mostly because the Russian AI can't deal with anythingI have to disagree here. For example, russian population tends to stay ridiculously low. USA also tends to turn out rather pathetic in most playthroughs. Britain as well
- 1
- 1
mostly because the Russian AI can't deal with anythingI have to disagree here. For example, russian population tends to stay ridiculously low. USA also tends to turn out rather pathetic in most playthroughs. Britain as well
it's there, NY gets there at about 25M iircit's reachable under normal game circumstances or is just defined and not implemented.)
Yes, the Russian AI will never move from traditionalism and serfdom because the landowner IG is very powerful there. So the country just stagnates. I imagine it will get country specific events in the future to give it some ability to do something other than join Qing's wars against the UK to set up the legendary fights between hundreds of thousands of Chinese vs. British on the Alaskan-Canadian Front.mostly because the Russian AI can't deal with anything
it's there, NY gets there at about 25M iirc
Before they make to many adjustments to population growth they really need to help the major powers industrialize, make unresolving death spiral revolutions.. resolve and work on the 1900s. the Flu outbreaks are pretty devastating and I can imagine the AI cant handle the economic impact of them. Right now with how poor the AI does at developing it messes with pop growth quite a bit.
I have to disagree here. For example, russian population tends to stay ridiculously low. USA also tends to turn out rather pathetic in most playthroughs. Britain as well
USA has low population mostly bcz they have pathethic sol and gdp compared to France and massive immigrations go to France instead, even though France might have less liberal laws. And those migrations are truly massive. In one of my games before 1900 France had like 4 millions of Brits and Americans.For all peoples whining about multiculturalism emmigration is INCREDIBLY low, so the USA has zero chance. (and that's before the player passing multiculturalism.)
For all peoples whining about multiculturalism emmigration is INCREDIBLY low, so the USA has zero chance. (and that's before the player passing multiculturalism.)
After poking around details of pop growth rates... This is the real issue.Before they make to many adjustments to population growth they really need to help the major powers industrialize, make unresolving death spiral revolutions.. resolve and work on the 1900s. the Flu outbreaks are pretty devastating and I can imagine the AI cant handle the economic impact of them. Right now with how poor the AI does at developing it messes with pop growth quite a bit.
The first number is from 1836, the second for 1936. The data is from Ourworldindata that uses estimations from Gapminder. I don’t know how good is the data, tbh. Is what I found with a quick search.What year is your data from? It seems a bit wrong, i think it omits provinces, and gives wrong data. In 1914 Egypt had less than 12 millions. At that time russia must have had around 160- 180 millions (not 96!). So some countries are given on regional basis, some countries as a whole. In all of them pop growth varies greatly totally independent of sol.
So what is the conclusion? I think it is that sol definitely shoouldn't be the vastly most important factor in determining pop growth.
The root historical data for ourworldindata and gapminder is from Angus Madison's research, which is the authoritative database of historic economic data (including population)... so I think it counts as reliable!The first number is from 1836, the second for 1936. The data is from Ourworldindata that uses estimations from Gapminder. I don’t know how good is the data, tbh. Is what I found with a quick search.
Edit. In any case I guess they use current borders for countries, but shouldn’t affect growth rate too much I think.
Doesn't matter, even a +90% won't help if your SoL is below 20Probably a bigger issue that'll come with the Arable Land changes in 1.2. Free or cheap land was a massive driver of emigration out west and not just in the bursts which happen in game (there probably should be at least a slow trickle towards out of market states based off of some categories).
Just a thought on this. I think that birth control was barely a thing in the time period. So it’s not like people chose to have or not children based on economic reasons. What determined pop growth was, I think mostly child mortality that was related with disease and food availability. But it’s a thought and might be wrong.So what are the impacts of child labour laws and education laws on birthrates?
Child Labour and lack of education should increase birthrates among relatively poor pops. Because a child who can work is an economic asset. While a child who is educated is a pure cost - and a bigger cost if the parents have to pay for education.
In short, poor POPs should have more children if children are allowed to work, and employment can be found. I think a child is more use in a Victorian-era factory or in a mine than in a field, of some limited use in services, and no use at all in anything requiring skill or training.
This should probably be modelled by Labourers having birth rate that is highest in conditions of limited wealth and low education - then Peasants, Farmers and Machinists.
Those laws can actually be really impactful on growth rates, especially for poor pops... though the impact isn't immediately obvious... an example helps:So what are the impacts of child labour laws and education laws on birthrates?
In game I always use the best child labor (obligatory primary school) and best healthcare but with legal guardianship and devout pop growth bonus (maintained as long as possible) as early as I can. These laws indeed increase my pop growth significantly (child labor MUCH less than healthcare or devouts though) but this just makes it comparable to a nation that has higher SoL but little to none of these bonuses. That's another reason why I think that the current system should be fixed - SoL can't be single most important factor determining SoL AND optimal SoL level for good pop growth should be lower than it is now.So what are the impacts of child labour laws and education laws on birthrates?
Child Labour and lack of education should increase birthrates among relatively poor pops. Because a child who can work is an economic asset. While a child who is educated is a pure cost - and a bigger cost if the parents have to pay for education.
In short, poor POPs should have more children if children are allowed to work, and employment can be found. I think a child is more use in a Victorian-era factory or in a mine than in a field, of some limited use in services, and no use at all in anything requiring skill or training.
