Can't take it anymore

[ReluctantSamurai]

If every city had land clearance and trader, no higher as well as the best religous building you can get that doesn't boost population growth then that would decrease the population increase by 1-3%.

The problem with that is that often times you need the farm production to be as high as possible, early on, to get the city to grow.......but after you reach maximum development, the +4 farmland becomes a "liability" in respect of very rapid 're-growth.' I think the only areas you could get away with only basic land clearance is in the areas with bonus grain production (like Carthage, Alexandria, etc.)

However, nearly every city will at 1 stage revolt against it's conqueror, some will revolt more than others, all you can do is let it happen and kill the rebels or try to stop it for as long as possible

Which is why I made reference to what I believe are unrealistic demographics with respect to population growth. Not that a game has to mirror history in all respects, but how often did cities revolt against the owner as a result of squalor or too rapid growth? For political and religious reasons, yes......numerous examples. But because the populace was overly affluent? (I equate rapid growth rate with increasing wealth......maybe not a valid comparison)

The bottom line for me is that it seems nutz to have to resort to repeated massacre of civilians in order to keep control of large cities (and shipping peasants around adds even more tediousness to an already overly-tedious task, IMHO). I don't care how many measures you take to slow this down, or how good your governor is (and governors don't live for forever).....at some point you will reach ZPG and then NPG, and your only alternative is to wait for the plague.............................

[Quirinus]

The problem with that is that often times you need the farm production to be as high as possible, early on, to get the city to grow.......but after you reach maximum development, the +4 farmland becomes a "liability" in respect of very rapid 're-growth.' I think the only areas you could get away with only basic land clearance is in the areas with bonus grain production (like Carthage, Alexandria, etc.)

I dunno, for me the vanilla game wasn't so difficult to the degree where I needed extra growth to survive... but then again I only ever play M/M. I actually only build farms in areas with less than 2% fertility, and even then only up to maybe the second tier. Health buildings like sewers or growth temples are usually enough to boost the population growth to an acceptable rate for me.

Which is why I made reference to what I believe are unrealistic demographics with respect to population growth. Not that a game has to mirror history in all respects, but how often did cities revolt against the owner as a result of squalor or too rapid growth? For political and religious reasons, yes......numerous examples. But because the populace was overly affluent? (I equate rapid growth rate with increasing wealth......maybe not a valid comparison)

The bottom line for me is that it seems nutz to have to resort to repeated massacre of civilians in order to keep control of large cities (and shipping peasants around adds even more tediousness to an already overly-tedious task, IMHO). I don't care how many measures you take to slow this down, or how good your governor is (and governors don't live for forever).....at some point you will reach ZPG and then NPG, and your only alternative is to wait for the plague.............................

I strongly agree... it's one of my biggest peeve about RTW, actually, way above the dumb AI and their awful pathfinding, or historical inaccuracies like screeching women or head hurlers.

But Omanes Alexandrapolites rationalised it in a way which I thought made it at least not too immersion-breaking: that increasing population may also reflect the growth of a wealthy and powerful urban elite, who may manipulate the citizens to disaffectation with the regime or into backing a pretender or something.

(Or at least that's how I remember it, apologies if that's not what you originally meant, Omanes... )

[Carlos Matthews]

The aim is for your cities to reach the maximum population level, whether it be 24000 or 6000, and then for population growth to stop completely. In cities such as Patavium or Alexandria this is nigh impossible so these cities should be your main recruitment centres, keep a constant full recruitment line and hope for the best. Now I haven't actually told you how to cap the population, for me it is a no-brainer, I rarely fail to cap the population with minimal effort. I either occupy or exterminate, slavery boosts population growth and you may be able to get away with it very early on, do slaves resource last for 25 turns or something similar? Turtling therefore not only makes your empire grow slowly but also your cities, minimal population-boosting buildings (farming/health) should be avoided and then you should easily cap your population at the highest tier.

[Megas Methuselah]

.... I never have this problem. But that's probably because I play a realistic game and don't blitz the map like crazy. Besides, whenever I capture an enemy town/city, I always exterminate the population if it proves difficult to control.

[Quirinus]

But doesn't turtling make your cities grow faster, since you don't have to churn out troops like crazy?