Is more population better or worse?

[Knonfoda]

Hi,

This is quite a n00b-ish question, seeing as I have been playing RTW and EB for a while now, but also as there are tons of guides here and there with answers to the issue. The thing is, I have read in some that more population ultimately means more people to tax (and plus more income), but others (in line with my game experience) suggesting the more people the more squalor, and the more squalor the more unrest, etc...

I am playing a game with the Romani (its 230BC) and so far I have 'expelled' the population of every city I have conquered, ie sending them back to the home provinces. Is this wise? I notice the income in negative earning cities increases, but so does resentment in ''yellow face'' cities. I am aware eventually squalor will probably get out of hand, but whats the best solution, to keep on enslaving peoples, exterminating them (plus giving me a lot more cash) or to try and restrict my population growth?

Also, note I am trying to play a realistic a game as possible, hence why I have expelled most peoples (and exterminated some few cities just as examples). If squalor is represented unrealistically (which I feel it is and will have a large effect on my cities) I will have no objection to editing the game files for buildings to make up in health and happyness bonuses.

Thanks.

[zero911]

Exterminate. Always exterminate. This is a great source of money plus solves you the loyalty problems. Since it is 230 BC in your game, I suspect you are still fighting not far from capital. But later - extermination will be the only way to contain freshly conquered cities which are far away from your capital. The population will regrow This is practical point. If you love roleplaying of course you can expel them, and exterminate only the most evil enemy cites.

[evenflowjimbo]

Yeah, exterminate is a good thing, but the general that does this has a tough time sleeping... haha. It's good to have a big population, great for wars I guess if you want men.

[Irenaeus]

Population is generally a good thing, but your city needs to grow its infrastructure as the population grows. If you have a high population without any happiness buildings then you will have big problems! This is another reason to Exterminate when you conquer cities - you can build up the infrastructure before the population gets too big.

However, if the city is happy enough anyway, then there is no reason to Exterminate since you are just killing people who should be paying taxes The ideal situation is a massive population which is very happy - some of my cities in EB have incomes of ~6000/turn due to huge populations and good governers in cities that have Government Types I or II. The only problem then is what happens when the governer dies - if it is their influence that keeps the city happy then there will be problems.

Generally, buildings such as Sewers/Hospitals and so on are definitely recommended since they give a happiness boost as well as a health boost.

[Knonfoda]

Thanks Guys,

Yeah I noticed I have some very high earning and happy cities, but as soon as the governor dies, its guaranteed red face + rebellion unless I move in a couple of stacks of infantry, and this can be in like Italy, which is a homeland.

Like I said, I want to try and play a realistic a game as possible, which is why I like expelling populations over exterminating them. I will exterminate those cities of factions for which Rome really didn't care about, eg Carthage and most of Gaul.

But from a financial perspective in the long run (so not the instant 10-20K I get from exterminating), is it best to have a larger population or not?

[XSamatan]

But from a financial perspective in the long run (so not the instant 10-20K I get from exterminating), is it best to have a larger population or not?

QFT

You will gain more taxes, the higher the level of you city, the more economic and health buildings can be built, and you will have enough recruits for your armies (if you play on large or huge settings this may otherwise cause problems)

If you want to play it a little more historic, try the [url=http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?79775-City-Mod[city mod[/url].

XSamatan

[Knonfoda]

QFT

You will gain more taxes, the higher the level of you city, the more economic and health buildings can be built, and you will have enough recruits for your armies (if you play on large or huge settings this may otherwise cause problems)

If you want to play it a little more historic, try the [url=http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?79775-City-Mod[city mod[/url].

XSamatan

Thanks XSamatan,

I am on huge, and so far no problems with recruits. Like I said, its 230BC but due to my constant policy of 'expelling' I have like a very large number of cities with 30K + population and 'palaces' built. Invariably these are also the ones with the least income, as in negative in -700 and -1000 range, the higher earning ones being 1000-2000, usually due to mines.

