Growth - Larger cities - population

**AugustusRoman** · November 19, 2015, 11:30 AM

Hi! I have an idea how to use food/growth per region in a better way.

We know that food gives growth population and your armies are not starving (replenishment rate). As for making better and bigger cities we need money (and the technology for level 3 and 4).
Moreover, the technology that allows you to build lvl 3 and 4 cities takes a lot of time and requires a lot of money to build the building + the building itself gives a lot of problems, since the negatives are huge especially in the beginning!

My suggestion is the following: Instead of technology and money you will need population surplus (and maybe money for balance). For instance, a city will need +5 population surplus for the level 2 city, +8 for the level 3 city and +10 for the level 4 (this is just an example) and as I said maybe money too, for balance. Of course, if only that change take place there will be many problems, like you will not be able to build other buildings or it will take too long for the next surplus. That is why surplus should be easier to happen or less surplus will be required to open a new space in a city.

Other changes that should take place and will make the whole game different!!

1) Since it will take more time for a surplus and it will be more difficult to have larger city/town, these building should give more money (taxes).
2) Occupying and razing should be different. Raze will destroy the city (lets say level 4), which is not a good idea but the -15 instability is too high for occupying!! That would need to be balanced!! So if you raze a city all the population will die, therefore it will take time to build that city again. Raze - sack - looting should give a huge negative population growth!!
3)Bigger cities more recruitment as well!! For instance, +1 for each level.

4)Level 3 and 4 cities will give -public order per turn but no corruption. Also the cities will require more food.
5)Farms should give now more food to cover the above changes, but farms will not give money. You can keep other agriculture buildings as they are. Fishing ports should not give more than -5 public order per turn + fishing ports should give more food. In my opinion the food that these buildings give is too low for the -public order that you get.

6) The technology should change too. Since the technology that unlock the level 3 and 4 does not exist anymore, we need something in their place. That could be:
a) population growth +5 b)higher taxes c)less expensive cities d)+public order when you have cities from level 3 to level 4. e) less instability when you occupying

I do not know if the above can happen. But I am sure it will be much more interesting in this way!!

**Petellius** · November 19, 2015, 12:03 PM

Good idea. Not sure it's possible though. Also please can you keep your ideas to a single thread?

**ABH2** · November 19, 2015, 01:03 PM

My suggestion is the following: Instead of technology and money you will need population surplus (and maybe money for balance). For instance, a city will need +5 population surplus for the level 2 city, +8 for the level 3 city and +10 for the level 4 (this is just an example) and as I said maybe money too, for balance. Of course, if only that change take place there will be many problems, like you will not be able to build other buildings or it will take too long for the next surplus. That is why surplus should be easier to happen or less surplus will be required to open a new space in a city.

Well, this is more how it worked in Rome 1. And ideally, yes, it would work that way. Though there's no mechanic for it, unfortunately. The population surplus aspect and what unlocks buildings are pretty straightforward and not much else we can do in that.

Our main settlement line won't be representing the same thing in this mod, though. I may do a write up on this and make it public soon (the team should be tracking it, the core at least).

1) Since it will take more time for a surplus and it will be more difficult to have larger city/town, these building should give more money (taxes).
2) Occupying and razing should be different. Raze will destroy the city (lets say level 4), which is not a good idea but the -15 instability is too high for occupying!! That would need to be balanced!! So if you raze a city all the population will die, therefore it will take time to build that city again. Raze - sack - looting should give a huge negative population growth!!
3)Bigger cities more recruitment as well!! For instance, +1 for each level.

We've had some internal arguments on this subject of razing/sacking. It's a basic math thing. In my view - razing a settlement should set it back big time with a long trend public order hit, severe negative growth, but an influx of cash right away and short term public order stability. I know Petellius has disagreed, but my logic is simple - razing a settlement like Caesar did in Gaul tended to mean a whole lot of people killed off. It was hefty destruction.

Looting - Cash, less negative growth, short term public order issues, but long term calms down.

Occupation - small cash amount, medium public order hit right away as you've left these people alone, long term least public order damage. Growth neutral.

In terms of specific building effects, the idea right now it so approach the trade-offs in public order and such differently. Public order won't be a negative on the higher end of the main settlement line, but probably tougher earlier on to slow down assimilation and because its more realistic. By the end phase of these building lines - and there won't be straight conversion - the player will have assimilated a settlement. There's little rebellion threat. Though there will be negatives attached of different types.

Getting into the specific effects is really a matter of balancing and works with all other areas of the mod. And without people knowing our specific building outline, it's tougher to have a conversation on that.

**Alfonzo over Innsmouths** · November 19, 2015, 11:38 PM

Originally Posted by ABH2

Well, this is more how it worked in Rome 1. And ideally, yes, it would work that way. Though there's no mechanic for it, unfortunately. The population surplus aspect and what unlocks buildings are pretty straightforward and not much else we can do in that.

Wait, can't you? I mean, for hordes the restrictions are based on horde growth - if you don't have enough, you can't progress to higher tiers, and building up to higher tiers uses horde growth. Can you make it so that buildings need growth surplus in addition to cash to be built? Or is this hard coded for hordes only?

**AugustusRoman** · November 20, 2015, 05:37 AM

good point!! It might can be done!

**sasquatch32794** · December 05, 2015, 08:09 PM

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...p-Release-Date
Just gonna leave this here. It's for Rome 2 yes but Rome 2 and Atilla are very similar

**Petellius** · December 05, 2015, 08:15 PM

Mitch got snapped up by CA and never finished it and likely never will. Sorry.

**sasquatch32794** · December 05, 2015, 09:02 PM

Originally Posted by Petellius

Mitch got snapped up by CA and never finished it and likely never will. Sorry.

Well Mitch might never finish it but he proved that it is possible. With the things Litharion and Magnar are doing in Rome 2 right now I think it is just a matter of time before a new population mechanic comes to fruition from some sort of mod team.

**ABH2** · December 06, 2015, 04:42 AM

With the Charlemagne announcement, it's at least now known that you can tie the construction of one building to another as a precondition. So, that's progress and will allow some things.

In terms of a genuine population system, that's a tall order. But as mentioned, there are some skilled modders working in that area still. We'll see what is developed in the future.