Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Population growth in 2.6 (1-turn)

  1. #1

    Default Population growth in 2.6 (1-turn)

    I've been wondering what I can do about population growth (for all factions) in my 1-turn campaigns. I remember there wasn't enough growth in 2.1/2.5 to keep up with how many units the AI likes to recruit. There would be lots of small towns stuck at a population of around 400, which of course was awful for their economic/military development. I don't want to go back to that.

    But in basically all of my 2.6 1-turn campaigns (I don't do 0-turn, so that may be different), regions grow very quickly. Within maybe 60 or 80 turns, just about every region has a large city -- for whatever reason, the AI doesn't build huge cities that much (or they'd rather build lots of other expensive long-term projects first), even when the populations are well over 24,000. That seems like too much to me, but I don't know what changed or what I could do about it. If I could, I'd like to get maybe 0.5%-1% less growth overall; not anything major, just a small tweak that would stretch out the growth a bit (in some/most regions) so there's something to look forward to in a somewhat longer campaign. And basically just get some more diversity in the middle of a campaign, with some large towns, some cities, large cities, huge cities -- you get the idea, I hope. Maybe they would have more time to make other improvements at each city "level" before they decide they "need" to increase the level (however that happens), so they might do more of that too.

    The markets/barracks/farms/wells/etc. that do anything about growth all seem to have small, incremental improvements (0.5% at a time) that wouldn't make such a big difference, but I suppose altogether they do add up, at least once the settlement is big enough to actually build them in the first place. I just don't remember any of that being any different in 2.1 or 2.5, so I don't know where to look for things that seem to amount to 3/4/5% more growth, which I could scale back just a little bit without eliminating the effect completely. The "population growth measures" building tree is a bit more drastic, and I have cut that back slightly already. But the AI doesn't build that everywhere anyway, and the big jumps aren't available until you're already at the "city" level, so I don't think that would account for what I'm seeing.

    The "base farm level" isn't any higher in 2.6 1-turn (compared to 0-turn), by the looks of it. But if that's still the issue (because of recruitment differences), what would I do about that? Just lower some of those numbers in "descr_regions"? Is there any reason why that would be a bad idea? Does that affect the income in a region too: would everyone be poorer if I lowered the "base farm level"? Or more generally, besides fiddling with the effects in the "export_descr_buildings" files, is there anything else I can do about it?

    EDIT: I should probably add that I use "huge" units. I don't know what people did while testing 1-turn campaigns, but I figure that would make a difference.
    Last edited by Ovidius Empiricus; June 23, 2014 at 06:50 PM.

  2. #2

    Default Re: Population growth in 2.6 (1-turn)

    All the testing I did uses 'Large' units (I find huge too cumbersome and doesn't seem to result in the best 'look and feel'. let alone the stress it puts on the engine). In my current play-through I too would agree that enemy settlements are certainly large - but not excessively so. What do do find useful is that there is always a good crop of enSlaves and, moreover, subsequently getting the population back up doesn't take too long. I have noted, contrary to your experience, that I find many Huge Cities that don't need further upgrading.

    Let's not forget that the settlement in a region accounts for all the population of that region, it's just that for game-purposes they are concentrated. Certainly I've not noticed that it seems a problem.

    The variety you are looking for would also be very artificial - what you are suggesting is to deliberately hold the AI back from developing; whilst at the same time developing yourself. If you have advanced over the 100-200 years, why not them too?
    "RTW/RS VH campaign difficulty is bugged out (CA bug that never got fixed) and thus easier than Hard so play on that instead" - apple

    RSII 2.5/2.6 Tester and pesky irritant to the Team. Mucho praise for long suffering dvk'.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Population growth in 2.6 (1-turn)

    This is why depopulate is so great. Furthermore, if you somehow lose the settlement, depopulate it again. When you've slaughtered them down to something like 2000 population, it takes a long time to become annoying.

  4. #4

    Default Re: Population growth in 2.6 (1-turn)

    I have noted, contrary to your experience, that I find many Huge Cities that don't need further upgrading.
    Sure, they do eventually get there. What I meant was that, once they've reach a sufficient size, the transition to cities and large cities doesn't seem to take long at all, but it tends to be quite a while before they get around to building palaces for huge cities. I don't know why that might be, or why the AI makes that particular decision whenever it does do it, but that doesn't really concern me.