I don't really like the idea of restricting population growth, only a way of controlling what I perceive to be the unrealistic level of squalor. Rome at one point had a population of over a million I think, and yet is wasn't a massive slum with squalor of 100% now was it? This is where editing some of the game files comes in. When I feel squalor has reached an indecent level and is causing too much unrest, I think I might change health bonuses for like baths and aqueducts to like 50% or 70%, depends.

Some people call it expelling and exterminating, while the modern term is ethnic cleansing I personally stand on the opposite point of view - you have to deal with the overpopulation and the revolts. Historically The Roman republic was a federation of the Romans and the italian tribes and let's not kid ourselves, most of those tribes didn't become part of the federation willingly. Historically cities were put to the sword only in the most extreme cases(to put down a revolt that killed the garrison or to be made example of, or because of a very long and bitter siege). If anything, such conduct would be ill-advised and ultimately counter-productive, because the citizens of every attacked city would go down fighting, which can be implemented only by the army-generating script of SPQR. Plus, if you have a revolt, realistically the citizens would kill the majority of the occupying garrison, not just drive them off.

I agree, thats the type of game I am playing. Historically, cities were only completely razed (eg exterminated) in certain circumstances, such as a bitter siege, a utter hatred of the faction defending (eg Rome vs Carthage, Rome vs Gaul where Caesar launched a genocidal campaign against most Gallic tribes) or to make an example, eg Alexander simply occupying some cities to encourage others to surrender, but destroying those that didn't to keep others from doing the same. I only keep extermination as a last option, and have only used it like 3 times so far.

i say do what you need to. that meaning do what comes to you, or what you think is best.

if it is a large, or huge city, with a big problem that is likely to cause public order issues, i tend to exterminate. early on, a city like Syrakousai is a great example of a city i will exterminate. so would be Kart-Hadast. otherwise, i like to try and integrate the city into my empire as soon as possible. do be sure to do the regional pacification and install a government quick.

squalor will become a big issue later, so i say try and keep on top of it by building sewers, hospitals, and so on. especially in Rome. also, as your empire expands, don't be shy of moving your capital. in my Romani campaign, i held Greece, Gaul, and most of the land east of greece, but nothing past Byzantium. so i moved my capital to taras...

Thats also true. What I tend to do is let it revolt and keep 'expelling the population' till it reaches like 400 people and is no longer a problem. A better solution might simply be to reduce the population through cheating, eg to a base level of 1000, and then add the population you removed from that city to other cities, also through cheating.

Same goes for squalor levels later on, I might have to edit game files. While admittedly this is resorting to hacking and cheating, the game is hardcoded in a way that represents some elements of it unrealistically (eg squalor), and if I can resort to using cheats to rectify that, I do not really consider it cheating.

[Irenaeus]

I don't really like the idea of restricting population growth, only a way of controlling what I perceive to be the unrealistic level of squalor. Rome at one point had a population of over a million I think, and yet is wasn't a massive slum with squalor of 100% now was it? This is where editing some of the game files comes in. When I feel squalor has reached an indecent level and is causing too much unrest, I think I might change health bonuses for like baths and aqueducts to like 50% or 70%, depends.

I'm not sure that would be a good idea, since the health bonus doesn't just add to general happiness, but also to the growth of the city, which grows the population until the squalor comes again - so you'll be in exactly the same position but with a bigger economy. To get round this, you'd need to increase the pure happiness that these buildings produce (e.g. sewers produce 5% happiness as well as 10% health).

[bobbin]

I would honestly stop expelling the population as that is the enslave option from the vanilla so you end up increasing the population in cities with govenors (which causes more squalor and so unrest) and the new arrivals are slaves which causes further unrest.

In EB they changed the description of the enslave and exterminate options to expel and enslave so its perfectly historical to use the vanilla exterminate option which in EB represents enslaving as the romans quite commonly used that option when conquering a area.

Some other things to consider: Buildings that are from a different culture group will cause unrest in the form of the culture penalty so you should aim to replace or destroy them fairly quickly.

The cost of running your empire is split between you cities by population, this is why your biggest ones end up with negative incomes and they pay more of the upkeep.

