Farming level philosophy

[Quinn Inuit]

Population growth in this game annoys the heck out of me. Seriously. I was just playing a BI-era mod that shall remain nameless and the population growth was driving me nuts.

Therefore, I'm going to try to come up with a population throttling plan. Here's what I've got so far.
Goal: allow population to increase to the point that current L6 farming regions can grow to huge cities, but do so in a measured fashion.

Plan:

1. Cut all farming levels in half, rounding down. With that, all regions will have either 1, 2, or 3 fertility. (Problem: is that too coarse a gradation?)
2. Give the first two farming levels a bonus of _2_, not just 1. Levels 3-5 will get money bonuses, instead, in addition to other effects that will be named later. (Problem: should the first three levels get Bonus = 2, instead of just the first two?)
3. Tie the farming levels to settlement level at a 1-1 ratio.
4. Tie the farming upgrades to fertility level such that the max upgrade level in a region is the fertility level plus 2.
5. Don't allow sewers till you get to settlement level 3.
6. Remove population boosts from all other buildings

This should make for slow but steady population growth. It'll force players to develop their cities, but the cities won't grow out of control.

If slow growth is a concern, the base fertility levels could be 2, 3, and 4, adding one to the planned level. That should get you off the ground. And, if cities just can't get to huge like this anymore, then we can do something like double the health effect of the sewer tree.

What do you think?

[Mogan]

How about, in place of a nearly unlimited growth by farming levels, we limit farming to those settlements historically rich on grain? We still nerf them, so that higher tier farms nearly just produce revenue in form of taxes and trade bonuses, but the cost for building them is immense.

On the other hand, we have those cities with low farming potential. How about we make a building system for importing grain? So that when a city grows so and so large, a new building tree is unlocked. Against a fairly high immediate price (you know, for providing storages, fleet and a market), this grain import provides a modest growth bonus and some monetary benefits (you know, trade flourishes as you open a new market). However, this grain market shouldn't make it so we're back to scratch. It should merely be a very costly way to grow in mid to late game, so that you have to prioritize your capital and troop-centers.

I think that in this (or a similar) way, we can balance growth to a somewhat historical rate, especially if we remove almost all of the standard growth bonuses (so that the player have to rely on the buildings).

[Sabazios]

AFAIK some greek city states would force their inhabitants to leave the cities and start a colony when overpopulation was a problem. Maybe an idea is to make new buildings with a negative population growth that represents (forced) emigration to colonies?

[Quinn Inuit]

How about, in place of a nearly unlimited growth by farming levels, we limit farming to those settlements historically rich on grain? We still nerf them, so that higher tier farms nearly just produce revenue in form of taxes and trade bonuses, but the cost for building them is immense.

Nah, there was farming everywhere, and I'd like to show that. I also don't want the growth rates too low anywhere, since I'm worried the AI will wander into a hole it can't get out of. Just tying the higher-level farming buildings to fertility level should have much the same affect that you're looking for.

Don't forget squalor--it'll overcome those first few fertility levels after a population of a few thousand.

On the other hand, we have those cities with low farming potential. How about we make a building system for importing grain? So that when a city grows so and so large, a new building tree is unlocked. Against a fairly high immediate price (you know, for providing storages, fleet and a market), this grain import provides a modest growth bonus and some monetary benefits (you know, trade flourishes as you open a new market). However, this grain market shouldn't make it so we're back to scratch. It should merely be a very costly way to grow in mid to late game, so that you have to prioritize your capital and troop-centers.

I think that in this (or a similar) way, we can balance growth to a somewhat historical rate, especially if we remove almost all of the standard growth bonuses (so that the player have to rely on the buildings).

That's definitely worth considering. If cities need a mid- or late-game boost, I'll implement that. I'm not sure I want cities with low farming potential being capable of becoming large, though. I mean, were there any large cities in antiquity not surrounded by rich land?

AFAIK some greek city states would force their inhabitants to leave the cities and start a colony when overpopulation was a problem. Maybe an idea is to make new buildings with a negative population growth that represents (forced) emigration to colonies?

Tempting, but I hate putting in things that only the human would take advantage of. Besides, I don't think that'll be necessary with the new system.

[Sabazios]

Ah yes the AI, didnt think of that.

About the grain imports as an building, XGM already uses that, works quite well.

