link fertility to sanitation buildings?

**Doomsday** · March 09, 2015, 01:09 PM

I was thinking that currently, fertility levels become far too low far too soon making the game unnecessarily difficult. I wondered what people thought about maybe linking fertility levels to some of the sanitation buildings. Some, such as food stores would obviously have no influence over fertility, others, such as canals, ditches, reservoirs and aqueducts, imo should. what do other people think about this?

**RexJayden** · March 09, 2015, 10:15 PM

I like this idea.

**Bramborough** · March 09, 2015, 10:22 PM

I do too. Since release, I've been thinking there should be some way to increase fertility.

On the other hand, there's plenty of non-fertility-dependent options available. Fish, granary stocks, some religious buildings, some resources, etc. And the least-fertility-dependent "regular" food structures (e.g., goats in the barbarian tree) are viable. Through these, I do think CA has provided the means to deal with climate change. One can still develop a highly lucrative province even if its Infertile.

**sleepyx732** · March 09, 2015, 10:58 PM

This would be very useful for barbarian factions. Food isn't a problem for Sassanids thanks to camel farms. Romans won't have problems either due to a high amount of ports and resources that give food and higher fertility regions..

Speaking of which, where's the balance between barbarians and romans/sassanids? Barbarians have less of everything. Food, sanitation, income from buildings or just income in general, garrison, religious influence, means to fight corruption, and can't achieve as high quality troops. Not to mention they all either start with one or no region. I'm sure I missed a couple things. Despite what the initial challenge marker says, I find them alot harder to play then Romans. Is there something I'm not seeing here?

**Zwirbaum** · March 10, 2015, 06:42 AM

Originally Posted by sleepyx732

This would be very useful for barbarian factions. Food isn't a problem for Sassanids thanks to camel farms. Romans won't have problems either due to a high amount of ports and resources that give food and higher fertility regions..

Speaking of which, where's the balance between barbarians and romans/sassanids? Barbarians have less of everything. Food, sanitation, income from buildings or just income in general, garrison, religious influence, means to fight corruption, and can't achieve as high quality troops. Not to mention they all either start with one or no region. I'm sure I missed a couple things. Despite what the initial challenge marker says, I find them alot harder to play then Romans. Is there something I'm not seeing here?

Are you playing the same game as I do?

First of all while to some extent someone could argue that food production is lower, but - your food consumption is lower (I level Cities and Towns do not require food, while Romans/Sasanids need 35/10 in each case). Also Barbarians have access to the excelent storage buildings which generate without any downside up to 90 food and 9 sanitation in that region. I haven't even seen problem with lower income generated by barbarians, and I had higher wealth as Barbarians than Romans in provinces. (Hall of Elders/Champion Hold/Mead Hall - generate crazy amount of wealth). Corruption is problem for everyone, and you will start getting hit by corruption after a while, when Romans in fact are already struck by it. Religious influence depends on your religion and you can switch them to your likings (In my WRE and ERE playthrough I converted to Celtic Paganism and Hellenism) without having to lose anything. There are also people who complain that BARBARIAN units are too strong compared to Romans beside some odd units (Fragmata, I'm looking at you).

**Doomsday** · March 10, 2015, 03:58 AM

The game is far from unplayable without a way of increasing fertility, but it'd make more sense and be more historically accurate if northern and eastern provinces could counter climate change. The game guide says increased invasions was in part due to a population increase due in turn to increased food. It doesn't make sense that anywhere but Spain only farms livestock to survive.

**Ngazi** · March 10, 2015, 04:55 AM

Then you would just camp in the north.

**Fredrin** · March 10, 2015, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by Doomsday

I was thinking that currently, fertility levels become far too low far too soon making the game unnecessarily difficult. I wondered what people thought about maybe linking fertility levels to some of the sanitation buildings. Some, such as food stores would obviously have no influence over fertility, others, such as canals, ditches, reservoirs and aqueducts, imo should. what do other people think about this?