The population figure is not supposed to represent the actual number of people in a settlement just the number of recruitable males.

By increasing the health bonuses on various buildings you're not really solving the problem as these will increase the population growth too, you will still hit the same problem just at higher populations. Eventually you will have to control your population or face continuosly rebelling cities.

edit: took too long typing this and two of my points have already been mentioned!

[torongill]

Some people call it expelling and exterminating, while the modern term is ethnic cleansing I personally stand on the opposite point of view - you have to deal with the overpopulation and the revolts. Historically The Roman republic was a federation of the Romans and the italian tribes and let's not kid ourselves, most of those tribes didn't become part of the federation willingly. Historically cities were put to the sword only in the most extreme cases(to put down a revolt that killed the garrison or to be made example of, or because of a very long and bitter siege). If anything, such conduct would be ill-advised and ultimately counter-productive, because the citizens of every attacked city would go down fighting, which can be implemented only by the army-generating script of SPQR. Plus, if you have a revolt, realistically the citizens would kill the majority of the occupying garrison, not just drive them off.

[evenflowjimbo]

If anything, such conduct would be ill-advised and ultimately counter-productive, because the citizens of every attacked city would go down fighting, which can be implemented only by the army-generating script of SPQR.

Yeah, but when Rome was sacked by the Vandals didn't the Romans outnumber them like 10 to 1 and they still ran with their tails between their lebs?

[torongill]

Yeah, but when Rome was sacked by the Vandals didn't the Romans outnumber them like 10 to 1 and they still ran with their tails between their legs?

Not really. Rome at that time had already been sacked once and wasn't the capital city of the mighty Roman Empire. When the vandals arrived the Pope begged them not to burn the city or murder the population. the vandals agreed and the gates of the city were opened. According to the writers the sack was particularly "clean".

[-iceblade^]

i say do what you need to. that meaning do what comes to you, or what you think is best.

if it is a large, or huge city, with a big problem that is likely to cause public order issues, i tend to exterminate. early on, a city like Syrakousai is a great example of a city i will exterminate. so would be Kart-Hadast. otherwise, i like to try and integrate the city into my empire as soon as possible. do be sure to do the regional pacification and install a government quick.

squalor will become a big issue later, so i say try and keep on top of it by building sewers, hospitals, and so on. especially in Rome. also, as your empire expands, don't be shy of moving your capital. in my Romani campaign, i held Greece, Gaul, and most of the land east of greece, but nothing past Byzantium. so i moved my capital to taras...

[Greve Af Göteborg]

In my Macedonian campaign I had to enslave settlements to keep the population up in my capital (Pella)
Seeing how it's the only city capable of recruiting the very best units, I had to keep the population up.

I also had to recruit some cheap Akontistae from Korinthos and send them to Pella for disbanding, because almost all the population had been recruited into the army.

[nhartwell]

knonfonda,

Just a couple of a suggestions if your playing historically. Greek cities and other so called 'civilized' cities, as a rule of thumb, should just be occupied and NOT enslaved and exterminated (although the were exceptions, the romans only exterminated cities like corinth and carthage due to mitigating circumstances and of course there may be your own versions of these in your game, its a history taking a different path after all). The republic as a whole felt it was extending its ideas of law and order to defeated nations and so exterminating the hellenistic world wouldnt coincide with that. On top of that, not exterminating these cities means higher population which meant more people to tax and would fit in nicely with roleplaying of the spread of the publicani throughout the provinces of Asia and Spain, as the roman business class and aristocrats didnt want to kill the goose that was laying such splendid golden eggs so to speak.

Of course by all means play as it suits you as enjoying the game is most important thing but im trying to play historically as well and to be honest just occupying cities shouldnt cause to many problems with rebellion if you plan ahead. If your attacking a foreign power, i usually take several armies (this is obviosuly easier the more wealth you have so you may struggle a little at 230 B.C. or not depending on how many wars your involved in) and thus i have reinforcements for my consuls army (which is the only full stack i usually attack with, although i may occasionally use smaller half stacks elsewhere in the war led by a legate or tribune as was fairly common) but also it provides plentiful garrison forces to be used in conjunction with either a higher influence level governor or a level 4 government type with a client ruler, which will only take 3 turns to set up (1 for pacification,1 for type iv gov, 1 for a client ruler) and shouldnt slow down your war effort. When the client ruler dies, if you use one, feel free to move in your own governor and change the government type, which again simulates how the romans gradualy absorbed many provinces.

