Read this if you're having problems with squlaor

[Dorkus]

Made this post on twcenter, and thought it would be useful here.

To sum up, fight disorder/squalor with (in order of priority)

Great governor (distinct from great general)
Arena
Hippodrome (only if you've already got the pre-reqs)
Wonder (I generally use corinth as my endless wonder bonus granter)
Taxes
Temples (if law temple, boost this under great governor)
Garrison

Do NOT build these if you have a squalor problem:

Public health
Farms
Trade building beyond market (0.5% additional boost to pop at forum level, and it's not necessary to build second level arena; the trade income boost is also trivial)

Anyways, here's the acutal post. It's a little out of context since it was a response to someone else's complaint that he had 125% max squalor DESPITE having built all 4 health buildings. I'm trying to explain that public ehalth actually INCREASES squalor, and that even 125% squalor is not unmanageable.


----
4 levels of public paths only increase order by a total of 20%. Look at the feedback. The health buildings are not a way to fight squalor. In fact, they're BAD for squalor, since they increase pop growth (and thus squalor) without giving you a correspondingly growing increase to order.

They are pretty much good for two purposes -- early game pop growth, and mid to late game pop growth in extremely low base growth cities (some cities will not be able to reach huge city level without some pop boosts from say, health buldings). After that they should be destroyed, else they will increase your pop growth (meaning you will move up at least one squalor point, which completely destroys the point of building the public health building in the first place).

Building up an order based temple (law temples are especially nice, since they don't boost population), or building an arena/hippodrome for games/races... these are the better options.

The single most influential factor is the governor. A top notch governor, who has been trained in an academy+ city with a law temple, can easily increase order by 80+%. Characteristics like "honest" and "upright" (which will develop if he sits in a rpvoince with a law temple) or "prim" (if he sits in a province with a health TEMPLE, not helath building) are important to the game.

If you're trying to hold a huge level city without a governor, you're looking for a rebellion. 125% squalor can easily be countered, even with relatively minimal garrison.

Up to 50% from temple (reasonable: 50%)
Up to 45% from arena (reasonable: 35%)
Up to 35% from hippodrome (reasonable: 35%)
Up to 80% from garrison (reasonable: 40% at huge city size)
Up to 20% from wonder bonus (reasonable: 20%)
Up to 20% from public health (reasonable: 0%; you only want to bulid this if you've already reached max squalor of 125%)
Up to 30% from taxes (reasonable: 25%; this will increase pop growth by 0.5, and lead to 5% more squlaor, thus the 25% figure)
No limit to governor effect (reasonable: 60%)

255% order using REASAONBLE estimates (e.g. first level of most order buildings other than temple, half strength garrison, 60% governor effect). Even at maxed out squalor of 125% (which incidentally is VERY hard to achieve. you have to build a lot of pop growth buildings, such as farms, traders, and public health to get to 125% squalor. Normally, your squalor will hit a wall becuase it also hurts population growth.), under reasnoable estimates you have 130% order. If you've managed the culture penalty, then you have >55% room to maneuver on the distance penalty. (155-80=75, which is the margin between blue and red order). If you use more liberal estimates, such as 80% governor or 80% garrison, you will have >100% room to maneuver on distance penalty.

And again, this is with a worst case squalor scenario. In the extreme case, you can let the city rebel one round, exterminate the rebeles, and squalor will drop to virtually zero. Then the city will be easy to maintain, so long as you hav eproperly managed it.

The problem is people just build the wrong buildings all the time, and bang their heads when their poor choices lead to poor results. By paying attention to what buildings actually do, order can be maintained quite easily.

People mindlessly build farms and public health buildings, are upset when they produce unsustainable growth, then build more of the same to make growth even more unsustainable. Why should the game reward you for that?
Focus on temples, the arena/hippodrome (no real point in moving beyond the first level for order, since each additional level only grants 5% order and costs MUCH MORE to produce), and good governors, and order is easily maintained.

This game is already too easy. Let's not convince CA to make it easier. Don't complain that (for once) a game makes you think and pay attention rather than mindlessly click buttons.