I see what your getting at, but sanitation - something you'd associate with a large city-based population - is conceptually quite different to agricultural irrigation, which I think is what you're suggesting with the canals, dikes, reservoirs etc.

But I agree, some structure that would allow you address fertility drop would be ideal. Perhaps in the farmstead building chain there could be line of buildings for this; they could cost incrementally more to maintain (in the style of churches for other factions) but would bring a rise in fertility over time.

**RexJayden** · March 10, 2015, 11:48 AM

I think the absence of fertile land is meant to force players to adopt a migration stance. The low fertility "incentive" should drive us south to seek greener pastures. In my Geats campaign, I am holding on but it has been tough. I find myself conquering land only to build farmland, goat farms, etc.

**DeliCiousTZM** · March 10, 2015, 11:57 AM

Interesting... for every 5 + Sanitation you have you get 1+ higher to fertility ?

Originally Posted by RexJayden

I think the absence of fertile land is meant to force players to adopt a migration stance. The low fertility "incentive" should drive us south to seek greener pastures. In my Geats campaign, I am holding on but it has been tough. I find myself conquering land only to build farmland, goat farms, etc.

That is a nice point, until you remember that the most fertile areas eventually become barren wastelands.

Because reasons.

**Doomsday** · March 10, 2015, 03:21 PM

Then you would just camp in the north.

Don't see that as a problem, allows the player more freedom. currently all the factions end up in spain and even fertile territory such as gaul/britannia are considered infertile.

I see what your getting at, but sanitation - something you'd associate with a large city-based population - is conceptually quite different to agricultural irrigation, which I think is what you're suggesting with the canals, dikes, reservoirs etc.

But I agree, some structure that would allow you address fertility drop would be ideal. Perhaps in the farmstead building chain there could be line of buildings for this; they could cost incrementally more to maintain (in the style of churches for other factions) but would bring a rise in fertility over time.

I kinda agree, but do feel that waterwork style sanitation would work just as well, atm you almost need one sanitation building per region, and it feels like a waste, if it could do something else it'd feel less like you're being forced to construct certain buildings.

I think the absence of fertile land is meant to force players to adopt a migration stance. The low fertility "incentive" should drive us south to seek greener pastures. In my Geats campaign, I am holding on but it has been tough. I find myself conquering land only to build farmland, goat farms, etc.

I have a saxon campaign where i've conquered brittania inferior and superior plus frisia. got enough food so as i say, its doable. but i dislike having having the option to build wheat farms which will never produce enough food and seeing nearly the entire map considered infertile.

Interesting... for every 5 + Sanitation you have you get 1+ higher to fertility ?

I like where this is going.

**Fredrin** · March 10, 2015, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by DeliCiousTZM

Interesting... for every 5 + Sanitation you have you get 1+ higher to fertility ?

Originally Posted by Doomsday

I like where this is going.

This would completely destroy the fertility mechanic. There are some Roman buildings that provide 15 sanitation just by themselves. That means a boost of 60% to a province's potential fertility by building one building which also has a load of sanitation bonuses.

If it was to be linked, I'd say a +1 bonus max to the highest tier building in the sanitation chain and then perhaps a tier IV farm which provides the same.

**nameless** · March 10, 2015, 03:25 PM

I'd say no. It makes no sense for sanitation to be tied to fertility.

Of course arguing that the fertility drops to -1 throughout the whole map is a completely different story and I'm sure most of us agree that it's overboard. Yes it's to force us to go south but what's the point when the entire map eventually becomes infertile anyways?

**The Dude** · March 10, 2015, 04:09 PM

I agree that something has to be done about the fertility situation, but I don't think it should be as drastic a change as associating a second function with sanitation. I'm more thinking along the lines of CA just lessening the effects of climate change, because honestly it makes no sense. I like to believe that people living in the year 450 actually had the ability to enjoy a nice summer in a healthy-looking countryside, rather than stare sullenly out across a barren wasteland with darkening skies and Nazgul flying about.