Malthusian Crisis and Population

[krushka5]

Population and Malthusian Crisis
The addition of a population system could benefit the game by increasing the players interaction with their empires, kingdoms, duchies (etc) whilst not cluttering the interface. A Victoria styled system would probably not fit the gameplay of EU4, so an adaption akin to a modernized EU3 version could be represented. This would presumably work well with the new development system as well as give players something else to look at,which is always nice. If a population system was introduced it would probably be best to not have static growth rates but instead varied growths based on:

• The quantity of food trade goods produced
• Events (such as influx of Byzantine refugees)
• Is capitol
• Columbian Exchange
• Ideas
  
• Technology
• Building(s)
• Terrains
• and Province Modifiers (such as Ceylon's Wevas)

This would also allow for the simulation of Malthusian Crises. Since EU4 is situated shortly after the last major European Malthusian Crisis (during the 14th century), The Colombian Exchange which alleviated some of the pressures from this and the large scale agricultural advancements of the 18th century, it would be a logical step in offering dynamic gameplay for the player to interact with (especially European/Colonial Nations). This crisis could be represented simply through decline (or negative growth) in populations in a province due to:

• lack of production of certain food trade goods
• Events
• Terrain
• and a cities capacity to support its population once it grows to big with its current capacity

If this is too troublesome it could just be represented with the disaster mechanic

Miscellaneous Justifications

• A population system might help balance colonial nations in the late game, as it can be unnerving to see that rare United State of America formation yet struggling to maintain a decently sized standing army.
• Could help perpetuate the dialogue of Europe's gradual ascensionto dominance over world politics

 

[Grand Historian]

I'd like a population system for EU4, but not something as complex or abstract as Vicky II or EU3. Something I've suggested multiple times before:

I've seen a few suggestions on how EU4 can simulate population/having more than one culture/religion per province, but in my opinion they border too much on Vicky territory and are probably too complex to implement. So, I would like to put forth what I think would be a somewhat more simple suggestion: expand basetax.

To borrow a leaf from Civ's book, essentially my suggestion is that each point of basetax is essentially it's own population group, and can have it's own religion and culture, each displayed in a new 'Population' screen that can branch off from the regular provincial window, where you can also can direct which basetax you want to convert, and the majority culture/religion of a province becomes that province's religion and culture. Now, with 1.12, of course, there needs to be some expounding given the new mechanics.

For starters, this would obviously have a noticeable impact on how conversions are handled. Before I touch on that, I would actually like to advocate returning to the original pre-1.12 system of conversions, in which each basetax accounted to -0.5 Missionary Strength. Why? Well, the new way of handling conversion (taking the entire development of a province) doesn't make much sense. Production is meant to simulate how much industrial infrastructure a province has to support the cultivation of it's resource, and manpower represents how many able-bodied men you can draft from a province. Basetax represents the entire population. So I don't really see why a Missionary should have to take into account proselytizing to a province's infrastructure or a small pool of people (that are still represented by basetax) when he's sent to convert the general population.

Now for the suggestion of how conversions could be handled in light of this. Let's use Smyrna for a hypothetical example; a five basetax province. Say it has three Sunni Basetax and two Orthodox Basetax, and you're an Orthodox Nation. So, you send a missionary, who initially deals with -1.5% Missionary Strength due to basetax, but still converts the specific basetax you sent him to convert. Then, you send him again, but because there's one less Sunni basetax, he only has to deal with -1.0% Missionary Strength this time. This somewhat simple system would add in so much more dynamism, and give you more to do. A similar system can be applied to culture conversion: for every basetax that is a certain culture in a province, it costs an increment of 25 Dip points to convert it (it technically already does that, but it decrease by 25 each time a conversion is accomplished).

Now, obviously there's another big question that needs to be addressed: what culture and religion would a new basetax become? Well, my suggestion for it is a dice roll based on the proportion of the culture/religion in the province. Let's use Albania for example: Albania has four basetax: hypothetically two Albanian/Orthodox, one Albanian/Sunni, and one Venetian/Catholic. So, if the basetax of Albania is increased, then there is a 75% chance the new basetax's culture will be Albanian, 25% Venetian, and a 50% chance it will be Orthodox, 25% chance Catholic and 25% chance Sunni.

