I am not even pro having pops but if a Paradox dev is rejecting something, it means it is a good idea. This is like the best seal of approval.
- 5
- 4
- 1
- 1
Every GSG game should have population numbers
- Thread starter lazerglov
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Well yeah, this is pretty much it. "Immersion" is often used as if it's a simple homogenous thing that works the same way for everyone even though it varies really wildly between audiences.
Eg. some people find video games that are very open about their rules non-immersive because exposing mechanics makes them... well, seem like games, instead of simulations where there are countless unknown variables at play in many situations. I on the other hand find them more conducive to immersion, because after a few decades of playing games on computers and tabletops my brain is going to be working on understanding those mechanics anyway. A model where it has to do less work is a model where my good ol' brain can spare more bandwidth for immersion.
As for those population numbers... my main concern is that it'd open a new front of suckage on the game, because there's no way Paradox can get the numbers even close to right. And should I be in their shoes, I wouldn't want to expose myself to criticism for a feature that requires extensive research and careful calibration without actually doing anything for actual gameplay.
Personally? I'd suggest not doing numbers, and instead having descriptive labels that evoke the same feeling of distinction population numbers do without having to resort to ostensibly-exact numeric language. (As an added benefit, strategy players are used to numbers tying into mechanics, so this'd be less confusing).
- 3
- 1
While I am all for more management features to be introduced in the game, I don't care the less about population or its cousins, POPs.
Population has no interest whatosever, POPs might have some interest, but if poorly implemented lead to the game becoming a chore and even if properly implemented they will lead for too much micromanagement from a game where the micro should be on the characters, their relations and the events with different, situational choices they present.
Population has no interest whatosever, POPs might have some interest, but if poorly implemented lead to the game becoming a chore and even if properly implemented they will lead for too much micromanagement from a game where the micro should be on the characters, their relations and the events with different, situational choices they present.
- 1
I think a lot of people here don't realize how little knowledge we have about medieval populations and medieval population dynamics. If the game was just about France or even just about the Mediterranea, maybe we would figure a way to get realistic numbers. It would still require a lot of work. But with the map we have now, it's just irrealistic to believe that the devs would do so much work just for flavor.
When it comes to gameplay - managing entire populations obviously sounds like a neat thing that would make it possible to have various cultures and religions in each county. Frankly, I don't think many people are against the idea. But is it really worth the effort from the devs' perspective? Would it really make the game much better? Especially when they could be working on something else instead... If we want minorities, we could easily imagine other systems (like modifiers or "minority slots" in countries) that would basically have the same effect, without requiring an entirely new system. And even then I'm not sure it would be worth it. There are many other things I'd prefer to see first in game, like a way to interact with non-dynastic powers such as merchant republics, monastic orders or even the Church. Keep in mind that we are playing with power in CK3. Strategy doesn't have to mean that we should manage the entire ressource chain from workers to the top. In CK, we're playing as the exploitative nobility, not as the spirit of a nation.
When it comes to gameplay - managing entire populations obviously sounds like a neat thing that would make it possible to have various cultures and religions in each county. Frankly, I don't think many people are against the idea. But is it really worth the effort from the devs' perspective? Would it really make the game much better? Especially when they could be working on something else instead... If we want minorities, we could easily imagine other systems (like modifiers or "minority slots" in countries) that would basically have the same effect, without requiring an entirely new system. And even then I'm not sure it would be worth it. There are many other things I'd prefer to see first in game, like a way to interact with non-dynastic powers such as merchant republics, monastic orders or even the Church. Keep in mind that we are playing with power in CK3. Strategy doesn't have to mean that we should manage the entire ressource chain from workers to the top. In CK, we're playing as the exploitative nobility, not as the spirit of a nation.
- 2
- 1
Hard agree. I don't think you should HAVE to micro it. But population will get rid of a lot of crappy arbitrary mechanics. EU4 absolutely needs it. Even CK needs it to balance the game better. Yes, you can say CK is dynasty sim, but dynasty lives in a society. I don't think population must increase at lightning rate, or that it has any large impact on the game (most are peasants anyway) but for immersion they are important.
