Read this if you're having problems with squlaor

[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.

[ChaosLord]

I think the palace buildings need to lower the distance to capitol penalty. Have it be 5% for first, 10% for second, 20% for third, 40% for the last. I mean, if I have an Imperial Palace somewhere they're going to be ruled alot more efficently. Having roads/ports do it might work better though, since not all factions have the same amount of palace buildings. But there needs to be some way to counter it beyond moving your capitol around.