As others have pointed out, "barbarian" cities are more fair game for enslavement or extermination and also that dealing with rebellion in occupied cities was part and parcel of Roman history. It may not be the most simple way to conquer your way to victory, but it has a more historical flavour to it which makes it more fun i think. As i said though, mix it up a little to keep your interest, I do. An example would be if my consul was selfish and say hated Greeks i would feel i would have justification to enslave or exterminate a greek city if i wished rather stick to the house rules ive set myself.

You seem to have good grasp of playing historically anyway and im largely echoing what some posters have said so i doubt what ive said above will change your game approach to much, but it may help justify your playing style to yourself or give your a pointer or two.

nhartwell

[Knonfoda]

Thanks for the input guys, I usually also add happiness bonuses to the buildings anyway, so it takes quite a while for squalor to become a problem.

knonfonda,

Just a couple of a suggestions if your playing historically. Greek cities and other so called 'civilized' cities, as a rule of thumb, should just be occupied and NOT enslaved and exterminated (although the were exceptions, the romans only exterminated cities like corinth and carthage due to mitigating circumstances and of course there may be your own versions of these in your game, its a history taking a different path after all). The republic as a whole felt it was extending its ideas of law and order to defeated nations and so exterminating the hellenistic world wouldnt coincide with that. On top of that, not exterminating these cities means higher population which meant more people to tax and would fit in nicely with roleplaying of the spread of the publicani throughout the provinces of Asia and Spain, as the roman business class and aristocrats didnt want to kill the goose that was laying such splendid golden eggs so to speak.

Of course by all means play as it suits you as enjoying the game is most important thing but im trying to play historically as well and to be honest just occupying cities shouldnt cause to many problems with rebellion if you plan ahead. If your attacking a foreign power, i usually take several armies (this is obviosuly easier the more wealth you have so you may struggle a little at 230 B.C. or not depending on how many wars your involved in) and thus i have reinforcements for my consuls army (which is the only full stack i usually attack with, although i may occasionally use smaller half stacks elsewhere in the war led by a legate or tribune as was fairly common) but also it provides plentiful garrison forces to be used in conjunction with either a higher influence level governor or a level 4 government type with a client ruler, which will only take 3 turns to set up (1 for pacification,1 for type iv gov, 1 for a client ruler) and shouldnt slow down your war effort. When the client ruler dies, if you use one, feel free to move in your own governor and change the government type, which again simulates how the romans gradualy absorbed many provinces.

As others have pointed out, "barbarian" cities are more fair game for enslavement or extermination and also that dealing with rebellion in occupied cities was part and parcel of Roman history. It may not be the most simple way to conquer your way to victory, but it has a more historical flavour to it which makes it more fun i think. As i said though, mix it up a little to keep your interest, I do. An example would be if my consul was selfish and say hated Greeks i would feel i would have justification to enslave or exterminate a greek city if i wished rather stick to the house rules ive set myself.

You seem to have good grasp of playing historically anyway and im largely echoing what some posters have said so i doubt what ive said above will change your game approach to much, but it may help justify your playing style to yourself or give your a pointer or two.

nhartwell

Thanks nhartwell, with hellene/greek cities I will try to keep the occupy option. What I do when I make a large scale invasion of a faction's territory, with the aim of taking all or nearly all of their cities is invade with 2-3 stacks/legions, with another 2-3 stacks of 'support/garrison troops'. Once the legion takes over a city, it leaves and the stack enters, and usually I have no problems with rebellions. At the moment I am subduing Macedon, whilst being allied to Greece. Before that it was Epeiros, which I left as a protectorate in Ambrakia till they betrayed me and I was forced to destroy them.