    The variety you are looking for would also be very artificial - what you are suggesting is to deliberately hold the AI back from developing; whilst at the same time developing yourself. If you have advanced over the 100-200 years, why not them too?
    Oh, no, I wouldn't want that. They would not be "held back" in any way, and everyone would be slowed down to more or less the same degree. I really mean just about every region, with few exceptions, would have its growth toned down a little. Some places, like those with grain or those starting with much larger populations, would of course still grow more than others. That's good! I'd like to see a little more diversity, not the homogeneity that I'm seeing now, which is hardly what I'd call a "natural" as opposed to "artificial" feature in the game. But generally, the changes would apply basically everywhere, because I want to be fair.

    And we're talking about 30-40 years into the game, not hundreds. The region (as a whole) will be represented with a certain population at the beginning of the campaign, let's say 400, and in that amount of time the population has exploded to 20,000-30,000. It is not just this one special place, where I could conceivably invent some story in my head about how fantastically prosperous this place happened to be, or how much these particular people just love to make babies. The same thing happens everywhere, all over the map, in peace and war, during economic booms and busts. It just keeps growing very quickly, and there's very little in the game to hold it back. I don't think there's any reasonable argument that this couldn't or shouldn't be slowed down a little bit. I get that we have to work with 0.5% at a time in this game, but you could try to do that fairly and cautiously and still get a very healthy (and if we're honest, still unrealistic) amount of growth that would be more than enough to allow for recruitment. Maybe I should get over it, and I shouldn't think the population numbers really represent a population, but are just a mechanism for upgrading a city's building tree. I could think that way, but it still happens much, much faster than the time it takes to build all of the wonderful things this mod has added to the vanilla game. So that isn't a very good reason either.

    Probably some people want to see quick results like this (the sense of accomplishment from "upgrading" your cities, in just a few years), but the questions I'm asking are about how I personally can make some very minor tweaks to do things which are not about making it less challenging for me as a player. It is about approaching some semblance of realism in the game, as well as maintaining some interest on that level later in the game, similar to the way the "economic" (financial) system was made somewhat more complicated to deal with runaway growth in the treasury.

    I do not want to just hack at it, after the fact, by "depopulating" a region I've conquered. Everything else I haven't touched will remain the same, even if I took that approach, which is much too late anyway as far I'm concerned. And I realize I am playing a war game, but as a pacifist I find wholesale extermination (and enslavement) rather unpleasant. Really, I'm drawn to this game for the history and the strategy/management stuff, not so much the fighting and raping and pillaging. It's also a pretty cheap trick, which doesn't make for very interesting gameplay, that with literally a single click of a button, I can wipe out half the population to "solve" whatever problem I might have had there with "unhappiness" or "squalor" or whatever. The long-term effects of such an event in reality have disappeared, instantly. Not only does this process not cost me anything, even in terms of my own effort, but I'll actually gain a bunch from the extra "plunder"! If it works for you, fine, but no thank you. That's not how I roll.

  5. #5

    Default Re: Population growth in 2.6 (1-turn)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ovidius Empiricus View Post
    And I realize I am playing a war game, but as a pacifist I find wholesale extermination (and enslavement) rather unpleasant. Really, I'm drawn to this game for the history and the strategy/management stuff, not so much the fighting and raping and pillaging.
    Massacres, "raping and pillaging" are quite historical. It's a thing armies tend to do, along with "fighting".

    Oh yeah, people took slaves a bunch too.



    This gives me an idea for a great campaign, the "population control measures" exterminate only run. Though, notably, it's now renamed "depopulate" and the description says only that the people were "driven out of their homes". So actually, it's more like a humanitarian crisis where they all become refugees in some other land.


    Due to the hard-coded effect and trigger of the "population boom" mechanic (get more public order if growth is above 4% on Hard campaign), 0-turn can make for some hilarious stories where "depopulating" makes people happy because there's room for more people and they can grow their population of 400 by a whopping 12% or something (that's another 80% PO)
    Last edited by Alavaria; June 24, 2014 at 12:44 PM.

