Population

[Garnier]

I play on huge unit sizes, so population is always a huge problem for me, and the AI as well, because they aren't careful where/when to recruit troops, so their cities often have no population. Is there a good solution to this? I'm thinking for the campaign I'm about to start, I'll increase the base food (population growth) for all the cities, to balance it out. The mod doesn't seem to be made for huge unit sizes.

[drak10687]

Well, I think it might also be a result of trying to punish the player if he constantly keeps armies fielded... as that is unhistorical... and maybe simulate other historical "realities"... however, as usual this probably has adverse effects on the AI.

[DaVinci]

In addition to what drak said, yes, the game isn't balanced to play with huge unit seize, max with large, rather with normal to simulate the rather little early medieval armies.

[Garnier]

I gave a base +2% growth to all the governor's palace buildings, rather than putting it in descr_regions.txt.

This way, I can remove or edit the change mid-campaign if necessary.

But I do like it a lot more this way. Now I don't feel bad about recruiting cheap units (before I tended to use mainly elites because I didn't want to waste my populations.)

[William the Silent]

I always play huge units and do not really have too many problems.
I sometimes transfer population to other cities ($) to be able to build certain units (better units live longer) or let it reach the next population level.
Sometimes you can bribe independent armies pretty cheap and you can use them to populate your cities.

I also destroy every tax building (which stops growth) in my empire and I run a much happier empire. And I don't think it really makes a difference in your income.

[Hells Bells]

Well, I think it might also be a result of trying to punish the player if he constantly keeps armies fielded... as that is unhistorical...

i agree, many people forget that this game is in a miniaturized scale, 3000 men are the equvalent of 30-50000 men irl, so recruitment is draining on the populace, and the country is devastated if the army is lost.

[DaVinci]

i agree, many people forget that this game is in a miniaturized scale, 3000 men are the equvalent of 30-50000 men irl, so recruitment is draining on the populace, and the country is devastated if the army is lost.

No, not here. This is valid for RomeTW mods of early ancient timeframes, but not for Chiv.

I recommend to look after some population numbers of settlements or regions in the timeframe of Chivalry's early era (and Chivalry has an historical-realism design in this regard) ... and as well at historical battles and skirmishes or conflicts between settlements and regions. An army with ie. 2000 men were in fact a pretty big one. Only in real major battles between big lands there were fielded armies with over 10.000 men. "Epic" battles as in some RomeTW mods with a reflection of 50.000 or more men is not the goal of the mod design.

[Pompeius Magnus]

Yes I understand all the arguments.
But what do you (esp. the modders!) suggest.
To play on huge I learned now is a little bit a-historic (I also agree). When I play on large the unit Excubitores has a strength of 50 men. Mounted troops have an average number of 30-35.

It seems for me that a unit size of "normal" is perhaps too small and a-historic, too.
But what is the suggestion for your side?

[DaVinci]

I would say, to play on Large unit seize is the right choice.
Huge is at least the choice, which weren't ever a testing/balancing base.
Perhaps we should have made that more public ie. in the FAQ ... but on the other side the player should be free to play as he wants.

[Pompeius Magnus]

indeed...