I, for one, wouldn't care if pops weren't 100 percent accurate. I just want them to have accurate proportions, and we already have development to kind of represent that. But we need population besides, because development is umbrella term for something that's probably mix of population and infrastructure, which imo should be separate.
I, for one, wouldn't care if pops weren't 100 percent accurate. I just want them to have accurate proportions, and we already have development to kind of represent that. But we need population besides, because development is umbrella term for something that's probably mix of population and infrastructure, which imo should be separate.
Last edited:
- 3
- 2
- 1
- 1
How would a population value be any less arbitrary than a development value (which is used, amongst other things, to calculate taxes and levies) ?
If the problem is balance, then let's figure out how to balance development better. But changing its name, or adding another abstracted value on top, does not in and of itself make for a better system.
- 4
- 2
Development value is made up and has no equivalent in real life. It is mix of population, infrastructure and probably a few other things which should at least be two different things.
Population isn't just a number. There are different types of population (I guess I should have worded it POPs to begin with). Lower nobles, higher nobles, church, burghers, peasants... First, different types of these pops could be taxed differently. Second, for example, different culture of pops could raise different levies (assuming we ditch "levies" as one unit type which I hope we will).
At the end of the day this system requires too much work and PDX won't do it. But there is no debate well-structured and thought out population system could only do well for this game.
- 3
- 1
- 1
OK, but there you're talking about a full-blown pop system, which would have a huge impact on the game, and would need to be micro-managed to some extent. That seems at odds with both the OP and your previous post, or else I misunderstood your intent.
- 2
No pop system or population numbers are needed for what the original game design offers. However, certainly percentages of cultures and of religions for each province would be a plus to better simulating the medieval environment the game attempts to portray and the central character has to deal with, offering more variables to strategically consider and new opportunities to role play.
- 2
- 1
- 1
But just switching the development number out with a population number wouldn't work (at least if you want any level of historical accuracy, which even if you don't, others on this forum will). As the economic output of an area wasn't just a function of population, but also of land quality, infrastructure, governance, technology, etc... For instance as populations grew in the middle ages, in some areas more and more marginal land area were worked meaning each added person gave less economic output (this is one reason the Black Death wasn't as devestating to Western European economies as the population decrease would suggest, as the more marginal farms were the ones that were abandoned). This phenomenon would be a nightmare to calculate in CK3 as counties are divided into vastly different sizes (not to mention the effects of terrain or cities). So when a population would start seeing diminishing returns on output would differ for each county.
So to get any level of accurate depiction of economic output with population you need to modify the population number's effect on the economy by something that represents the rest of what development currently stands for (for instance development could be split into a population and an abstracted infrastructure number). But getting two numbers to work together in a realistic way is way easier said than done, especially when one of those numbers is strictly bound by reality (this is why I think the Civ comparision is bad, as the population number in Civ are pretty much made up with little need to conform to the nitty gritty of reality). Also note, that by adding other mechanics that effect the output of each county's population, it also means that the total population of a realm is a less meaningful number. So this extra work is really being done just for flavour (which I'm fine with in principle, but it needs to be within reason).
So while I'd love a number that tells me the population of my realm (especially if broken down by culture and religion), I can understand why it's seen by the devs as too much work for too little gain.
Last edited:
- 2
If CK3 had been designed with pops in mind from the get-go, maybe it would work (probably not). As is, it would probably cause a lot of long-term issues that the devs would be continuously addressing in every patch, much like what happened with Stellaris and MegaCorp.
- 2
- 1
By the way, I've remembered that in Darkest Hour before patch 1.3 there were no definite numbers of people you have in your army. Only later it was added, including the number of horses in a division.
The number of horses.
The number of horses.
And that was one my favorite things in Darkest Hour. Seeing loses of both sides after end of big battle, how much tanks, soldiers, artillery, etc. each side lose, was really enjoyable and immersive to me.
- 3
The prosperity mechanic for CK2 introduced in reapers DLC to represent pop, prosperity, etc. was a nice change. It made you conscious not get affected by sickness and without that much micro management.
- 1
- 1