  6. #6

    Default Re: Population growth in 2.6 (1-turn)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ovidius Empiricus View Post
    .............. And I realize I am playing a war game, but as a pacifist I find wholesale extermination (and enslavement) rather unpleasant. Really, I'm drawn to this game for the history and the strategy/management stuff, not so much the fighting and raping and pillaging.................
    I too wanted to comment on this, for it strikes at the very heart of many in the world who look at war-gaming askance - and I write not only as someone who has 'war-gamed' since I was about 5, but also as a former soldier/officer. Gaming-war is simply exercising the brain in solving complex problems - chess, football, cricket - they are all forms of stylised war-game. Taking that further, taking a pawn is no different to pressing the 'Enslave' button.

    RSII just happens to offer one of the most (semi-)realistic games of ancient Rome-based historical gaming experience that I have ever been fortunate to discover - and I love it. But I know that I am not actually killing people, I'm not even pretending to - it is indeed 'just a game'; but to play it you do need to RP somewhat and, mostly, do what the Romans did - for that is all part of the game.

    I only 'enslave' and never 'depopulate' - and then I spend the time and 'management' making sure those newly added settlements never rebel - and they don't, not ever (well, if the AI sends too many spies, assassins and diplomats then it is still possible!).

    Lastly - if we did, as indeed we could, trim back the population growth (and change things like the Akragas mechanism, naturally) - then of course we would then need to re-balance and re-baseline all the costs - for population -> taxes; and that would be a major new effort. The total population of the ancient world around that time didn't really fluctuate all that much.....
    "RTW/RS VH campaign difficulty is bugged out (CA bug that never got fixed) and thus easier than Hard so play on that instead" - apple

    RSII 2.5/2.6 Tester and pesky irritant to the Team. Mucho praise for long suffering dvk'.

  7. #7

    Default Re: Population growth in 2.6 (1-turn)

    In the EDB Rome I turn, the P_G_Bonus’ are pretty generous, yet since former RS versions I’ve increased the negative “suburbs” tree value to -2,-4,-6,-8 accordingly... I normally find the mandatory building of “Cities” is necessary only for Roma (post imperial reform/peninsula expansion) and Syracusae. Most other places that become the Empire’s periphery I need the manpower. (1 turn campaigning)



    For internal Empire population tweaking I usually do the spy ring run around between my over-populous cities during a plague epidemic (moving unexpendable generals/troops outside the settlements).



    By late campaigning, most leading “powerhouse”factions Megapolis usually end up being genocided and razed to curb their power due to the effort to reach them (though I seldom wipe out a faction relentlessly as a vacuum at the farthest expanse of the map can be overwhelming by later campaign)



    Oh, and I run off the “Alexander” exe because of the better propensity (DVK901’s research) to trigger storms/earthquakes etc.

  8. #8

    Default Re: Population growth in 2.6 (1-turn)

    Tedric:
    I too wanted to comment on this, for it strikes at the very heart of many in the world who look at war-gaming askance - and I write not only as someone who has 'war-gamed' since I was about 5, but also as a former soldier/officer. Gaming-war is simply exercising the brain in solving complex problems - chess, football, cricket - they are all forms of stylised war-game. Taking that further, taking a pawn is no different to pressing the 'Enslave' button.
    Indeed, and I do take the pawn. But chess doesn't have a battle mechanic, an economic system, a system of evolving character traits, or really anything else besides moving a few types of pieces and threatening/capturing them. It's such a beautifully simple game, in that sense at least. This game could (and generally does) offer more "depth" than that, with a few exceptions. Naval battles being auto-resolved is another example.

    RSII just happens to offer one of the most (semi-)realistic games of ancient Rome-based historical gaming experience that I have ever been fortunate to discover - and I love it.
    Me too, of course. That's what keeps us playing, so many years after its release. Well... I doubt I'd still be playing the vanilla game, so this mod is what I really love.