What CA SHOULD do is properly explain that the high level public health buildings are in fact bad for squalor and order, despite their deceptive name, and perhaps change them (they need higher order boosts, and less pop growth boosts at higher levels).

There is absolutely no point at all, for example, in building the city plumbing. It increases order by a whopping 5%, but this order bonus will be canceled in one round by pop growth caused by the plumbing and corrresponding squalor. The pop boost plubming gives is of course also completely pointless, since plumbing requires a huge city (and growing a huge city gives you no benefits at all).

Focusing on farms and public heatlh are a surefire way to get yourself killed. Farms give incredibly lousy income and cannot be destroyed when you want pop growth to stop. Public health buildings give no income, and their small 5% order bonus/level is outweighed by the squalor they invariablely will cause.

Squalor should not be changed. Perhaps some of the building bonsues should be changed (boost farm income, especially at later levels; boost order bonuses from public health buildings so their name is not so deceptive, and so they're a viable alternative to the temple/arena lines) as well. But not squalor.

[Bob the Insane]

Maybe I am rationalizing but personally I see squalor as the unavoidable side effect of trying to stuff masses of people into a tight space (i.e. a city)... Bigger the population, the more of an issue people living in slums and poor conditions becomes...

What can you do about it?? You can distract the people with entertainment and religion (arenas and temples), you can increase policing (Garrsion size), improve infastructure (public health) but this encourages more prople to move in anyway, low taxes means the poor will not compain so much, and they love a charismatic politian... Depopulation is good, recuit people into the army or create a large batch of peasants to move population around to where it is needed...

This game is a bit early for Communism so you are going to have rich and poor in the cities and no magical building is going to change that and dealing with your increasing population of poor, unhappy citizens is something you have to deal with...

Additionally, do we know if public health buildings effect the chance of plague effecting the city????

P.S. Great post Dorkus...

[Dorkus]

btw, 60% governor is only reasonable if you actually put some attention into developing gov characteristics/retinue. It's completely unreasonable if you just have your governors running around randomly.

[andrewt]

For me, temples are the cheapest way so they are my first priority. Arenas give a small bonus only and you have to spend 400/turn for around 20% and another 400 for another 10%.

I use the market line to both increase my trade income and help grow my cities to 24,000 so I build the Curia eventually since it adds another 10% to public order. It's pricey but I saved more than 10,000 denarii in my Parthian campaign having a 20% discount on construction governor running around queueing buildings in bunch of cities close together. I stopped bothering when I got too much money.

[Dorkus]

For me, temples are the cheapest way so they are my first priority. Arenas give a small bonus only and you have to spend 400/turn for around 20% and another 400 for another 10%.

I use the market line to both increase my trade income and help grow my cities to 24,000 so I build the Curia eventually since it adds another 10% to public order. It's pricey but I saved more than 10,000 denarii in my Parthian campaign having a 20% discount on construction governor running around queueing buildings in bunch of cities close together. I stopped bothering when I got too much money.

agree with this. But i'm assuming that this city is going to revolt in the next couple rounds, and we're trying to get the biggest boost in the shortest amount of time. by the time you get a lot of huge cities, in my exp, money isn't much of an issue. Temples are the best long term solution (at least if it's not a public health temple), but each level gets you only 5-10% order (except the last). First level of arena can get you max 35% as a stop gap.

I suppose garrison should be ranked more highly if that's my criterion. I rank it low because you often want to send out your conquering army to conquer more (at least I do), and it's usually rather time consuming/inconvenient to send an entire army over to fix an order problem. A lot easier to send one top notch governor.

[The_Emperor]

The best advice I have heard so far is not to build farms. If you follow this rule then you will find that when your city gets massive population growth will slow and drop out, also markets unlike farms can be demolished to help slow your growth if things go badly.

Sure the people may be unhappy at this negative growth, but I say crank out those peasants... or just make more conquest armies

[Quietus]

The inherited squalor is the problem for me. You conquer a huge population and enslave. There's really nothing you can do about that since the population was built-in without the infrastructure, and squalor is imminent (unless you kill off the citizens - which I never do).

