recruitment should effect city population like in rome 1

[warrior6]

recruitment should effect city population like in rome 1

Im fairly certain this isnt in rome 2 as i haven't run into this feature in rome 2. but i cant confirm at the moment.


anyways, in rome 1 your cities had an actual population. Think of this as the number of able bodied men that the city could supply you with. Obviously recruiting armies out of well developed large cities like rome wasnt a big issue. but try recruiting from some of the smaller ones and you begin to notice the difference. not only does that small city lose population count if you build a stack out of it, the population loss also made it so that that town was no longer giving you the same amount of tax money (until population grew again. dictated by population growth modifier that could be made higher with certain farms etc.). this was a very cool feature as sometimes on the frontier of your empire, your city couldn't replinish all those losses you took even if you had the money. especially if that city was just recently taken by you and exterminated. you would need to either rely on mercenaries in the region or move your stack to a larger more prosperous city to recruit/replenish your forces.

this feature not present in rome 2 is sorely missed by me.

P.S. sorry if this feature is in the game

[Zwirbaum]

That feature had only meaning only in small cities, because in any developed city you could train phalanx (240 men) each turn and population wouldn't decrease or would even grow. Also it was problematic for AI, especially for barbarians, because Gaul quickly depopulated itself with fairly weak Warband (Spear). With army caps I am not entirely sure any further mechanic that would stop you to recruit units is necessary, but maybe manpower as static value generated by buildings? (Like City level 4 would generate 400 manpower each turn and so on).

[warrior6]

That feature had only meaning only in small cities, because in any developed city you could train phalanx (240 men) each turn and population wouldn't decrease or would even grow. Also it was problematic for AI, especially for barbarians, because Gaul quickly depopulated itself with fairly weak Warband (Spear). With army caps I am not entirely sure any further mechanic that would stop you to recruit units is necessary, but maybe manpower as static value generated by buildings? (Like City level 4 would generate 400 manpower each turn and so on).

well i hope the AI has advanced enough for that to no longer be an issue.

but it did have an effect. now i can be in some back water village and can recruit 3 legions just because i have the money. Whereas before i would to retreat to some other more populated city or wait for reinforcements. population needs to be effected by recruitment. there is only so much capable fighting men that a faction could produce. now, casualties can be replaced fairly easily. i just feel that army caps system is much more gamey than something like money/population/food which is more dynamic and strategic.

[Dietre]

Best recruitment was M2TW and kingdoms

[ABH2]

I've been brainstorming about ways this could be duplicated in game, but so far I haven't come up with anything beyond the current system of food/pop surpluses and perhaps recruitment slots.. I was curious if anyone has any ideas of ways this could be done with the current mechanics through modding?

[D E C]

There shouldn't be only city population but region population as in Empire too so that you could draw recruits from it. Otherwise, if we really take a look at Rome 1, Segesta has a population of 400 at the start of the game, does that mean that entire Liguria has a population of 400? Doesn't seem very realistic to me.

[riskymonk]

No this requires too much thinking. It'll never be implemented in rome 2.

When you had to wait a couple of turns to recruit your best sword unit you'd stop building something in one city, making sure it's not as important, and start improving on the farmland in the castle in order to boost population and get more of those sword units. Your young citizens would be trained into elite swordsmen.

[Causeless]

No this requires too much thinking. It'll never be implemented in rome 2.

When you had to wait a couple of turns to recruit your best sword unit you'd stop building something in one city, making sure it's not as important, and start improving on the farmland in the castle in order to boost population and get more of those sword units. Your young citizens would be trained into elite swordsmen.

That never ever happened. The only time the population mattered was in tiny settlements (where you couldn't recruit your "best sword unit" anyways), on highest unit sizes. On smaller unit sizes or larger cities, the population replenished quickly enough to recruit constantly anyways.

This mechanic in Rome 1 and Medieval 2 was one that was both barely noticeable and unrealistic (more than a few hundred people lived in Britain...)

[Coleus]

I'm against population per city as explained elsewhere in this thread, but I would like to see the return of caps on certain types of units, like only the Spartans seem to have. This would better demonstrate the limited pool of highly trained manpower - but there should be effectively no limit on first/second tier troops like Hastati and spearband/levy troops.

[Knight of Heaven]

well i hope the AI has advanced enough for that to no longer be an issue.

but it did have an effect. now i can be in some back water village and can recruit 3 legions just because i have the money. Whereas before i would to retreat to some other more populated city or wait for reinforcements. population needs to be effected by recruitment. there is only so much capable fighting men that a faction could produce. now, casualties can be replaced fairly easily. i just feel that army caps system is much more gamey than something like money/population/food which is more dynamic and strategic.

