Change the meaning of population?

[AqD]

Hey guys! I just got an idea, that since in RTW everytime you recruit soldiers it reduces the local population, why not make the population to be the population of military/recruitable persons, instead of the total population of everyone living there?

Sounds simple yes? It would mean several things, to the Seleucid/Hellenistic factions for instance:

1. Most cities in the beginning would have minimal number of people (400), because their soldiers are all foreign and there weren't any foreigner in most part of their empires. (their recruitment pool are greeks/macedonians/jews/mercs etc)
2. Population growth would be kept at minimum in most cities, except for those where you have proper buildings for military colonists. Even libraries could help, but basic buildings such as farms don't.
3. Civil unrest wouldn't be a problem except in warlike regions such as Iberia and Italy. Commoners who don't fight couldn't cause troubles - and they never did.
4. Military colonization is a double edged sword - If you actually develop a city to be full of recruitable mercenaries and your own people, and you don't send them to die for glory routinely, they'd grow unhappy with you, and eventually rebel, unless there are enough entertainment buildings (which may also reduce population).
5. Economics should not depend on population, or even grow in opposite direction.

The system would also be able to represent the situations I observed:

1. The manpower advantage that Romans had - by having much more population than its neighbors.
2. The disadvantage that Carthaginians had - by having smaller population, and those with recruitable mercenaries (the Libyan soldiers) are always unhappy and troublesome.
3. In Seleucid empire, the ones who rebel are mostly greeks/macedonians, the most oppressed Persians and Babylonians etc remained loyal to the last day.

However, the system could not represent differenct classes of recruitable people - nobles/commoner etc. It wasn't such a big problem though, if cheap peasant units are all removed (they were rarely employeed in 200BC anyway).



What do you guys think?

[Caligula Caesar]

Sorry, I kinda missed this.

That's an interesting idea, and it could work, but I don't think it would be possible to separate income from population, which would cause a breakdown in the system. Besides, with AoRs, factions can recruit native troops, so it would be a bit strange if their population is only their own soldier class. Also, it would be a bit strange if, say, the Seleucids conquered India, because the Indian regions would have high populations for the Mauryans, but should have low ones for the Seleucids in your model.

[AqD]

Sorry, I kinda missed this.

That's an interesting idea, and it could work, but I don't think it would be possible to separate income from population, which would cause a breakdown in the system. Besides, with AoRs, factions can recruit native troops, so it would be a bit strange if their population is only their own soldier class. Also, it would be a bit strange if, say, the Seleucids conquered India, because the Indian regions would have high populations for the Mauryans, but should have low ones for the Seleucids in your model.

Umm, the income actually has nothing to do with population - most of it comes from trade. The only side-effect however is that massacring people hurts absolutely nothing.

The population in my model doesn't represent only the soldier class of the owning faction, but the total of warrior/soldiers. For example, in gallic towns they have the native warroir class (most gauls were no longer warriors in Rome's era), and if greeks conquered them, at first they'd have basic population which equal to the numbers of native/AOR warriors they can recruit. It'd be like that:

- city level 0: population growth = low, trade income = low, troops: low/medium-level gallic warriors, cut the levies such as gallic slingers/archers - levies are available to the original factions.
- city level 1: population growth = very low or zero, trade income = medium, troops: medium-level gallic warriors (warrior-class only)
- city level 2: population growth = zero or negative, trade income = high

note the city level is required to build advanced buildings such as commercial ports or schools. The upgrade of cities doesn't necessarily mean that the cities are more developed, but that they become more controllable and de-militarized, and fewer and fewer non-professional AOR or native troops remain

and then the military/barracks levels: (AOR)

1. pro gallic military level 1: + population growth, - trade income, - happiness, allow recruitment of professional gallic infantry, cavalry etc
2. pro gallic military level 2: + population growth, -- trade income, -- happiness, allow recruitment of above plus better infantry and cavalry

or the factions own: (colony)

1. pro greek military level 1: + population growth, -- trade income, - law, allow recruitment of professional hoplites/phalangites
2. pro greek military level 1: ++ population growth, ---- trade income, -- law, allow recruitment of above plus cavalry

As you can see, the development of military should generally increase the population (of potential warriors), reduce income (you pay for them even when not recruiting), and reduce law/happiness - because a city of warriors is always more rebellious than a city of peasants. While the model may seem strange to Romans, it should work better to Greeks, Parthians, most barbarians, and maybe Carthaginians too, since the patriotism we know today didn't mean anything to most of them (they're only loyal to their own tribes or cities)

The model should also force players to choose between different paths of city development, and reduce the trouble to manage large and wealthy cities where people no longer keep martial traditions.




In the case of India conquered by Seleucid - at first there would be high population, high unhappiness, very low income but large numbers of bowmen are recruitable. As you develop the cities, less and less of Indian troops are available (especially the low-end ones), and population and unhappiness reduce, until you decide to militarize them. It's the same as Mauryans, except they'd have different choices of military upgrade paths

It'd also mean the type of city/town/village no longer matters. Well-developed cities in the beginning could be "huge cities" but have as few as 400 men.

[Caligula Caesar]

Umm, the income actually has nothing to do with population - most of it comes from trade. The only side-effect however is that massacring people hurts absolutely nothing.

I'm not sure how you can say that... surely tax income, which is after all generally about the same as trade income, is mainly determined by populations, and I suspect trade might be as well (after all, there is usually more trade when there are more people).

[AqD]

I'm not sure how you can say that... surely tax income, which is after all generally about the same as trade income, is mainly determined by populations, and I suspect trade might be as well (after all, there is usually more trade when there are more people).

uh nope, trade has little to do with population.

[Nicov55]

Regarding population, i think you should have a look at what they've done with the De Bello Mundi mod (Roman frame mod on medieval). City population is realistic. They just twicked the settlements mechanics so you have huge city at 400 000+ population. That with a city mod that would limit the number of huge and large cities to some regions only would be nice and realistic.

[Hohenstaufen234]

Regarding population, i think you should have a look at what they've done with the De Bello Mundi mod (Roman frame mod on medieval). City population is realistic. They just twicked the settlements mechanics so you have huge city at 400 000+ population. That with a city mod that would limit the number of huge and large cities to some regions only would be nice and realistic.

I love that mod, and it gives a great immersion and feeling when you are going to recruit a legion and Rome has nearly 1 million population