The other cities are actually manageable in terms of squalor. I've had so many provinces that riot because the Capital is so far away, not to mention culture penalty. But if you add the built-in squalor of a new conquest to culture penalty and riots, you get instant revolts like my last post.

I'll try out those Law Temples and see if they are better than the Bacchus. I've heard good stuff about them from other poster too Another problem is that governors are scarce too.

[Meneldil]

Huh, you seem not to understand that squalor doesn't make the game harder, but only more annoying.

In mid-late game with hard settings, when your empire gets big, revolts are just plain silly. This is not a difficulty problem but rather a balancing problem. I don't think the fact that you have to let a 20 stacks army in each city as a garnison -though you've exterminated almost everyone in the city- is balanced (and it's probably not really accurate as well).
I would gladly play against a smarter AI than having to deal with such a crappy squalor issue

Btw, not everyone is a 1337 roxxor vet player, who knows that health buildings are not an effective way to fight squalor (Isn't that crappy ?!?).
Whatever you can say about silly noobs that don't know how to play (that's more or less what you said), I think this is a serious issue, that needs some fix in a patch (my other main issue with the game being the diplomacy kinda screwed up IMHO). People might play to have fun (well, that's what I do at least), and not to learn the game engine as quickly as possible.

[Dorkus]

fair enough, but inherited huge cities should not, imo, be easy to maintain. They should be constantly on the edge of revolt (look at Baghdad today).

The inherited squalor is the problem for me. You conquer a huge population and enslave. There's really nothing you can do about that since the population was built-in without the infrastructure, and squalor is imminent (unless you kill off the citizens - which I never do).

The other cities are actually manageable in terms of squalor. I've had so many provinces that riot because the Capital is so far away, not to mention culture penalty. But if you add the built-in squalor of a new conquest to culture penalty and riots, you get instant revolts like my last post.

I'll try out those Law Temples and see if they are better than the Bacchus. I've heard good stuff about them from other poster too Another problem is that governors are scarce too.

[therother]

Up to 80% from garrison (reasonable: 40% at huge city size)

That's a whole lot of men you're asking for to get a 40% bonus at sizes. A least the equivalent of 15 units of normal infantry (40 men on normal, 80 on high). Even using peasants (10 units) that will cost 1000 denarii a turn!

Up to 20% from public health (reasonable: 0%; you only want to bulid this if you've already reached max squalor of 125%)

Why not? It's not as if it can get any worse! EDIT: Unless you are suggesting reducing squalor by engineering a negative growth rate?

No limit to governor effect (reasonable: 60%)

There is a limit, and it's quite high (>100%), but a it would be complicated to calculate. Without including his traits and retinue, though, it's 50%.

The problem is people just build the wrong buildings all the time, and bang their heads when their poor choices lead to poor results.

You could compare it to people who spend their opening moves in chess playing around with their rooks and rook pawns, who then complain when you crush them, having developed your pieces sensibly, and therefore completely dominating the centre of the board. To use the technical chess terms, you are well ahead in tempo and position.

People mindlessly build farms and public health buildings, are upset when they produce unsustainable growth, then build more of the same to make growth even more unsustainable.

This is the point. You need to manage your growth: you do not need to artificially stunt it or explode it. I believe that you can get most cities up to huge status if you manage the rate of your growth, plan for the unhappiness, and then just let things run their natural course. Squalor with eventually cancel out growth, and an equilibrium will be formed. It's not impossible, it just takes effort.

This game is already too easy. Let's not convince CA to make it easier. Don't complain that (for once) a game makes you think and pay attention rather than mindlessly click buttons.

I'm with you 100% on this. Quoting from my forthcoming guide on Managing Cities:

"I do believe that squalor is a good, historically accurate, method for counterbalancing population growth and ensuring you spend some time making sure your cities aren't just troop producers. In other words, it makes the game more realistic, more strategic, and consequently more challenging!"

Further on, when dealing with public order in general, I say:

"As for other public order penalties, such as the foreign Culture and distance from capital penalties, I believe that this is a much better counterbalance to the player conquering the whole world with a couple of good armies early on in the game than MTW’s rather haphazard everyone-goes-mental switch that they used to flick once you’d conquered a set number of provinces. At least these factors are predictable, and therefore, at least to some extent, manageable."

