building can not reduce squalor Adding bonus to the acadamies for order and trade might be a decent counter. AFAIK these buildings have no effect other than adding Ancileries. i.e. they do nothing if you have no govener in the city.
I hate to be dense, but having read all this I'm still a bit confused.
I think what I'm reading is that:
1) There is nothing you can due to reduce squalor because it is an automatic consequence of population size.
2) You can somewhat alleviate the consequences of squalor by a Garrison and Public Health Buildings.
3) Sanitation improvements have no effect on Squalor
4) There is no way to mod buildings to reduce Squalor
Is my understanding correct?
For some reason Squalor bugs me and I want to be able to reduce it, but there seems no way - right?
Thanks for any insight anyone might wish to share.
Welcome to the forums Akmatov!
I don't completely understand either, but I think keeping farm constructions down improves squalor.
Thanks for the welcome and the idea! I just recently got into RTW and just more recently got it running on my machine, but I've been trolling here a bit trying to understand things better for a little bit.
Farms, hmmm. Do you think they actually make Squalor worse or do they encourage population growth which then leads to Squalor?
Still very much the newbie at this, but it seems to me Squalor is a good idea - reflecting the down side of having too many people living in a city, that is a bit overdone. Just my opinion at the moment.
Best way to control squalor is to build the appropriate town hall building. You'll see a dramatic drop in squalor (perhaps to reflect the better administration of the city).
Public health buildings are double edged swords. They improve order (NOT squalor), but they also increase pop growth, which is a bad thing if you are concerned with squalor-induced order problems. Consequently, I never build them.
Btw, if you think squalor is "overdone" now, you should have seen it in rtw 1.0, before they capped it at 100% order penalty. The entire board was up in arms about it.
I personally found it to be an interesting challenge, and am glad it was as hard as it was in the original version. Few games actually make you think before building things; rtw 1.0 did. (though I have to admit, the fact that farms and public "health" buildings HURT you in squalor remains a bit odd)
They are however good way to stimulate growth in a city whose population has stopped increasing. If later you run into problems with civil order/run away population growth you can demolish the public health building.Originally Posted by Dorkus
They also reduce a cities chance of suffering from plague and reduce the severity and duration of a plague if it should strike.
Assuming a particular public health building doesn't nail you with a culture penalty (i.e. you're a hairy barbarian and the city in question has a Roman sewer), public health buildings do nothing but good as far as I can tell. You get happiness, growth, and some plague protection all at once. The happiness bonus negates the public order penalty from the added squalor, and you get three actual *good* things on top of that: More tax money, more potential soldiers, and Anti-Plague (TM). The plague reduction is of unknown value, though it's probably safe to assume that it at least cancels out the risk from the added squalor.
So, ultimately, public health buildings give you two bonuses with no penalties: More tax money and increased recruitment potential.
Farms, on the other hand, give you income in exchange for squalor. Considering the ridiculously high base farm level of certain provinces, I could do without farms, personally. It's a shame they're indestructible, since the AI loves to build them and all.
Plague protection is of minimal value, unless you are in that one macedonian province that has a plague trigger.
Growth can be good or bad. If you've already hit the size that you want, then it's a definite bad. Squalor will exactly cancel out the order bonus of the health building, but you will be left with a larger city (and thus one harder to control via garrison).
If you haven't hit your target city size, growth CAN be good. But it's much faster and cheaper, in the long run, to use slavery and/or peasant transfers to get pop growth, if that's what you're looking for.
Great thread. I was going completely in the wrong direction after reading the manual. Time for a course correction.
How do you actually get rid of squalor? I upgrade the city and public health as often as possible, avoid building farms and markets but the squalor level in Carthage is still around 100+%. Is the only way to get rid of it losing the city and re-capturing and exterminating it?
Student by day, bacon-eating narwhal by night (specifically midnight)
Bookmarks