Greetings all,

My part of today’s developer diary focuses on further changes coming to the population system in 2.0.

The changes to civilization value mentioned previously opened up further opportunities for a rethink on population growth. In 1.5 and before, cities were largely sustained by prolonged inwards migration. While this is not something I necessarily want to change, we’ll be splitting up where population growth comes from, with the dual intentions of letting cities stand their own ground when growing pops, and allowing for more engagement in how you promote growth in owned territory.

Firstly, base pop growth, and pop growth from stability have been reduced significantly.

Secondly, civilization value now contributes to population growth, simulating an increased growth rate in developed metropoles.

Thirdly, the population growth rate from stored food has been slightly reduced, however, the food consumption of tribesmen has been reduced, making it easier to boost growth in undeveloped tribal territories without also affecting the inherently low population capacity of said land.

Lastly, various sources of population growth have been slightly reduced to accommodate the new increases from civilization value.

What does this achieve?

Overall, there should be slightly less global growth in the average game, but still enough control to make long-term decisions valid, and for local factors to have much more of an impact on the fabric of the game.

These graphs show the 2.0 build prior to population changes, and post population changes. As you can see, the newer system (bottom) results in less total population over time, with a marginally nerfed warm period event being one of the main factors.

Games in 1.5 had a tendency to balloon in population density towards the endgame, due in part to the availability of inventions and modifiers affecting pop growth. With population now being intrinsically related to army sizes, we felt it was time to return to a more realistic* growth pattern that still allows the player to manipulate the world situation to their advantage.

Related to these changes, domestic migration has been slowed down slightly, and settlement production buildings (with the exception of the Legation) now reduce outward pop migration to almost 0 (unless there are extenuating circumstances such as occupation or overpopulation).

*The academic consensus appears to be that the usual global increase in population entered a bit of a plateau at around the time Imperator is set, to around the time it ends.

Research Efficiency

Somewhat tangentially to population changes, we’re also going to be gating the maximum research efficiency of nations. The base maximum research efficiency of nations will now begin at 125%. This value can be relatively easy to achieve for smaller nations, and should still offset technological advancement positively if focused upon, however, a great disparity in tech between larger empires and city-states was simply too easy to achieve.

We still want technology to be a valid choice in nation-building, however, and numerous nodes have been added to the invention tree, increasing the maximum research efficiency that a country can achieve - if you want to build a state as a shining beacon of technological advancement, this is entirely possible, but you’ll have to weigh up this decision against other valuable advancements.

With that, I’ll hand over to @Chopmist to take you through some of the map changes coming in 2.0!

[The eagle eyed among you also noticed the recurrence of the infamous ‘glowing borders’ bug in a recent screenshot. This has since been resolved.]

 

[giant_sloth]

Minor rivers weren't mentioned in the post, but the Hypanis has also been added

Thank you, thank you so much! This was bugging me immensely.

 

[LunarBahamut]

Good changes, more updates to the map, but seriously:
What about India?
I have made so many posts and comments by now highlighting great rivers there that should be made navigable, as they are larger than some of the ones that are navigable in Europe, and for gameplay reasons it would also help so drastically to make the region more interesting in terms of land and naval warfare, as the region right now lacks a reason to invest in large navies, and it has nearly no natural chokepoints to play around with, especially in the central part.
So we have a historically accurate reason to make about 5 rivers there navigable, we have gameplay reasons to make them navigable, but they aren't even talked about, why?

To add to my first comment, the main rivers that would fit this are the Godavari (and maybe even tributaries), Krishna, Cauvery/Kaveri, Mahanadi, Brahmani, Brahmaputra, Narmadi and Tapi/Tapti.
I once got as a counterargument for why there are so little territories in India, that there's not enough info on the names and location of territories/cities in the Indian subcontinent in the ancient world. Even though I think it's a shame there are so little territories there compared to the rest of the world, as the area in game is way smaller than it should be because of that, I understand the reasoning.
But information on rivers is there, and adding just a few of them would make it such an interesting region, and would genuinely make it a fascinating choice to use navies and strategic forts at river crossings to take down the Maurya's, as right now that strategic depths is lacking.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

Myriandros will change names if the Antigonids develop Alexandreia kat Isson as a port of Antigoneia in their first mission, or it is owned by another Diadochi. It now has the Alexandria modifier regardless however.

Thanks for explaining. But it’s still a subpar arrangment.

• that way there is ONE single possible route from the Syrian Gates through Myraindros/Alexandretta to Issus. That means EVERY war here would be the same.
• Myraindros was an old Phoenician colony, Alexandria ad Issum was a new Greek city. They should have different cultures.
• with Mallos moved inland, there are only 3 coastal tiles, making naval invasions more predictable. An fort in Issus covers all 3 in the ZoC.

If you make Alexandretta a separate tile, it would become a T-shaped crossroads and Myriandros would be an appendix. If fortified, it would offer a major strategic choice to any army: Should it

• Make a detour and siege down Myriandros?
• March on leaving an enemy fort behind?
• Split the force to do both?