What CA SHOULD do is properly explain that the high level public health buildings are in fact bad for squalor and order, despite their deceptive name, and perhaps change them (they need higher order boosts, and less pop growth boosts at higher levels).

Here we disagree. They are not "bad". They do need to explain that public health buildings have no impact on squalor itself. Although I'd rather they patch it so that they do.

(and growing a huge city gives you no benefits at all).

Here we disagree again. Money is the difference. Bigger cities make more money, it’s that simple.

[Dorkus]

therother, i agree with almost everything you say, including your correctinos (40% might not be reasonable, hehe).

But i don't agree that pop is valuable once you have a IP. True, taxes go up with pop. But they do not grow at a rate proportional to pop. I haven't analyzed this rigorously, but I'd be willing to wager that it costs more to deal with the disorder problems than you gain in taxes.

[therother]

. But they do not grow at a rate proportional to pop. I haven't analyzed this rigorously, but I'd be willing to wager that it costs more to deal with the disorder problems than you gain in taxes.

I assume you mean directly proportional (i.e. linear growth), in which case you are correct. Remember, population also has an effect on trade as well.

[Dorkus]

I assume you mean directly proportional (i.e. linear growth), in which case you are correct. Remember, population also has an effect on trade as well.

By proportional, I mean that x% pop growth does not grant x% income boost. Might still be linear, but still not cost effective. Especially since each additional x% pop growth becomes more expensive to deal with.

Are you sure pop affects trade? I did a test, and I dont' recall trade or farm income changing with population, though taxes did. Maybe I am wrong about this, or the city i was testing was weird for other reasons.

[therother]

By proportional, I mean that x% pop growth does not grant x% income boost.

No, it doesn't. But here's a case study of my capital, Tarentum, at 31,739 and 50,000. (Farming income is invariant, no mines)

Taxes (low):1001/1402
Trade (1st order effects only): 6830/7427[*]
Pop Growth 0/-7%
Public Order: 120/90
Garrison: 5%/5% (~300 men stationed)

[*]I'm still investigating the effects of population on sea trading routes, specifically to do with imports (i.e. cities that choose your cities as export markets).

[Red Harvest]

While I like the squalor feature, the way it works is completely counter intuitive to me. Here is why:

It works a$$backwards of what the "advisor" says...

Public health buildings should not be increasing squalor. If implemented properly (by the game) they should reduce squalor. Managing squalor should be a fight, but it should have some common sense.

Not having decent farms should cause squalor--counter to the game. They should make it possible for the province to make food available in the settlement at an affordable price. They also should tend to shift population from the city to the countryside...not the reverse. Why? Because extensive farming should provide employment/way of life for many *outside* the settlement.

Having old wooden walls in large cities should increase squalor, while nice stone ones should help. Good roads should reduce squalor, because dirt streets are less sanitary, muddy, filthy messes in large cities. Construction in general should reduce squalor because it keeps the population employed and it means neglected areas are often torn down and rebuilt with new structures.

[Dorkus]

agree 100% with this as a matter of game balance. public health buidlings and farms should boost order at higher levels.

Indeed, all the higher level buildigns (other than troop buildigns) need a boost. They simply don't generate enough income/order to justify their expense. City plumbing is just the wosrt case, but the arenas, for example, are completely worthless beyond the first level. Each additional level grants only 5% more order (the original grants 5% plus up to 30% more if you're willing to apy for it) and costs twice as much!!

While I like the squalor feature, the way it works is completely counter intuitive to me. Here is why:

It works a$$backwards of what the "advisor" says...

Public health buildings should not be increasing squalor. If implemented properly (by the game) they should reduce squalor. Managing squalor should be a fight, but it should have some common sense.

Not having decent farms should cause squalor--counter to the game. They should make it possible for the province to make food available in the settlement at an affordable price. They also should tend to shift population from the city to the countryside...not the reverse. Why? Because extensive farming should provide employment/way of life for many *outside* the settlement.