    But I know that I am not actually killing people, I'm not even pretending to - it is indeed 'just a game'; but to play it you do need to RP somewhat and, mostly, do what the Romans did - for that is all part of the game.
    Sure, I appreciate that point. I'm under no delusion that these are actual people, and in any case, it wasn't meant to be taken as a serious criticism or anything. It's also interesting to not do what the Romans did: have your murderous dictators and their corrupt lackeys, who are conquering the known world, be a little more "enlightened" sometimes, when that's possible. After all, they're not barbarians!

    I only 'enslave' and never 'depopulate' - and then I spend the time and 'management' making sure those newly added settlements never rebel - and they don't, not ever (well, if the AI sends too many spies, assassins and diplomats then it is still possible!).
    I also (sometimes) do use "enslave," but not "depopulate." And I'm just allowing people to move to new places in the empire where there are employment opportunities -- so don't worry, they'll be paid.

    But as a solution to the "problem" I'm having, I don't consider either one adequate or even relevant. It's not a "problem" to me because the population is extremely unhappy in a large/huge city that I've conquered. I don't care about that, as it can easily be dealt with a lot of different ways. (Having excellent governors and large garrisons ready to keep the peace is not that hard to do, if you're not blitzing. And I'm not a blitzer, nor am I someone looking for tips about an easy way to "game" the system.) What I'd like is for that aspect of the game (population/city sizes) to still be somewhat diverse and still be an interesting factor in later parts of a campaign. The game has just gotten started at 30 years in, and there's lots and lots to build in any given region, so there's not much reason to rush it so much (except for keeping up with recruitment, obviously). Telling me that I ought to go around exterminating populations that I've conquered is just changing the subject. I mean, I could do that -- maybe I will, if I feel like it -- but I just don't get it how anyone would think that's supposed to be addressing my questions.

  9. #9
    Senator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,234

    Default Re: Population growth in 2.6 (1-turn)

    Ultimately when you get into the very large empire stage you hit the pop cap for cities (I think 310,000) so it becomes kind of a moot point, because vast numbers of your cities will have the same population, all maxed out.

  10. #10

    Default Re: Population growth in 2.6 (1-turn)

    I found that the relation between tax income and population isn't lineair. At a population of 8000 your tax income doesn't increase much anymore. Therefore I always exterminate captured settlements. Enslavement is useless.

  11. #11

    Default Re: Population growth in 2.6 (1-turn)

    Exterminate is great.
    90% of the times i use it but sometime i keep the population if i need a new recruitment center.

    Enslavement is useless since you can get money in other ways.

  12. #12

    Default Re: Population growth in 2.6 (1-turn)

    Quote Originally Posted by Aliquis View Post
    I found that the relation between tax income and population isn't lineair. At a population of 8000 your tax income doesn't increase much anymore. Therefore I always exterminate captured settlements. Enslavement is useless.
    Also, your exterminated population can be taxed at a higher rate.

  13. #13

    Default Re: Population growth in 2.6 (1-turn)

    Are you talking net 'tax' (income) or 'headline' income - that which you see on the campaign screen? For the more populous settlements take more of the upkeep costs; depending on where your army actually is.
    "RTW/RS VH campaign difficulty is bugged out (CA bug that never got fixed) and thus easier than Hard so play on that instead" - apple

    RSII 2.5/2.6 Tester and pesky irritant to the Team. Mucho praise for long suffering dvk'.

  14. #14
    tungri_centurio's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    belgium/flanders/tungria
    Posts
    1,177

    Default Re: Population growth in 2.6 (1-turn)

    i wish there coud be don more with the enslavement of captured city's,maybe some increase in farm income.
    but for now i find only extermination the usefull option.(on 0turn atleast)
    Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth. -Marcus Aurelius

  15. #15

    Default Re: Population growth in 2.6 (1-turn)

    It's just a magic button, a population-to-cash catalytic converter

  16. #16

    Default Re: Population growth in 2.6 (1-turn)

    Quote Originally Posted by ur-Lord Tedric View Post
    Are you talking net 'tax' (income) or 'headline' income - that which you see on the campaign screen? For the more populous settlements take more of the upkeep costs; depending on where your army actually is.
    I verified this: http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showth...831-Tax-Income

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •