Population growth in Italy - 2.1

**Uandwhosearmy** · January 26, 2007, 06:23 AM

I started a campaign as the Sicilans with 2.0 and patched it in just a few turns to 2.1. I'm not sure if population growth has been changed at all, but Naples is quickly outgrowing most cities on the italian peninsula. I'm in year 1120 and can already build Huge stone walls in that city. I've pretty much been asked to upgrade just after I finished the last set of walls.

Is this intentional or has population growth been overlooked?

**Germanicus75** · January 26, 2007, 07:23 AM

I also found I'm growing very quickly and making tonnes of money as Sicily in 2.1...this was from starting a new campaign...

**Ebusitanus** · January 26, 2007, 07:44 AM

I understand that in order for the money handouts to change to 2.1 values you will actually need to start a 2.1 Campaign, not a 2.0. Its save game friendly but not towards all the new goodies (like the cash thing).

**Uandwhosearmy** · January 26, 2007, 08:50 AM

Originally Posted by Ebusitanus

I understand that in order for the money handouts to change to 2.1 values you will actually need to start a 2.1 Campaign, not a 2.0. Its save game friendly but not towards all the new goodies (like the cash thing).

I'm not referring to any cash injections or boosts. The initial query refers to population growth as you may or may not have noticed.

**Lusted** · January 26, 2007, 09:17 AM

Population growth does start out fast, but it will slow down. Italy is one of the most fertile places in the game.

**Garnier** · January 26, 2007, 09:42 AM

I think that better castles/cities should need really high populations. 18000 is too low for a citadel, I got 18000 in the year 1157 or so. Thats too early. Either that, or the buildings should only be available after a certain year. Fortresses after 1200, Citadels after 1300 for instance. Having yeoman archers in 1100s is really early.

**Garnier** · January 26, 2007, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by Garnier

Or the buildings should only be available after a certain year. Fortresses after 1200, Citadels after 1300 for instance. Having yeoman archers in 1100s is really early.

What do you think of this idea?

**Lusted** · January 26, 2007, 10:24 AM

Believe me Garnier once you get to the late game you'll be wishing you had the high population rates of early on, as more often than not many settlements if not managed right can stall short of the population needed for the highest level.

Getting population growth balanced is a hard as it wil decrease in settlements throughout the game as they get bigger, and it is very hard to get it right.

**Lusted** · January 26, 2007, 10:37 AM

What do you think of this idea?

Hidtorical, but willl hurt the ai as if a new unit cannot be recruited in the next level barracks/stables(in tihs case because of recruitment died to a date) then the ai wont build that building, whilst the player would. So the ai will then ahve to wait a few years before producing the better troops whilst the player already has armies of them marching around.

**Arksa** · January 26, 2007, 10:44 AM

i think it's a bad idea. Citadels on year 1300...no no no. Like Lusted said, historically correct but...gameplay suffers from it.

**Garnier** · January 26, 2007, 11:17 AM

Yeah I suppose you all are right. Besides, it is fun to use the better units, and have the AI use them. Its 1170 now, I just finished a huge war against heretics in wales, but a bit after that, a witch appeared, and I spent about 10 priests and a cardinal on her. I still dont know what to do about it.

And Venice has armoured sergeants, DFK's and VHI in a lot of their armies. Its fun to fight those things.

**Uandwhosearmy** · January 27, 2007, 03:34 AM

Cheers for the informative responses Lusted!

Population growth has started to slow down considerably in Naples now that I've played a while. But that city reached 30.000 really quick I must say.