Having old wooden walls in large cities should increase squalor, while nice stone ones should help. Good roads should reduce squalor, because dirt streets are less sanitary, muddy, filthy messes in large cities. Construction in general should reduce squalor because it keeps the population employed and it means neglected areas are often torn down and rebuilt with new structures.

[therother]

Not having decent farms should cause squalor--counter to the game.

You see, I think that it's this viewpoint that is, to some extents, backwards. Population causes squalor, not farms. Farms increase growth rate by 0.5% per level and farming income by around 80 denarii. It's backwards as you can't get that extra population to have a lot of squalor without farms and health buildings. You simply will not get the people (or if you enslave them, they'll either die or go back to the countryside). Squalor is an effect of population, but only a side effect of increased farming. Yes, it isn't perfect, but this is not a full population simulator!

They should make it possible for the province to make food available in the settlement at an affordable price. They also should tend to shift population from the city to the countryside...not the reverse. Why? Because extensive farming should provide employment/way of life for many *outside* the settlement.

Maybe they do, it's just not shown!

Having old wooden walls in large cities should increase squalor, while nice stone ones should help. Good roads should reduce squalor, because dirt streets are less sanitary, muddy, filthy messes in large cities. Construction in general should reduce squalor because it keeps the population employed and it means neglected areas are often torn down and rebuilt with new structures.

Yes, I agree. There are plenty of factors you could add in with more explicit detail. A nice flat region with a seaside port and lots of beaches would attract more people than one strewn with mountains (the game simulates this with basic farming level). But again, simulating all this properly would be computationally intensive.

[Red Harvest]

You see, I think that it's this viewpoint that is, to some extents, backwards. Population causes squalor, not farms. Farms increase growth rate by 0.5% per level and farming income by around 80 denarii. It's backwards as you can't get that extra population to have a lot of squalor without farms and health buildings. You simply will not get the people (or if you enslave them, they'll either die or go back to the countryside). Squalor is an effect of population, but only a side effect of increased farming. Yes, it isn't perfect, but this is not a full population simulator!

We agree on several things, but I disagree with the above for several reasons:

1. I do not believe that population alone in real life is responsible for squalor. In real life, squalor can be found in small towns just as in larger towns (for a modern US equivalent try visiting portions of the rural South.) Large populations of very poor folks with poor infrastructure cause increased squalor, true. But large populations can also have low levels of squalor if infrastructure is good and employment is strong. Of course, it often requires some laws to regulate the industries that bring population to the cities as well...or else you get tenements and shanty towns.
2. Farms should make the settlements themselves less squalor prone because lack of food = squalor. Farms could increase population, yes, but they seem to be missing inhibiting effects on squalor that they deserve. It is one-sided at the moment, that is where I see the rub. I doubt CA intended us not to upgrade farms (or public health buildings) as a way of reducing squalor.
3. The game is by nature trying to be a simple population simulator. If you make farming a workable enterprise, there should be population shift out of the settlement to the countryside. (If you've ever played the old Lords of the Realm series you will recall how populations moved around the map based on "happiness levels" effected by a few different factors--it was a simple but effective population simulator.)

[Bob the Insane]

Is it possible for a settlement to not have enough food?? The large cities I have import a lot of food, which keeps the pop increase rate up. Where does this food come from? Can an enemy block it??

I don't think people are thinking in an abstract enough manner...

They look at the city they have built and think, "look I have built great plumbing for fresh water, great baths for washing, we have a great governor with clever advisors, huge farms producing more food than we ever will need... How dare there be an squalor, I have built a fecking utopian paradise you ungrateful vitual gits!!!!"

Squalor in this game is a measurement of all the nasty things in a crowded city, crime, poverty, diesease (not the plague), crowded conditions, etc... It states in an abstract manner that these things exist as a percentage of population and you can not do anything about it, you can only try to counter it...

[therother]

1. I do not believe that population alone in real life is responsible for squalor.

Not alone, no. But in 200BC there was only so far you could go in eliminating squalor, or waste and refuse if you like. The dustbin (garbage) men didn't come round every Tuesday to empty your dustbins for a start.

