Changing Growth

[King Charles]

I noticed that in vanilla and in all mods, the growth rate always happens in multiples of 0.5%. So it´s always 1%; 1.5%; -2% etc.
Is it possible to reduce this to something like 0.25% or this is hard coded?
So, for instance, if you build a market, that would make the growth rate of your city increase 0.25% instead of 0.5%.

I think that this would be usefull, because even in EB, the cities grow unrealistic fast. So this would decrease the high number of huge cities that appear in the game.

[Foot]

Hardcoded and impossible to do.

Foot

[maksimus]

I noticed that in vanilla and in all mods, the growth rate always happens in multiples of 0.5%. So it´s always 1%; 1.5%; -2% etc.
Is it possible to reduce this to something like 0.25% or this is hard coded?
So, for instance, if you build a market, that would make the growth rate of your city increase 0.25% instead of 0.5%.

I think that this would be usefull, because even in EB, the cities grow unrealistic fast. So this would decrease the high number of huge cities that appear in the game.

You can easily deal with that just by manualy adding some negative growth and health rate points to some buildings in EDB (like barracks and smiths, walls, large ports) - And those negative points can only just slow the growth.

Maybe you could try MAA City Mod or just raise the general construction times for buildings in EDB like.. +3 times to all structures (or only to 'core' and high-end buildings) - that should make the game much more interesting

[MrMerisi]

You can easily deal with that just by manualy adding some negative growth and health rate points to some buildings in EDB (like barracks and smiths, walls, large ports) - And those negative points can only just slow the growth.

Good idea.

These types of buildings reduced the attractiveness of certain areas of a city, and it can be assumed that cities with more developed MIC and industrial capacity would be less inviting places to live. However, we can be under no illusions as to how hard peasant life was out on the farms!

For obvious reasons, walls limit city growth and can cause both health issues and squalor, especially during a siege. In the game, I think walls should take much longer to build because, in many cases, the old walls could simply not have been improved on.

Large ports are noisy, smelly and dangerous places to be at the best of times. However, many ports in EB are located away from the city so I am not sure they should have an effect on health, unless we take into consideration the spread of disease from one port to another [which should be covered by the "plague" event(s)]. A large port would both reduce and increase the population of a city, due to the flow of migrants.

The major difficulty I have with city growth in EB is that, while there are indeed too many "huge cities" in the game, ancient Rome at one point contained over a million people. It was so much bigger than any other city in the ancient world that it is hard to draw a modern comparison.

Due to squalor, I don't think I have ever had more than 50,000 people in Rome, IIRC. Has anyone managed to exceed, say 100,000?

Perhaps to simulate the historical attractiveness of ancient Rome, due to its many wonders and attractions, by adding a special "marker" that increases population growth in that city only once you reach a certain degree of advancement? This may lead to other dynamics that makes the population harder to control and more prone to revolt?

IMO controlling the city of Rome is too easy. The city itself has a character, mind, heart, soul and body of its own...

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

Remember, the number of people in a city in R:TW (inc. EB) does not represent the total number of people living in the city.

The number you see represents the total number of available, recruitable young men in good health and of military age (say between 17 and 36.) The total number of potential warriors, in other words. Because every one of those people, if you have the money, can be recruited as soldiers.

And that number is only 10% of the total human population. Because (for example) 55% the population are girls and women (lower death rate among females as they aren't warriors), 15% are boys under 17, 5% are men of military age but unfit for or exempt from military service for some reason, and 15% are 'old' men over 36.

So, a large city of 6,000 in R:TW is really a large city of 60,000 total inhabitants. By barbarian standards that's a big city.

Rome with a population of 50,000 is representing half a million total inhabitants. And if you get Rome up to 100,000 - congratulations, you've hit the million mark!

[maksimus]

Very nice said, still, reaching 100 000 is going to be hard anyway, but as some historical records show - Rome had over 2 200 000 people in the 'post-Julian' period.. And it did not reach that number not even today, In the time of 'the Papal State' (in mid-ages) the population was just a couple of thousands to 20 000 top's (and of that number there was over 5-10% of population that went 'on fire' every year until new age, most Italian city states 'hated' Papal State because of that)


Some adjustments can be done, but we must remember that EB team support's 'development' in EB vanilla, so they wont be making Historically accurate city size's or infrastructural buildings (which is 'by my opinion' a set-back of EB do some members are very keen to make it by my impressions).. But you never know.. Maybe Marcus AAntonius makes another MiniMod that will take those issues into account

And also, if EB counts the city population the same way you do - they are going to have to make MORE income and 'vice - versa' population shown in the ''Occupy-Destroy'' menu after you are about to decide some settlements faith (like, If you say 'Exterminate' - you must have an option to exterminate ALL the people in the city by the means of 'your' count - which is +80% on BRUTO show population that can be recruited)

This way it seems that only potential warriors live, pay taxes and die in RTW and EB - IF EB team FIXes this. I will be more than happy!

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

With enslavement and exterminatation, you are making slaves of or killing huge numbers of people, not just the young men. Older children and young women make good slaves, but babies, toddlers and old people were usually just slaughtered or left to starve as they were of no use as slaves.

Extermination, where you have a bloodthirsty army running riot, sacking an enemy city, again usually results in a huge section of the populace being killed as the rampant soldiers kill every man in sight, rape and then kill the women, slaughter the children, and loot everything they can get their hands on. It's not pretty.

As far as taxes go, well, in most ancient societies it is usually the men of military age that do nearly all the work and generate nearly all the taxes. The children don't do much work. The women are too busy cooking, cleaning and bringing up the children to earn any money. And the money raised by the older men largely goes on feeding and clothing the women and children.

So it's actually not realistic to raise city income to take account of the large but militarily useless population that isn't represented numerically in the game.

[maksimus]

My post was not all about income.. Basicly, even if one can say that there should not be more income (in the given case - not general in the game) based on larger - realistic population (and I don't have any problems with that)

There should still be one clear expression of total population in the city (so that you get more money by sacking or enslaving the population in general) - but the money is not that important in this case at all - the important part is that ''it should be fixed'' that you get a real picture of number of ''souls'' during the game.

If it is possible (I think it is by allowing the 'upper limit' of population that must exist in the city much higher : for example, in vanilla you need to have atleast 500 people in the city so you can raise a unit! - that limit should be fixed to 2 000 people at least - so the children, woman and olders could be represented fairly)

I think that it will definitly show the drama of ancient warfare and bring EB realism up ! (specialy when you exterminate or 'suppress' the population)