Read this if you're having problems with squlaor

[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.

[Doug-Thompson]

Re: Peasants

Nobody thinks more of building peasants than me, but analysis on this and other threads has proven that peasants do not reduce squalor, at least not directly.

Peasants reduce POPULATION, which has the side effect of reducing squalor.

(Other units reduced population too, just not as efficiently).

I still think peasants give a lot of flexibility. You can que a bunch, for instance, and get a lot of benefits to loyalty. They are also the best way to shift population around. I still build lots of peasants, mainly to re-populate areas conquered areas, turn large cities into huge ones, and provide garrisons. In a typical siege, I have peasants accompany the real army. I use the peasants for sappers, then as a garrison, and then disband them to restore the massacred population.

However, since therother's thread and several others have come out, I've been able to drop the intense micro-management that's required for use of peasants and peasant "migration" as the biggest tool in social control. Now I que up peasants when needed for loyalty, let them gather outside the town when the garrison is "full," and move them about as needed. Also, large peasant garrisons allow me to raise taxes, which are useful for controlling population growth after a city has hit the "huge" category.

[Soulflame]

I think it's not just squalor that is the problem. It's the total disorder, that prevents you from 'doing the Risk manouvre'. The Risk manouvre is that as a last resort, you cash in all your cards, get a ton of armies and go on a hunting trek through the whole map.
That is unrealistic, and Rome proves it. So yes, it makes the game more cumbersome, but it is more realistic.

Although on the other hand, although the effects may be okay, the causes seem a bit unrealistic. Now I'm not a historian, but I didn't know much about squalor in some cities, or about how much influence the distance to capital had... but I think there are better (more realistic) ways to implement them.
Once again, a logistic scale for distance to capital would be better I think. Being 2500 km or 3000 km from the capital wouldn't matter much, but 250 or 300 does. So a logistical scale seems more appropiate. And maybe the complete opposite (an exponential scale) for squalor. If you have 25k people in a city and it increases to 30k, lots of those 5k people will live poorly and increase the squalor. Whereas going from 5k to 10k wouldn't give such an increase, since then there might still be enough room and services for everyone.
The balancing should be the same as now, in a way that a 25/30k city or 50/60point distance to capital would be the same as in the current lineair system.

Right now, I don't mind the effects (the disorder), but the causes seem a bit weird.

[Red Harvest]

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.

Nah, I don't see it as fanboyism at all, just fair discussion. Your analysis has been very helpful. I like the feature, and I want it to get progressively harder to combat squalor with population, but I would like to see buildings have some positive impact on actually controlling it...rather than not building things being the answer. That certainly seems a bit odd.

I see the squalor stat as being more comprehensive, including issues such as nutrition/starvation related happiness factors. Perhaps that is wrong since it is not part of the rigid definition. Lack of food pretty much ensures squalor doesn't it? People will be picking through trash, looking for food, and generally doing destructive things (in the long term) to survive the short term. It certainly has negative public health effects. Revolution often starts with the folks who are not getting enough to eat. The squalor stat implies some of this.

Primitive ag with a large population generally leads to destructive stripping of the land (like devastation in the game.) Topsoil is lost, land becomes infertile, and productivity plummets. Food costs will skyrocket, farmers in the region will suffer, and nobody is happy. The starving rural poor will eventually migrate to the city since they can't subsist, thereby increasing squalor rapidly.

[therother]

Nah, I don't see it as fanboyism at all, just fair discussion. Your analysis has been very helpful. I like the feature, and I want it to get progressively harder to combat squalor with population, but I would like to see buildings have some positive impact on actually controlling it...rather than not building things being the answer. That certainly seems a bit odd.

Let's turn it on its head, and assume, just for the sake of argument, that CA might actually know something. I know it's a leap, but bear with me .

The only building known to affect squalor is the Governor's building. (See my post here for the figures). Let us assume that this is due to additional civil amenities due to the increased level of civil management. So far, fair enough I think. So why don’t water supply buildings or health temples help? Does a hospital treat the squalor in urban slums? No, it treats the problems caused. In other words, it is a bandage on a gaping wound: it makes it a better, but the serious problem is still there festering away. But it might make you feel a bit better whilst you slowly shuffle off the mortal coil.

Water supply buildings, IMO, are a different story. Having sewers, plumbing and aqueducts (it's what the Romans did for us!) should actually combat some of the sewage in your cities. Not all of it, to be sure, but it should give you some decrease. So squalor should go down.

Revolution often starts with the folks who are not getting enough to eat.

Ah, the old any civilisation is three meals from revolution! "Let them eat cake!"

Primitive ag with a large population generally leads to destructive stripping of the land (like devastation in the game.) Topsoil is lost, land becomes infertile, and productivity plummets. Food costs will skyrocket, farmers in the region will suffer, and nobody is happy. The starving rural poor will eventually migrate to the city since they can't subsist, thereby increasing squalor rapidly.

But perhaps improved farms are more efficient farms as well, i.e. they will require fewer labourers, forcing the peons off the land into your beautifully plumbed (but so to be desecrated)city!

[Red Harvest]

Valid arguments, but there is more that can be added (pro and con.)

Having a decent water supply and some sanitation should reduce squalor. Inhabitants who are accustomed to baths, are less likely to tolerate filth at home. You gave hospitals as a real world example. Hospitals should also have an impact even in a rundown city. They are not limited to treating only the symptoms, they also prevent the spread of disease by dealing with outbreaks, and providing some basic health education to those who need care. If the city has no hospital, better off citizens are more likely to leave...while those that stay might have no choice and on average be poorer or in dire straits. That increases squalor. Squalor should also be a reflection of what type of citizenry the buildings encourage.

I doubt that CA has everything tweaked quite the way they want it with the settlement engine. In other areas they've already said that the Marian reforms are happening a bit earlier than anticipated. There are unit stats that clearly don't match the graphics (no shield, wrong shield, wrong weapon, no armour, etc.) I figure they still have some tweaking to do.

Another thing I've wondered about is distance to the capitol. If I upgrade roads or add ports the "effective distance" should be less. I should see a boost in public order as a result. I've not watched this closely, but I've not seen this happen yet when I've checked.

[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.