2. Farms should make the settlements themselves less squalor prone because lack of food = squalor. Farms could increase population, yes, but they seem to be missing inhibiting effects on squalor that they deserve. It is one-sided at the moment, that is where I see the rub. I doubt CA intended us not to upgrade farms (or public health buildings) as a way of reducing squalor.

Lack of food = squalor? I disagree. You can have all the food in the world, but if you've not got the infrastructure to handle the population - not enough houses, water, refuse collection, etc., then you are going to be living in a mess. Humans, like all animals, are messy people; have a room full of them, especially if they are well fed, and watch the waste. The only difference is that animals tend to live in better equilibrium with their surroundings than humans.

3. The game is by nature trying to be a simple population simulator. If you make farming a workable enterprise, there should be population shift out of the settlement to the countryside. (If you've ever played the old Lords of the Realm series you will recall how populations moved around the map based on "happiness levels" effected by a few different factors--it was a simple but effective population simulator.)

Oh, I agree with you. The simulator could be better. I'm not trying to be the fanboy defending CA to the death, but I do think that at least some of the criticism directed at the management of cities is, if not quite unfounded, then certainly on pretty shaky ground.

[Grifman]

While I like the squalor feature, the way it works is completely counter intuitive to me. Here is why:

Not having decent farms should cause squalor--counter to the game. They should make it possible for the province to make food available in the settlement at an affordable price. They also should tend to shift population from the city to the countryside...not the reverse. Why? Because extensive farming should provide employment/way of life for many *outside* the settlement.

No, I think you have it wrong. Decent farms mean more food can be grown with less people, hence fewer jobs in the country, which means people move to the cities looking for work. In addition, I think specifically one of the farm improvements is the a larger farm owned by the wealthy and farmed by slaves, which started historically to do away with smaller family owned plots, which again led the rural poor to move the city.

Grifman

[Grifman]

Public health buildings should not be increasing squalor. If implemented properly (by the game) they should reduce squalor. Managing squalor should be a fight, but it should have some common sense.

Well, I think it is incorrect to say that public health building directly cause squalor - and I don't think they do. What they do is increase population growth, which then increases squalor. I think that is totally logical and historical. Human history is full of our attempts at fixing problems which lead to further problems. Need more food, improve agriculture. Which leads to population growth requires further improvements in agriculture to support the growing population. Have dirty water - build sewers and ship in water via aqueducts. But that leads to more people moving to the city, which leads to the need for more sewers and more aqueducts. It's a never ending struggle to keep up and balance pop growth with your ability to support/sustain that growth.

Grifman

[Red Harvest]

Grifman,

I can't justify public sewers and aqueducts as leading to squalor, it just doesn't fit. They allow for greater population by reducing squalor (ability to provide potable water and remove waste.) Having to pay to enlarge them as the city grows would be quite reasonable, but it is not an option. Filth is in the definition of squalor. Taken to the extreme, the given interpretation suggests large cities of today should be mostly squalor since they have public sewers, water, and massive populations.

While I see your point and others I don't agree with the farm efficiency argument because I reject some of the current notions of increased efficiency. (There was a good article I read recently illustrating that much of the recent "boom" in efficiency is actually the shift to off the books/contract labor. They had revised figures that paint a much more normal picture of productivity growth.) Productive farms don't cause squalor, but non-productive ones do. Famines and food shortages produce squalor. Strong farming just adds another industry and uses more of your available resources. Good harvests require labor, storage, transport and trade (more employment throughout the chain.) Bad harvests do not need any of it. Smaller farms of the period on average would have higher squalor. Quite a number of the freemen on small farms would not be better off from a *squalor* standpoint than the slaves of a successful big farm. (Note, I'm not talking at all about non-squalor horrors of being a slave.) Remember, at this time good farming meant producing more not just from a given plot of land, but also making more land arable.

Anyway, it is an interesting topic to think about. A lot of it is "chicken-or-the-egg?" Is the improved farm and farm efficiency producing squalor or reducing it? We can make valid arguments both ways. Perhaps CA will tell us the philosophy.