This should probably be modelled by Labourers having birth rate that is highest in conditions of limited wealth and low education - then Peasants, Farmers and Machinists.
If the second is for 1936 and the numbers are given for countries in contemporary borders, it makes more sense. But such data isn't that much of use for victorian era countries.The first number is from 1836, the second for 1936. The data is from Ourworldindata that uses estimations from Gapminder. I don’t know how good is the data, tbh. Is what I found with a quick search.
Edit. In any case I guess they use current borders for countries, but shouldn’t affect growth rate too much I think.
Absolutely agree with this one! While it sounds reasonable that having more money makes you CAPABLE to have more children it does not mean you are more LIKELY then. I'm quite surprised currently it's not like what was said during development: ideal SoL for pop growth would be enough food but not too much more. And indeed imo best way for pop growth increase should rather be reducing mortality - providing good food supply and preventing diseases.Just a thought on this. I think that birth control was barely a thing in the time period. So it’s not like people chose to have or not children based on economic reasons. What determined pop growth was, I think mostly child mortality that was related with disease and food availability. But it’s a thought and might be wrong.
Stealin' thatHere is my code for defines. I've made some other changes as well, e.g. made starvation really bad and rebablnced birth and death rates for more historic figures
@min_birthrate = 0.00128
@max_birthrate = 0.00593
@min_mortality = 0.001
@max_mortality = 0.020
@pop_growth_sol_equilibrium = 5 # Equilibrium is where (with no birthrate/death-rate mods) growth is stagnant
@pop_growth_sol_delta_cap = 13 # SoL Delta Cap is where net growth stops increasing with rising SoL, i.e. both drop at the same pace
@pop_growth_sol_cap = 22 # SoL Cap is where they birthrate/death-rate stop dropping
@mortality_at_equilibrium = @[max_birthrate-(pop_growth_sol_equilibrium*(max_birthrate-min_birthrate)/pop_growth_sol_cap)]
@birthrate_at_delta_cap = @[max_birthrate-(pop_growth_sol_delta_cap*(max_birthrate-min_birthrate)/pop_growth_sol_cap)]
@improving_slope = @[(birthrate_at_delta_cap-min_birthrate-0.0008-mortality_at_equilibrium)/(pop_growth_sol_delta_cap-pop_growth_sol_equilibrium)]
@improving_intercept = @[-1*improving_slope*pop_growth_sol_equilibrium+mortality_at_equilibrium]
@mortality_at_delta_cap = @[improving_slope*pop_growth_sol_delta_cap+improving_intercept]
@fixed_delta_slope = @[(min_mortality-mortality_at_delta_cap)/(pop_growth_sol_cap-pop_growth_sol_delta_cap)]
Just a thought on this. I think that birth control was barely a thing in the time period. So it’s not like people chose to have or not children based on economic reasons. What determined pop growth was, I think mostly child mortality that was related with disease and food availability. But it’s a thought and might be wrong.
Studies of diverse historical contexts have demonstrated that ‘natural’ fertility was far from unregulated before the fertility decline (Bengtsson & Dribe, 2006; Van Bavel & Kok, 2010a; Vann & Eversley, 1992, pp. 152–176). Likewise, there was no ‘contraceptive revolution’ to instigate the English fertility decline. The reduction in the birth rate was achieved primarily through the postponement or avoidance of marriage and within marriage through abstinence or withdrawal (Cook, 2004, pp. 40–164; Szreter & Fisher, 2010, pp. 229–267). This research does not focus on methods of fertility limitation, but evidence from the studied localities supports this conclusion. There were no references to the use of barrier methods of contraception before 1914; instead, abstinence, extended breast-feeding and abortifacients were most frequently noted as methods that might limit child-bearing. Given that this suggests that continuities in methods coincided with this transformation in rates between 1870 and 1914, it is important to consider what either encouraged people to use these practices more consistently or made a higher proportion of adults willing to countenance their use.
Having read this a bit more, I would like to suggest the following.Birth control might not have been a big thing, but families (particularly mothers!) still made conscious choices about how many children to have.
It's well worth taking a look at this article - any passing devs you guys should take a look as well! It's absolutely packed with fascinating observations.
Parenthood, child-rearing and fertility in England, 1850–1914
Fertility declines across Europe and the Anglo-world have been explained as the result of reversals of intergenerational flows of wealth. According to this theory, the child was transformed from an economically-useful household asset to an emotionally-valued ...www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Absolutely not. In all my games I've achieved wild population numbers far beyond what was achieved historically. Pop growth as a function of SoL is probably too powerful currently if anything. France currently has a population 0f 67 million, but I've had no trouble getting that number up to 100 million by 1936. Even without much immigration, the USA can easily achieve its population of 150 million in 1950.... by 1900, and I've even managed to hit the 80 million mark with the UK who even today only have 66 million. The AI just needs to learn how to actually build. They don't build gold mines for instance which would seriously help them balance their budgets and attract immigrants. The bizarre choice to make wages always increase even with peasants and unemployed in the state also directly causes the high SoL in colonies and draws immigrants away from the New World, further compounding issues. Make these changes, and the game would improve massively.baseline birth and death rates should be drastically increased, increases in sol (including laws/institutions) first dramatically reduces death rates, before other factors and still higher sol will reduce birth rates (again including laws/institutions). Pop growth capping out at like 1,6% is ridiculous