This would greatly increase variety for wars in the area!

The new league city invention would fit in nicely here, allowing a player to release Myriandros without cutting the road through Alexandria.

Finally, adding one more coastal tile would keep the coast less predictable (5 tiles now, 3 in your map, 4 in our proposal). that would mean more forts would be necessary to secure the coast.

Hm...

Well, there's still something I'm worried about the new changes in pop mechanics. It may make a region too easy to assimilate.

Well the game, no matter how assimilated the territory is, it still always grows its traditional Pop. So you'll never be able to fully assimilate a location because they will always grow more natives in the city and in all the surrounding settlements, essentially flooding your cities with natives.

A reduced growth means the natives will no longer be flooding over you. The territories may become really stable as no new native pops with the different unaccepted local culture appearing.

Assimilation and conversion speed should be nerfed hard. But there should be inventions, military traditions and Ideas that would speed them up A LOT if you want it.

Minor rivers weren't mentioned in the post, but the Hypanis has also been added

but it should be navigable, not just minor.

 

[WillemDeZwijger]

The random bold text and capitalization reads very aggressively lol

 

[Syroc]

You will be able to automate trade with governors in 2.0. It is not a fix, but a patch until fixed. The DD, provincial trade:

Imperator: Rome Developer Diary - 19th of October 2020

Hello and welcome to another development diary for Imperator: Rome. Today I will be talking to you about some of the changes that are coming in the Marius update. It is still early days, so take any and all numbers and screenshots as what they...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

Oh thank jebus. I could have sworn I read this before but I didn't want to dig through all the other entries again to make sure.

 

[Slavicist]

I believe we have one planned for Wednesday.



The unit models from the Flavor Pack will be used for Legions, whereas Levies will use the same model as other Greek nations.



1. It is also possible to get it from other sources, though they are quite rare.

And what about the Vitruvius Great Works Pack?

 

[hakan-yerebakan]

I'm still waiting for the fertile valleys in Western Anatolia. It doesn't make sense that only Cilicia was farmlands.

 

[___Vardan]

I wonder whether you renamed Armenian settlements and names in general. There is a comprehensive suggestion topic on it.

 

[Basileus2]

Once again, Arheo and Team are giving the master class on how to develop the seeds of a game. Honestly, fantastic job guys. Keep it up. Really excited to see how I:R continues to grow at this pace.

 

[Balesir]

In reality this would result in difficult-to-control snowballing, though I understand the attraction.

The classic form would be (population level) * (population cap - population level), wouldn't it?

 

[IsaacCAT]

The classic form would be (population level) * (population cap - population level), wouldn't it?

population cap is a soft cap. The game uses population over the population cap to affect migration.

The solution they have came up with civilization affecting growth is an elegant one, taking into account the definition of civilization:

For the purposes of this rework, local civilization value is being more explicitly defined as the state of the infrastructure and sanitation of any given location.

Because POP growth is not function of number of POPs but of many other factors like fertility rate and child mortality. For example, in our time, population growth is forecast to decrease (but still grow).

On a final note IMHO, there should not be a population cap at all, but that is another discussion.

 

[Balesir]

population cap is a soft cap. The game uses population over the population cap to affect migration.

Sure, but there are adjustments for that (halving for each step above pop.cap - 1, for example, rather than going to 0).

The solution they have came up with civilization affecting growth is an elegant one, taking into account the definition of civilization:

Civilisation level should certainly be in there, no argument, but the S-curve is an important feature nonetheless. It ensures slowing growth as the cap is approached (not just after it's met) and fast recovery after a major catastrophe (unless the population is totally wiped out).

 

[IsaacCAT]

the S-curve is an important feature nonetheless. It ensures slowing growth as the cap is approached (not just after it's met) and fast recovery after a major catastrophe (unless the population is totally wiped out).

The S curve is achieved in the game by how food is produced. Because stored food gives a bonus on POP growth, and more POPs eat more food, the bonus will decrease as your population increases. Thus, achieving this S-curve already.

Other players have argued that food should be produced by POPs instead of magically produced. I encourage you to read the following thread where @crownsteler suggested this system and we discussed its implications:

Increase food management challenge and Implement Squalor, Fire and Diseases

Preface: @Chlodio started this thread with a nice suggestion that I hope he will bring someday to the SPQR and shortly some old and unsolved problems appeared on the thread, namely POP growth rate (@CaptinObvious ) and mega-cities (@Lord Lambert...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

 

[Balesir]

The S curve is achieved in the game by how food is produced. Because stored food gives a bonus on POP growth, and more POPs eat more food, the bonus will decrease as your population increases. Thus, achieving this S-curve already.

That's not really an S-curve, though - more of a lower-case 'r' curve (low population doesn't restrict organic growth - must be very tiring, I imagine, especially for the women!) Food as a top end constraint is fine, but there really ought to be a limit on the bonus growth from it; eating more eventually doesn't make you more energetic or healthy, it just makes you fat...