[Mogan]

Well, the grain import idea was only ment as to give the player a bit more freedom when choosing important cities, in stead of being locked into where there was powerbases anywhere. I mean, while Rome grew to strenght from farming communities, the land didn't remain as sole feeder of the city. Especially after the Punic Wars, Sicily fed Rome, not the surrounding lands, or even Italy. That said, Chartage fed both itself and Rome for a while.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

What I was trying to say, is that while cities grew out of farling communities, metropols grew out of trade, religion or politics (war).

[Wien1938]

I like the original. I think it will work.

[Quinn Inuit]

Sorry, busy couple of days.

I may implement a grain imports building, depending on how development goes. I want high fertility to be a necessary condition for a huge city, but not (like it pretty much is now) a sufficient one. I'm willing to mess with buildings to make that happen. I want the lower levels governed primarily by farming, hence the potential for double bonuses on the first couple of farming levels. After that, though, I'm willing to consider other buildings, like sewers or grain import buildings.

[Mogan]

Sounds like we'll get our hands on some real city building.

[Carados]

How common are huge cities?

As in, the regions we have are sparse enough as it is and we're missing a lot of important settlements.

[Wien1938]

http://maps.nationmaster.com/country/gr/1
Greece alone we only have Athens, Corinth, Sparta, Elis and Thermon. But Quinn has said before that we would have too much prosperity and troop building capacity etc and there simply is not room on the map.

[Quinn Inuit]

Yeah, I wish we could include more, but it's just not going to work. Trade income just goes crazy, and we're short on regions elsewhere, too.

[Carados]

Oh what I was really asking was how many of our current settlements are expected to grow to huge size? Rome, Carthage and Alexandria would be three, but what else? Antioch? Seleucia? Bactra? If we want to restrict it to those settlements then a seperate (slave/capital?) building might work in getting them that large.

[Quinn Inuit]

I suppose we could use a resource, but that strikes me as inelegant. I'd rather allow for some options if possible.

I think the huge size cities we need to make possible (note: not all of these became huge, but I think the potential was there) are:
Rome
Mediolanum
Capua
Syracuse
Massilia
Carthage
Athens
Alexandria (Egypt)
Antioch
Ephesus
Byzantium
Sinope
Babylon
Seleucia/Ctesiphon
Taxila
Alexandria on the Indus
Barbarikon
Bactra
Samarkand

Anyone else have any additions?

[Quinn Inuit]

Here are a couple of maps I'm using:
http://www.nimblebooks.com/wordpress...popdensity.jpg
http://www.hicleones.com/archive/000...UNGSDICHTE.jpg

I find the pre-modern ones more helpful, since there are fewer people in the cities.

[Caligula Caesar]

Carthago Nova?

Btw, Babylon and Seleukeia shouldn't be able to grow at the same time. Seleukeia grew at the expense of Babylon (at one point, one of the rulers deported much of Babylon's population to Seleukeia). Since Babylon was pretty much finished by now, I'd remove it from the list.

Oh, and I would not suggest you put Alexandria on the Indus as a settlement at all. Apparently it did not long survive Alexander, and it certainly never became a major settlement.

[Quinn Inuit]

Interesting. What would you recommend for that region, instead?

O.K., I'll drop Babylon as a large city, but I'll leave it with farming potential. That way, it can theoretically grow large, but it'll start small enough that a player would have to work hard to get to that point.

Carthago Nova? That area didn't strike me as that fertile.

[Mogan]

Carthago Nova? That area didn't strike me as that fertile.

Fertility isn't the only thing that grows a city, as mentioned.

[Caligula Caesar]

Boom S suggested Multan, and it seems a better option to me, despite the fact that Alexander sacked it, as it is still there (so it was rebuilt). Btw, I've read that because of Alexander's brutality in sacking many of the cities he came across in India, there was great resentment for his successors and representatives there, so they were chucked out pretty fast.

I wouldn't say the Riyadh area is particularly fertile, and yet there is a fair sized city there Just as Oxfordshire is clearly the perfect place to live in, and yet we just have a "city" of 100,000 inhabitants

Carthago Nova wouldn't have started a big city, as the Carthaginians hadn't properly founded it yet. But I hear it did gain quite a lot of importance as a trade stop. You could argue the same for Gadir, btw, and the Guadalquivir River makes Andalusia fairly fertile.

[Juan_de_Marco]

I wouldn't say the Riyadh area is particularly fertile, and yet there is a fair sized city there Just as Oxfordshire is clearly the perfect place to live in, and yet we just have a "city" of 100,000 inhabitants

Maybe it's useful to distinguish between the current situation, food-logistically, and that of 2300 years ago.