Org Mobile Site
Has any one anyone else noticed how few cities are on rivers? Look at Europe the real world: rivers were extremely important for trade and many cities increased inside initially due to the source of clean water, a place to dump refuse and boats to trade.
Major rivers (e.g. the Danube) could allow river trade in settlements in central europe.
One aspect of Total War that I was recently thinking of at work was relatively simple population dynamics.
What I mean by that rather poncy sounding title is merely the fact that one area on the map can be bursting with a nearly rioting populace with major roads to other cities - yet no one gets off their arses and "votes with their" feet.
A method that there was some flow of a populace inside of the empire would be a feature that I think would be appreciated.
As above, this would help alleviate cities that are massively overcrowded as well as allow nearly empty cities to be stocked up quickly.
This could be an option in the city tab to allow free movement, to ristrict entry or restrict leaving.
The third thing I was thinking about is how regardless of the population there is only one city. I was wondering about the possibility of smaller satellite settlements that appear as the population in the territory increases. Certainly for barbarians their settlements are unlikely to be able to cope with the same density as the Romans.
At the simplest I would argue that this would make the map less empty and would provide for an increased variability in battle maps.
To ease playability, the details of the settlements are based on the main settlement as opposed to being directly player controlled
Destroying the settlements could have obviously smaller effects on the empire than taking the main city - a loss of population, money or happiness - destruction can be ignored, but would be irritating long term.
Any agree / disagree / point out it's been talked to death several times previously?
Major rivers (e.g. the Danube) could allow river trade in settlements in central europe.
One aspect of Total War that I was recently thinking of at work was relatively simple population dynamics.
What I mean by that rather poncy sounding title is merely the fact that one area on the map can be bursting with a nearly rioting populace with major roads to other cities - yet no one gets off their arses and "votes with their" feet.
A method that there was some flow of a populace inside of the empire would be a feature that I think would be appreciated.
As above, this would help alleviate cities that are massively overcrowded as well as allow nearly empty cities to be stocked up quickly.
This could be an option in the city tab to allow free movement, to ristrict entry or restrict leaving.
The third thing I was thinking about is how regardless of the population there is only one city. I was wondering about the possibility of smaller satellite settlements that appear as the population in the territory increases. Certainly for barbarians their settlements are unlikely to be able to cope with the same density as the Romans.
At the simplest I would argue that this would make the map less empty and would provide for an increased variability in battle maps.
To ease playability, the details of the settlements are based on the main settlement as opposed to being directly player controlled
Destroying the settlements could have obviously smaller effects on the empire than taking the main city - a loss of population, money or happiness - destruction can be ignored, but would be irritating long term.
Any agree / disagree / point out it's been talked to death several times previously?
More settlements generally have the problem that it could mean more sieges (if the small settlements have to be sieged to be taken). To my taste, there are already too many sieges.
The population dynamics sound interesting, however, the decrease of population due to squalor could already be seen as cityflight.
Ahh, rory, long time no see.
The population dynamics sound interesting, however, the decrease of population due to squalor could already be seen as cityflight.
Ahh, rory, long time no see.
I was thinking that due to their small size (and as you say the drastic increase in sieges) that none would be required - the settlements are too small to warrant fortifications per se. Possibly walls and gates, but the gates are open. The defender gets the typical city defence but there is no weary prelude. If the attackers win the settlement is razed automomatically.
Yup, I'm back. Been dipping in and reading a lot about mods etc etc but havn't bothered writing as I've not been playing enough to have any valid input.
Yup, I'm back. Been dipping in and reading a lot about mods etc etc but havn't bothered writing as I've not been playing enough to have any valid input.
that’s a brilliant idea satellites settlements
if your at war with people there’d be less little settlements in the border provinces
if your at war with people there’d be less little settlements in the border provinces
How it works. in my head anyway 
. Is that as population was less static then, even though there may well be small villages/hamlets around in the province as the enemy advances they would grab thier 3 pigs and head for the nearest population center with walls and soldiers. Put yourselves in thier shoes if you were told 10,000 heavily armed men were heading towards your town would you hang about?
. Is that as population was less static then, even though there may well be small villages/hamlets around in the province as the enemy advances they would grab thier 3 pigs and head for the nearest population center with walls and soldiers. Put yourselves in thier shoes if you were told 10,000 heavily armed men were heading towards your town would you hang about?Although a percentage would head towards the main city, I would have thought that a larger percentage would head away from the centre of danger, as the target is at least assumed to be clear. Bandits in the region would be more likely to cause the population to head towards the centre.
One could also argue it would depend on the view of the empire that was sending the troops: Hunnic armies would have a greater effect than the ERE on the WRE for example.
Although details may be increasing the clutter, one could have traits effect this, or even the intent of the player to choose how the army will behave.
One could also argue it would depend on the view of the empire that was sending the troops: Hunnic armies would have a greater effect than the ERE on the WRE for example.
Although details may be increasing the clutter, one could have traits effect this, or even the intent of the player to choose how the army will behave.
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
What I mean by that rather poncy sounding title is merely the fact that one area on the map can be bursting with a nearly rioting populace with major roads to other cities - yet no one gets off their arses and "votes with their" feet.
A method that there was some flow of a populace inside of the empire would be a feature that I think would be appreciated.
As above, this would help alleviate cities that are massively overcrowded as well as allow nearly empty cities to be stocked up quickly.
The first PC strategy game I ever played, Lords of the Realm II, had that feature. Citizens would migrate towards the cities with the highest "happyness rating." I liked the feature, and would love to see it in future TW games.What I mean by that rather poncy sounding title is merely the fact that one area on the map can be bursting with a nearly rioting populace with major roads to other cities - yet no one gets off their arses and "votes with their" feet.
A method that there was some flow of a populace inside of the empire would be a feature that I think would be appreciated.
As above, this would help alleviate cities that are massively overcrowded as well as allow nearly empty cities to be stocked up quickly.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO