Population matters!

[Ignudo]

I have been away from Paradox for quite some time but the announcement of EUIV got me excited again. While the new trade system certainly looks promising, I'm afraid that we will again be disappointed with respect to population. However, for me a meaningful population mechanism has always been the single most important missing feature because once this would in so many other systems could be linked to it. Of course, this also means that adding population is an extremely complex task (mostly because population needs to be dynamic over time). On the other hand I don't think it would raise complexity from the players point of view and should thereby be in line with Johan's vision of not making things more complex. Also the relevance of population is so intuitively clear to anybody that implementing it should exactly create the intuitive consequences to the player's decision that Paradox strives for according to their vision.

Here is short and incomplete list to illustrate how population would tremendously increase the depth of the game without necessarily making it more complicated for the player:

• basic model: income is tied to population (and modified by other factors like geography, technology).
• armies should be drawn from population, thereby creating a mechanism to make war more costly long-term.
• wars create casualties in the domain they are fought (raids, diseases...). First, this would create another mechanism to make war more costly long-term (think 30 Years war, civic casualties are really the most important cost factor of all long-term). Second, for the first time it would matter were fights happen. No more defending on home-ground because of lower attrition. If you want to spare your population from the trouble that comes with war you'd better bring it to your enemy.

For me the war related implications of population would be a real game changer. Without making things any more complex the decision to go to war would suddenly become much more consequential, which is what strategy gaming should be all about in my opinion. Of course, population could have implications for other aspects of the game as well, like Colonization for example.

Let's use this thread to brainstorm about what population would bring to the game. Maybe we can eventually convince Johan that it'll be worth the hassle. Fire away, I'm looking forward to read your take on population!

 

[Fawr]

I agree with this.

From memory my first forum thread I created was to argue that population didn't matter enough back in EU1, and that in particular provincial income should be heavily based on the urban population.

It doesn't need to be complex, for me something like EU3:Rome had would be fine.

 

[grull]

I would love to see the population system in EUIV, I mean, just like you said, if you want to have a historical Grand Strategy game, you need to have detailed consequences of what war did to the civic populace.

I think that one should make it more complex, eventhough one CAN implement it without doing that.

 

[Lama43]

I don't see any reason for not putting in a simplified POP system in EU4 (the devs said that's not going to happen), but anyway i very much agree with this. Population must be much more important than in EU3, because it WAS in real life.

 

[grull]

I don't see any reason for not putting in a simplified POP system in EU4 (the devs said that's not going to happen), but anyway i very much agree with this. Population must be much more important than in EU3, because it WAS in real life.

Presisly, IRL you would need not to kill your population off, quite simply.

I was a little sad when I got to play EU3, and abandoned it once I found Vicky 2. I hope that the same will not happen.

 

[Ignudo]

It doesn't need to be complex, for me something like EU3:Rome had would be fine.

I also don't think we need a pop system like in Vicky but we would never get that anyways and for good reasons (> Johan's design philosophy). In Vicky you need the pops to model industrialization and the political landscape. These things don't really matter in EU. Since, I've never played EU3:Rome would you mind explaining how population was modeled there?

What always annoyed me the most in EU3 is that warfare had no long-term consequences and was generally much to cheap. Bringing population into the equation could change that dramatically. I also see population as a perfect mechanism to scale the difficulty of the game for different audiences. It would be very subtle but also incredibly powerful.

 

[grull]

I also don't think we need a pop system like in Vicky but we would never get that anyways. In Vicky you need the pops to model industrialization and the political landscape. These things don't really matter in EU. Since, I've never played EU3:Rome would you mind explaining how population was modeled there?

What always annoyed me the most in EU3 is that warfare had no long-term consequences and was generally much to cheap. Bringing population into the equation could change that dramatically. I also see population as a perfect mechanism to scale the difficulty of the game for different audiences. It would be very subtle but also incredibly powerful.

I believe that population is important to model every era, and every GS game. But I understand your point though, and I am forced to my will to recognise it. I know that the Vicky system won't be there.

 

[Sakura]

I agree that a limited population model, even just a basic one tracking the relative % of the peasantry/middle class/nobility, would be wonderful

But I believe that Paradox has stated the problem with this is that they just don't have the necessary data.

 

[unmerged(463662)]

Currently:
Units = 0.995 + population/200000
The value is has a maximum of 2.0 which occurs when the population is 201,000 or higher.

It's silly that an extra 800000 provide absolutely no bonus (or malus) at all.

I'd like to see population reworked in a simple manner, and extra 0.1 magistrates per city over half a million perhaps, or +1 prestige for having the largest city in your tech group, and it'd be nice if there was the basic manpower and financial feedback from the extra peeps too.

It's pretty silly the way that half the cities in europe reach 1 million by 1700 in EU3. It's immersion breaking yet also completely meaningless.

So a more thoughtful population model, but nothing greatly more complex.

 

[moldeh]

I honestly would love a system like the one in vicky, but that's not going to happen. But come on... population is of the foremost importance in ANY era.

 

[grull]

I honestly would love a system like the one in vicky, but that's not going to happen. But come on... population is of the foremost importance in ANY era.

Precisly.

 

[Ruwaard]

OTOH population doesn't say everything, that is regions can have a similar population, yet not the same possibilities. For instance, the Burgundian Netherlands and the Dutch Republic, didn't have the highest population, though those did have a high population density, and that region was developed and wealthy. So relatively speaking they could 'punch above their weight' for quite some time, though in the long run, especially when larger rivals started to develop more and overtake, they were limited in their growth and potential to keep up, and ultimately they didn't.

Now back on the topic of population, I have some figures from during the reign of Charles V; in terms of population the Burgundian Netherlands (2.9 million) can be compared with population of the kingdoms of Naples and Sicily (3.2 million), however on average the tax income in the Burgundian Netherlands were 400.000 ducats (during peace time, higher during periods of war), in contrast the tax income of Naples and Sicily were 160.000 ducats.
In other words tax income shouldn't be solely based on population; one difference is that back then the Burgundian Netherlands were much more urban too.

 

[unmerged(463662)]

Large populations can also equal social inertia, aka resist western influences thingies

 

[DanubianCossak]

Currently:
Units = 0.995 + population/200000
The value is has a maximum of 2.0 which occurs when the population is 201,000 or higher.

It's silly that an extra 800000 provide absolutely no bonus (or malus) at all.

Number of produced units cap was probably introduced as balance, because otherwise certain trade goods could potentially have 300+ production in late game, and that would make game economy more or less broken (too much income).

But yeah, i wouldnt mind if population was somehow made relevant, just not too detailed like Vicky 2, with each group having its own religion and stuff, that just isnt EU.

 

[Eh up me duck]

Urban development is reflected by buildings and production technology. Population should probably be removed altogether.

 

[unmerged(7537)]

OTOH population doesn't say everything, that is regions can have a similar population, yet not the same possibilities. For instance, the Burgundian Netherlands and the Dutch Republic, didn't have the highest population, though those did have a high population density, and that region was developed and wealthy. So relatively speaking they could 'punch above their weight' for quite some time, though in the long run, especially when larger rivals started to develop more and overtake, they were limited in their growth and potential to keep up, and ultimately they didn't.

Now back on the topic of population, I have some figures from during the reign of Charles V; in terms of population the Burgundian Netherlands (2.9 million) can be compared with population of the kingdoms of Naples and Sicily (3.2 million), however on average the tax income in the Burgundian Netherlands were 400.000 ducats (during peace time, higher during periods of war), in contrast the tax income of Naples and Sicily were 160.000 ducats.
In other words tax income shouldn't be solely based on population; one difference is that back then the Burgundian Netherlands were much more urban too.

Yea, I mean even contemporary political scientists pointed out that neither territory nor population numbers in and of themselves translate to economic or political power, what matters is how efficiently they are governed (i.e. infrastructure, policies, law enforcement, technology...)

Population could provide a ceiling or cap to economic advancement, but it shouldn't be the sole or even primary factor in it.

 

[Tornadoli]

Also, population could provide a handy "force limit". By recruiting from the population, you decrease the number of workers, so your income decreases. It will be up to the player to find a balance - the larger your army, the more maintenance you will pay AND you will also get less income due to a smaller number of workers.

 

[Darkath]

Urban development is reflected by buildings and production technology. Population should probably be removed altogether.

From what I understood that's the plan.

Nonetheless, having an actual population management would make for more interesting gameplay. No colonies created out of nowhere by Knights or Venice, and meaningful long term impacts of war, poor policies, plagues and stuff.

 

[unmerged(276049)]

I don't know what information exists of the population breakdown of, say, the Indonesian islands in the year 1500.

 

[Sotof]

Well. I would prefer an abstract system for population since we do not have precise numbers - and I think more than urban population should play a part.