[Meneldil]

Sorry for my first post, I was kinda annoyed for personnal reasons, but annyway, what about whinning for a patch to change squalor effects ? I don't want to remove it at all, but right now, it doesn't look historicaly accurate.

[Grifman]

[QUOTE=Red Harvest]Grifman,

I can't justify public sewers and aqueducts as leading to squalor, it just doesn't fit. They allow for greater population by reducing squalor (ability to provide potable water and remove waste.) Having to pay to enlarge them as the city grows would be quite reasonable, but it is not an option. Filth is in the definition of squalor.

You can't extrapolate from today's situation back to Roman times. Modern cities in the First World can and do support massive populations without what the game calls squalor. That was beyond the ability of Roman cities. Every household in a modern city has running water and toilets. That was not true of the vast majority in Roman cities. It was only the rich that had running water, not the mass of poor. Your comparison of Roman cities to cities today is inaccurate.

Taken to the extreme, the given interpretation suggests large cities of today should be mostly squalor since they have public sewers, water, and massive populations.

Ever been to a Third World city - we see just that. We see the same thing though happening in the Third World cities today. People leaving farming (see below) and moving to the city, a city which is unable to support its population with all the necessary public services. What is happening in many Third World cities today is what happened to Rome. More "squalor".

While I see your point and others I don't agree with the farm efficiency argument because I reject some of the current notions of increased efficiency. (There was a good article I read recently illustrating that much of the recent "boom" in efficiency is actually the shift to off the books/contract labor. They had revised figures that paint a much more normal picture of productivity growth.)

That's irrelevant. We aren't talking current notions of productivity, but what happened 2,000 years ago. It's not a definitional issue but a factual issue.

Productive farms don't cause squalor, but non-productive ones do.

It all depends on how that productivity is achieved. You're ignoring what happens, and what actually happened in Roman society when small peasant farmer can no longer compete with larger estates farmed by slaves. Smaller farms run by peasants were not able to compete with larger farms/estates using slave labor. This caused a large influx of landless peasants into the cities, which produced the problems known in the game as squalor.

Famines and food shortages produce squalor.

Yes, but so do cities crowded with more people than they can comfortably support due to technology limitations.

Strong farming just adds another industry and uses more of your available resources.

Not if it drives peasant farmers off their farms because of the use of cheap slave labor - which is what happened in much of the Empire.

Good harvests require labor, storage, transport and trade (more employment throughout the chain.) Bad harvests do not need any of it. Smaller farms of the period on average would have higher squalor. Quite a number of the freemen on small farms would not be better off from a *squalor* standpoint than the slaves of a successful big farm. (Note, I'm not talking at all about non-squalor horrors of being a slave.) Remember, at this time good farming meant producing more not just from a given plot of land, but also making more land arable.

You don't seem to be getting it. The issue isn't squalor on type of farm vs. another, but what happens to the one type of farmer (the "free" peasant") when his farm can no longer compete with another type of farmer (the rich landed estate farmed by slaves). The peasant has to sell out, and he moves to the city looking for work - which produces squalor in the city because they didn't have the technology to support such large populations without creating "squalor".

Anyway, it is an interesting topic to think about. A lot of it is "chicken-or-the-egg?" Is the improved farm and farm efficiency producing squalor or reducing it? We can make valid arguments both ways. Perhaps CA will tell us the philosophy.

No, the argument doesn't cut both ways. I'm telling you what actually happened in the empire. My position isn't based upon theory but history.

Grifman

[ToranagaSama]

Grifman,

I can't justify public sewers and aqueducts as leading to squalor, it just doesn't fit. They allow for greater population by reducing squalor (ability to provide potable water and remove waste.) Having to pay to enlarge them as the city grows would be quite reasonable, but it is not an option. Filth is in the definition of squalor. Taken to the extreme, the given interpretation suggests large cities of today should be mostly squalor since they have public sewers, water, and massive populations.

