different rates of population growth during the Victoria period among great powers

[unmerged(5605)]

I remember reading an article on birth rate differentials between France and the US during this period. What it boiled down to was this. French parents had less children during this time period because the economy tended to be more stagnant than in the US. They were therefore more concerned with having to support extra children in an economy where there was no way of knowing if all their children would find jobs, and how many they might need to support otherwise. Simply put, even before effective birth control the French were, compared to Americans, engaging in 'family planning' for reasons of economic self-interest.

As to how to model this in the game, I think the easy answer would be a 'growing economy modifier' for population growth. Of course, this kind of presumes that there will be some form of economic growth in Vicky besides pop growth/events/tech (unlike in EU2). We would need more information on economic development to know I think.

 

[unmerged(3522)]

Originally posted by Grosshaus
From what I learned in Geography lessons back in school:

Population growth is followed closely by the level of industrialization/modernization and follows the s-curve: starts low, accelerates and the stabilizes. .

False. Examples...Russia (and Poland) was the least industrialized country in Europe and grew one of the very fastest. France was #2 industrialized country till 1880 and grew by far the slowest. Middle East and Africa never really industrialized, but have been the fasted growing regions in the world for the past 20-30 years.

 

[unmerged(3522)]

Originally posted by eschaton
I remember reading an article on birth rate differentials between France and the US during this period. What it boiled down to was this. French parents had less children during this time period because the economy tended to be more stagnant than in the US. They were therefore more concerned with having to support extra children in an economy where there was no way of knowing if all their children would find jobs, and how many they might need to support otherwise. Simply put, even before effective birth control the French were, compared to Americans, engaging in 'family planning' for reasons of economic self-interest.

As to how to model this in the game, I think the easy answer would be a 'growing economy modifier' for population growth. Of course, this kind of presumes that there will be some form of economic growth in Vicky besides pop growth/events/tech (unlike in EU2). We would need more information on economic development to know I think.

See post above. Another example - Italian or Spanish economies were hardly dynamic during that period of time, yet their populations grew quite a bit, especially if one takes into account huge immigration from these two countries.

 

[MacGregor]

OK, I can see the real reasons for the differences are far too complicated for mere mortals to be able to replicate in a game. However, some simple abstraction should do the trick. Those countries with historically high growth rates need to be given some sort of "colony bonus", even if not a colony. Then, when a certain paramater is reached, say, because of policy choices a la, choices that would tend to stagnate an economy, the bonus is halved. Something along those lines, simple, but still able to give an historic feel. It's hard to come up with specific ideas without knowing the guts of the game, but I'm sure it can be done.

 

[Grosshaus]

A country doesn't have to be advanced to have high pop growth rate, it needs to be in a stage where it starts to industrialize, that's my, and my former teacher's, point. For instance modern Africa is not rich, but since it is currently transforming from agrarian economy it's experiencing huge pop growth.

I don't know the exact figures of France in 1880, but I've thought they had their pop growth peak a bit earlier, around 1850. Russia on the other hand had her population boom after peasants were freed and people started to gather into cities with factories, so it was on the brink of modernization.

A model that represents these issues gives low growth at first, faster when one gets certain industrial/social techonologies and slower after you get some more techs.

At least I hope nothing in the line of MacGregor's country specific growth rates will be implemented. There must be some way to make an algorith that takes into account what the players do with their country and gives a chance to fix the mistakes done by real-life leaders of the time.

 

[unmerged(5067)]

Originally posted by Grosshaus
I don't know the exact figures of France in 1880, but I've thought they had their pop growth peak a bit earlier, around 1850.

France's population didn't grow much in the 19th century.

You can not reduce birth rates to economics; it also depends a lot on social and religious factors.

 

[unmerged(3522)]

Originally posted by MacGregor
OK, I can see the real reasons for the differences are far too complicated for mere mortals to be able to replicate in a game. However, some simple abstraction should do the trick. Those countries with historically high growth rates need to be given some sort of "colony bonus", even if not a colony. Then, when a certain paramater is reached, say, because of policy choices a la, choices that would tend to stagnate an economy, the bonus is halved. Something along those lines, simple, but still able to give an historic feel. It's hard to come up with specific ideas without knowing the guts of the game, but I'm sure it can be done.

I would be absolutely fine with that.

 

[unmerged(3522)]

Originally posted by Grosshaus
A country doesn't have to be advanced to have high pop growth rate, it needs to be in a stage where it starts to industrialize, that's my, and my former teacher's, point. For instance modern Africa is not rich, but since it is currently transforming from agrarian economy it's experiencing huge pop growth.

I don't know the exact figures of France in 1880, but I've thought they had their pop growth peak a bit earlier, around 1850. Russia on the other hand had her population boom after peasants were freed and people started to gather into cities with factories, so it was on the brink of modernization.

A model that represents these issues gives low growth at first, faster when one gets certain industrial/social techonologies and slower after you get some more techs.

At least I hope nothing in the line of MacGregor's country specific growth rates will be implemented. There must be some way to make an algorith that takes into account what the players do with their country and gives a chance to fix the mistakes done by real-life leaders of the time.

I am sorry to tell you that but you that but the model is wrong. France never ever had a high population growth rate. Russia's population growth rate was pretty stable throguhout the 19th century - while the peasants were only freed in the 1860. According to many statistics, Africa and Middle East have been de-industrializing for the past 20 years. Population growth is not correlated to the economy - thats the bottom line. In a way it cannot be explained -the only thing the developers of Victoria can do is to simply give countries with historically high growth rates precisely that and vice versa.

 

[Zagys]

Originally posted by Grosshaus
At least I hope nothing in the line of MacGregor's country specific growth rates will be implemented. There must be some way to make an algorith that takes into account what the players do with their country and gives a chance to fix the mistakes done by real-life leaders of the time.