Well historicaly Rome could raise legions pretty much like that, or more easly then most factions of the time anyway.

[Modestus]

I think population is a obvious mechanic to have, higher populations generates more taxes and encourages more trade of course it obviously requires a greater supply of food and good management of your city but there are so many game mechanics that you can work with it seems odd not to have it.

The amount of units you can create in a region can be tied to a regions population, a city of 20,000 could produce a Max of 10 units, the size of your garrisons could also be determined by the size of your population. You could even be more sophisticated and allow for the free upkeep of a number of units produced in a city of a certain population go above this and you have to pay.

As in RTW1 do you want to enslave a population of a city you just captured or do you want to try and keep its population high because in the long term a higher population may be more advantageous.

Anyhow there is so much more you could do.

[DeliCiousTZM]

It would be nice to have some population features in the game. However im not for limiting the recruitment rate for any unit, it removes the freedom of customizing your armies. I think CA did well when they increased the upkeep dramatically for certain units, that is the right way to go about things.

[daelin4]

well i hope the AI has advanced enough for that to no longer be an issue.

Dream on. AI can't even siege properly, let alone do actual smart mechanics well.

To answer you question, it demands a population system to effect population. Ironically in this mess of a numbers game, numbers are not present when it comes to cities except happiness and income.

There is also the fact that the game runs pretty much entirely on provinces, not individual regions, so even if there was a city population system it'd be province-wide, and thus no sense of immersion or logic: that army replenishing heavy losses in Syracuse will also affect Brundisium. This happens with unrest and food and income.

MTW2 solved this by having a respawn system that simulates availability of units. They actually have this system in Rome2, its used by mercenaries.

[riskymonk]

That never ever happened. The only time the population mattered was in tiny settlements (where you couldn't recruit your "best sword unit" anyways), on highest unit sizes. On smaller unit sizes or larger cities, the population replenished quickly enough to recruit constantly anyways.

This mechanic in Rome 1 and Medieval 2 was one that was both barely noticeable and unrealistic (more than a few hundred people lived in Britain...)

Im playing a polish campaign now and they only have one sword unit, the dismounted polish knight. When I first get the citadel I have to wait 3 turns until I can recruit another. Then after a while you get 2 or 3 available and you have to keep waiting. Re install it my friend if you're still doubtful. It makes for excellent strategy as I have to rely on cav, therefore my strategy in sieges are completely remodelled.

This mechanic does limit your play style however so the freedom to do what you want is first and foremost which is why factual and historically accurate games wouldn't succeed.

You also have to take into account the elitism of these units which is another reason why they were rare. Like special forces operatives of today. Just another subtle immersive factor that flew over our heads.

[Shane the Llama]

Im playing a polish campaign now and they only have one sword unit, the dismounted polish knight. When I first get the citadel I have to wait 3 turns until I can recruit another. Then after a while you get 2 or 3 available and you have to keep waiting. Re install it my friend if you're still doubtful. It makes for excellent strategy as I have to rely on cav, therefore my strategy in sieges are completely remodelled.

This mechanic does limit your play style however so the freedom to do what you want is first and foremost which is why factual and historically accurate games wouldn't succeed.

You also have to take into account the elitism of these units which is another reason why they were rare. Like special forces operatives of today. Just another subtle immersive factor that flew over our heads.

The Medieval 2 system had some merit, but how can you say that the Rome 1 mechanic was immersive? People already complain about great cities of history lacking basic features such as walls and many buildings (due to limited slots), but in Rome 1 these same cities often had populations of only a few hundred people. even the largest cities were absurdly underpopulated compared to history. Preferring that mechanic for gameplay purposes is reasonable, although I don't like it as much personally, but there is no way that it is immersive.

[Mangalore]

Im playing a polish campaign now and they only have one sword unit, the dismounted polish knight. When I first get the citadel I have to wait 3 turns until I can recruit another. Then after a while you get 2 or 3 available and you have to keep waiting. Re install it my friend if you're still doubtful. It makes for excellent strategy as I have to rely on cav, therefore my strategy in sieges are completely remodelled.

This mechanic does limit your play style however so the freedom to do what you want is first and foremost which is why factual and historically accurate games wouldn't succeed.

You also have to take into account the elitism of these units which is another reason why they were rare. Like special forces operatives of today. Just another subtle immersive factor that flew over our heads.

These mechanics had nothing to do with population sizes but simple cool off mechanics for the recruitment pools like the mercenary pool has. That would be indeed nice.

Never considered the population/economic system much worthwhile in TW games. Sure, you need some income mechanics etc. but their purpose was never to simulate anything realistically