While I see your point and others I don't agree with the farm efficiency argument because I reject some of the current notions of increased efficiency. (There was a good article I read recently illustrating that much of the recent "boom" in efficiency is actually the shift to off the books/contract labor. They had revised figures that paint a much more normal picture of productivity growth.) Productive farms don't cause squalor, but non-productive ones do. Famines and food shortages produce squalor. Strong farming just adds another industry and uses more of your available resources. Good harvests require labor, storage, transport and trade (more employment throughout the chain.) Bad harvests do not need any of it. Smaller farms of the period on average would have higher squalor. Quite a number of the freemen on small farms would not be better off from a *squalor* standpoint than the slaves of a successful big farm. (Note, I'm not talking at all about non-squalor horrors of being a slave.) Remember, at this time good farming meant producing more not just from a given plot of land, but also making more land arable.

Anyway, it is an interesting topic to think about. A lot of it is "chicken-or-the-egg?" Is the improved farm and farm efficiency producing squalor or reducing it? We can make valid arguments both ways. Perhaps CA will tell us the philosophy.

I think one thing that's being discounted is the effect of slavery and certain developments within Roman society as it became more and more successful in taking lands and people.

I haven't studied the Romans to any real degree, but I have pondered information regarding Roman society and structure as it has come to me. I'm not sure of dates and developments as they relate to the game, but am aware of certain relations and the effect they must have caused within Roman society.

For example, for a period of time during the early period (define as you will), the armies were comprised of native Roman citizens. With success, the need for ever greater numbers of native citizens to fill the ranks of the army, as well as the material draw of reward from soldering (booty), had the effect of thinning the ranks of *farmers*. There came a point where many farms were left to fallow, simply because so many were serving in the army.

What occurred as Rome continued its military success and enslaved ever greater populations, was that powerful Roman individuals and families began a practice of siezing fallow farms and utilizing slaves to labor these farms. Eventually, these farms grew into huge estates fueled by slave labor.

The above is pretty much what I've very recently learned to be factual.

The question then, is what effect did this development have upon Roman society?

The following is my extrapolation:

1) As the former (family/individual) farms were taken over, displacement must have occurred, as the former farmers, their familes, and those they may have employed were out of a source of income, save whatever pension or wealth derived income from the male family members conquering exploits.

It is this displacement as a result of farm seizures and slave labor, which lead to a population shift to the cities; with no work or manner of derived income to be found in the countryside, the city was the only alternative.

2) The productive effiencies of *consolidation*, in addition, to the cost efficiencies of slavery must have lead to greater food production, as well as greater profit, a natural motivator for ever growing estates.

Increasing Production leads to greater Supply, great Supply leads to lower prices. The main market being the cities, naturally, the lowest *market* prices would be found within the cities. This is more motivation for populations to flock to the city.

3) Slave labor not only in the countryside, but in the cities was a cause for *labor* displacement. Not only did farms employ slave labor, but also businesses. Most *businesses* of the day would naturally reside where the largest markest exist, and that would be the cities. Yet, with the availabliity of slave labor, the *paid* labor market must have been greatly displaced.

As a result of the above conditions, there is a population shit from the countryside to the cities, and simultaneously a substantial rise in Unemployment for the (key point) free Roman CITENZRY.

High Production, High Supply, Low Prices, High Demand, but a cash strapped Market. This is *Squalor* and I think describes the Roman economy (oxymoronic and downward spiraling).

This also descibes the creation of the Roman "Mob". Roman leadership had to contend with a majority population of *free* Roman citizens with Rights, but without a means to support and sustain themselves (other than Army employment). Squalor.

This comes to my Fourth and last know fact:

4) That is the developed need for the Roman leadership to provide an ancient form of Welfare to its displaced and dis-enfranchised free citizenzry. The game mentions this and I forget its proper name, but there existed a policy of providing FREE food to the citizenry.

In addition, "The Games" were utilized in a similar fashion as Televisions is utilized today, as a pacifier for the Masses/Mob.

------

I'm having a problem with Squalor right now, and the Plague is visiting one of my cities, Pativium. I'm going to try tearing down the Ceres temples and employ the law and order temples (??). I've had a policy of Enslavement for the cities I conquer, I'm going to switch to Occupation; and I'm going to take the advice and figure out which buildings are most appropriate to counter Squalor.

-----

I think the general *Lack of Documentation* is a bug!
Hopefully, it'll be fixed with the Patch.