Why should the player have control of population growth? It was something no government of the time could control. As has already been pointed out, there was no concrete set of factors that determined it. Every case was different.

 

[unmerged(7470)]

I'm opposed to a set growth rate for specific countries, as I think it would lead to gamey styles of play, such as 'better wipe out America now, as their high growth rate will make it impossible for me to keep up', or an ahistorically aggressive France trying to make up for their low growth rate by going on a conquest spree while they still can.

My solution is to have growth rates dependent on socio-economic policy decisions, land area, etc but that the relationship between them is obscure, and difficult to decipher. What may help population growth in one situation may damage it in another, and, unlike EU1 and 2, the player won't be able to tell what is making their country's population boom or stagnate. Is it technology? Is it economic? Is it social? Is it the policies of my neighbours?

 

[Papa Chubby]

Agree with Sandguy, population growths must be represented as a function, not simply different variables to represent historically accurate growth.

 

[IEX Totalview]

Originally posted by Sandguy
I'm opposed to a set growth rate for specific countries, as I think it would lead to gamey styles of play, such as 'better wipe out America now, as their high growth rate will make it impossible for me to keep up', or an ahistorically aggressive France trying to make up for their low growth rate by going on a conquest spree while they still can.

My solution is to have growth rates dependent on socio-economic policy decisions, land area, etc but that the relationship between them is obscure, and difficult to decipher. What may help population growth in one situation may damage it in another, and, unlike EU1 and 2, the player won't be able to tell what is making their country's population boom or stagnate. Is it technology? Is it economic? Is it social? Is it the policies of my neighbours?

Interesting thought. So what could France have done in the 19th century to stimulate population growth?

 

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by IEX Totalview
Interesting thought. So what could France have done in the 19th century to stimulate population growth?

Some demographic historians now think that France's relatively slow population growth in the 19th century was caused by their early adoption of birth control methods in the 18th century. So I suppose the government could have tried to ban these methods...

 

[unmerged(5067)]

Originally posted by Dark Knight
Some demographic historians now think that France's relatively slow population growth in the 19th century was caused by their early adoption of birth control methods in the 18th century. So I suppose the government could have tried to ban these methods...

But these birth control methods would exist in other advanced countries, no? If so, the difference between France and other industrialized countries would be a less dynamic growth, maybe?

 

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by Samourai Steven
But these birth control methods would exist in other advanced countries, no? If so, the difference between France and other industrialized countries would be a less dynamic growth, maybe?

It supposedly took much longer before they were commonly used in other countries. So France experienced a decline in their birth rate due to this long before other countries did.

 

[unmerged(3522)]

Originally posted by Papa Chubby
Agree with Sandguy, population growths must be represented as a function, not simply different variables to represent historically accurate growth.

It should be a combination of both - a country should be given a growth rate which is variable within limits

 

[Papa Chubby]

I do not agree with you Bourbon that growth should be historically accurate. That implies that low or high growth rates are inherent in nations, thats just too deterministic for me. I'd like to believe that humans, whether African or European are pretty much the same animal, and that given the same setting will behave in a very similar manner.

 

[unmerged(3522)]

Originally posted by Papa Chubby
I do not agree with you Bourbon that growth should be historically accurate. That implies that low or high growth rates are inherent in nations, thats just too deterministic for me. I'd like to believe that humans, whether African or European are pretty much the same animal, and that given the same setting will behave in a very similar manner.

This is a game of simulating history. As a player, when playing a country I would like to face somewhat historcial circumstances.

 

[unmerged(7470)]

Interesting thought. So what could France have done in the 19th century to stimulate population growth?

France has already been clobbered by the Napoleonic Wars and losing the Huguenots to the rest of Europe by the time Victoria starts. Even so, they could have easily have 150 million today if history had been a bit different.

A more aggressive industrialisation policy would be the number one priority, in my view. By 1914 their industrial output was a fraction of Britain, Germany and especially the US. They'll have to make up for their lack of coal somehow (conquest of French-speaking Belgium, maybe?). Increasing industrialisation will provide economic opportunites making large families economically rational, and will facilitate urbanisation, something else France lagged behind in. The new cities will draw in surplus rural labour, facilitating even more population growth.

Another possibility is tarriff protection of grain producers whilst the population is mostly employed in the fields, and the adoption of free trade with cheap grain imports once the population has become mostly urban. The agricultural sector will also benefit from more aggressive industrialisation, raising yields. Even today, French agriculture is somewhat backwards, although still extremely productive.

France didn't experience much emigration, unlike Britain, Germany or Italy. They've got plenty of good quality land, so it won't be a problem, at least until they start hitting 100 million or so.

Grabbing more colonies would increase captive markets for French goods, improving the economy, although by the time Victoria starts there's not much good stuff left. Alternatively, they could subjugate the various European countries and create a pan-European customs union favouring French goods.

 

[Papa Chubby]

The meaning you put into historical simulation makes me wonder why Paradox do not hard-code it into the game that the Russians have low-quality troops because that would be historically accurate. Or to be more reasonable to your point of view, give them less flexibility in military matter, because it would detract from the appeal of the game and it is not so unreasonable the just maybe the Russians could have established an army on-par with other majors(quality).

I simply take this logic and apply it to the immigration-emigration issue. If nations had taken a drastically different political and even religious path from the one they actually did. Is it not reasonable to think that this would have had some affect on population movements, I think so.

I'll concede that the situation of the USA is a bit unique. Being the promised land for the religiously oppressed and diverse other disgruntled social groups. This status should be represented somehow. Don't know how though.

P.S. I'd rather see a game on the grand scope of Victoria as a game simulating historical circumstances.