Other players have argued that food should be produced by POPs instead of magically produced. I encourage you to read the following thread where

This is a nice idea for sure (and a nice thread, if a bit wordy). It sort-of does the population limit on low population growth indirectly, except that it still leaves the possibility to import food for high population growth from small populations, but I guess the limit on trade routes deals with that, albeit somewhat artificially.

 

[LunarBahamut]

Food as a top end constraint is fine, but there really ought to be a limit on the bonus growth from it; eating more eventually doesn't make you more energetic or healthy, it just makes you fat...

Dude, more food means larger populations, that's simply how it has worked during the worlds history. Our populations are limited by how many mouths we can feed primarily, all large jumps in population in a region have come with massive increase on food production, it's not because a single person eats themselves fat, stop thinking about individual people and start thinking about populations. It's not about an individual being more healthy, there's a hard limit on how many mouths you can feed without agricultural advances. This is also why areas in the world that produced rice primarily had more population than those that produced wheat, as it simply gives more energy/food per amount of land worked, and can thus feed more people. This does not mean those populations were stronger or healthier than the ones that ate wheat (compare northern China to the people of Europe, it's not racist to note the Germanic people there would be considered individually stronger)

Some people here would do well to read up on a little bit of history and ecology before they say nonsense like "hurr durr more food just makes people fat"

 

[R Rex]

Where's the guy on the forums who always complained about the Baleric Islands being Punic... your wish came true!

i'm here ma boy, expecting to see new missions and flavour to the new gymnesia tag

 

[Balesir]

Dude, more food means larger populations, that's simply how it has worked during the worlds history. Our populations are limited by how many mouths we can feed primarily, all large jumps in population in a region have come with massive increase on food production, it's not because a single person eats themselves fat, stop thinking about individual people and start thinking about populations. It's not about an individual being more healthy, there's a hard limit on how many mouths you can feed without agricultural advances. This is also why areas in the world that produced rice primarily had more population than those that produced wheat, as it simply gives more energy/food per amount of land worked, and can thus feed more people. This does not mean those populations were stronger or healthier than the ones that ate wheat (compare northern China to the people of Europe, it's not racist to note the Germanic people there would be considered individually stronger)

Some people here would do well to read up on a little bit of history and ecology before they say nonsense like "hurr durr more food just makes people fat"

"Dude", you might try reading what I said before starting a rant about historical this or that - I'm well ware of the historical link between food supply and population and how and why it generally worked. It worked because there was hardly ever enough food to go around, so that food always remained a factor overall and in the wider picture. But the fact remains that concentrating more food in one area does not make people suddenly multiply faster indefinitely in that one area. It may well make the area more attractive to migrate to - but we're not talking about migration, here, we're talking about 'organic' growth (ie. making babies). Migration is handled separately. Over the whole map, or even significant areas of it, I'll bet that food is likely to be in a pretty fine balance - hence the overall limit on population will depend heavily on the available food - but, again, we're talking about individual provinces, here. Specifically - since this is a computer strategy game - we're talking about the player's capability to drive up population growth in a specific city (because it's beneficial in game terms to do so). If a margin of organic (ie. not migratory, so you don't have to take it from somewhere else) population growth can be expanded without limit in a specific city via food concentration then that's an issue in game terms. Understand?

 

[Decius]

This reminds me here a bit on "arguing about the emperor's beard" I have no idea, if this is an idiom in english - I just translated it from german into english

 

[LunarBahamut]

"Dude", you might try reading what I said before starting a rant about historical this or that - I'm well ware of the historical link between food supply and population and how and why it generally worked. It worked because there was hardly ever enough food to go around, so that food always remained a factor overall and in the wider picture. But the fact remains that concentrating more food in one area does not make people suddenly multiply faster indefinitely in that one area. It may well make the area more attractive to migrate to - but we're not talking about migration, here, we're talking about 'organic' growth (ie. making babies). Migration is handled separately. Over the whole map, or even significant areas of it, I'll bet that food is likely to be in a pretty fine balance - hence the overall limit on population will depend heavily on the available food - but, again, we're talking about individual provinces, here. Specifically - since this is a computer strategy game - we're talking about the player's capability to drive up population growth in a specific city (because it's beneficial in game terms to do so). If a margin of organic (ie. not migratory, so you don't have to take it from somewhere else) population growth can be expanded without limit in a specific city via food concentration then that's an issue in game terms. Understand?

Stay uninformed. Nothing you say counters what I say in any way, but keep doing you friend.

 

[Balesir]

Stay uninformed. Nothing you say counters what I say in any way, but keep doing you friend.

That depends what you think "counters" means. I didn't contradict what you said, because it was correct, as far as it went - the problem was that you completely missed the point. It was a bit like saying "this drawing is mostly white space, so we should ignore all the lines". It may be entirely true that the drawing is mostly white - but by ignoring the lines you will almost certainly miss the point of the drawing (and, apparently, you did).