So yes, while this proposed system is pretty simple in comparison to many suggestions or Vicky's Pop system, I think it can work the best and be the least clunky. Simulating more than one culture/religion per province has been something requested of EU4 for sometime and I hope that this would be a plausible solution to it. Naturally, there can be events that come along with it to simulate the shift of minorities from one province to another in a nation, refugees coming from others, population booms, cultures/religions completely marginalized coming back, cultures converting along with religion and so on. I hope that, all in all, it will add more depth and dynamism to an already great game.

 

[Jomini]

Population and Malthusian Crisis
The addition of a population system could benefit the game by increasing the players interaction with their empires, kingdoms, duchies (etc) whilst not cluttering the interface. A Victoria styled system would probably not fit the gameplay of EU4, so an adaption akin to a modernized EU3 version could be represented. This would presumably work well with the new development system as well as give players something else to look at,which is always nice. If a population system was introduced it would probably be best to not have static growth rates but instead varied growths based on:

• The quantity of food trade goods produced
• Events (such as influx of Byzantine refugees)
• Is capitol
• Columbian Exchange
• Ideas
  
• Technology
• Building(s)
• Terrains
• and Province Modifiers (such as Ceylon's Wevas)

This would also allow for the simulation of Malthusian Crises. Since EU4 is situated shortly after the last major European Malthusian Crisis (during the 14th century), The Colombian Exchange which alleviated some of the pressures from this and the large scale agricultural advancements of the 18th century, it would be a logical step in offering dynamic gameplay for the player to interact with (especially European/Colonial Nations). This crisis could be represented simply through decline (or negative growth) in populations in a province due to:

• lack of production of certain food trade goods
• Events
• Terrain
• and a cities capacity to support its population once it grows to big with its current capacity

If this is too troublesome it could just be represented with the disaster mechanic

Miscellaneous Justifications

• A population system might help balance colonial nations in the late game, as it can be unnerving to see that rare United State of America formation yet struggling to maintain a decently sized standing army.
• Could help perpetuate the dialogue of Europe's gradual ascensionto dominance over world politics

How exactly was the 14th century a Malthusian Crisis?

The areas that had seen the greatest population growth were in Southern Europe while the worst of the famines with in the North, if it were population outstripping food production during the Great Famine, we'd have expected far worse losses in the South.

Regardless the biggest cause of death was the Plague, but that appears to again not correlate with either population size or growth rate. Instead, it follows the old Roman plague model of trade (particularly linking China & Europe) spreading a novel pathogen when there was enough movement of people to keep the pandemic alive.

Malthus, frankly, is pretty poor at modeling actual conditions on the ground. In spite of having one of the highest sustained growth rates in the early modern world, the only famine in American history came not from population pressures but from a volcanic eruption (which may well have caused those 14th century famines). Even in land constrained countries, we see no correlation between French growth rates or total population and famine or death rates.

Frankly, the 14th century appears to be a reversion to the mean with inclement weather and trade dependent plague determining the death counts.

 

[Grand Historian]

How exactly was the 14th century a Malthusian Crisis?

The areas that had seen the greatest population growth were in Southern Europe while the worst of the famines with in the North, if it were population outstripping food production during the Great Famine, we'd have expected far worse losses in the South.

Regardless the biggest cause of death was the Plague, but that appears to again not correlate with either population size or growth rate. Instead, it follows the old Roman plague model of trade (particularly linking China & Europe) spreading a novel pathogen when there was enough movement of people to keep the pandemic alive.

Malthus, frankly, is pretty poor at modeling actual conditions on the ground. In spite of having one of the highest sustained growth rates in the early modern world, the only famine in American history came not from population pressures but from a volcanic eruption (which may well have caused those 14th century famines). Even in land constrained countries, we see no correlation between French growth rates or total population and famine or death rates.

Frankly, the 14th century appears to be a reversion to the mean with inclement weather and trade dependent plague determining the death counts.

Malthusian Crisis' were pretty much the Global Warming/Cooling scares of his time, but I digress; a population system would be welcome.

 

[krushka5]

How exactly was the 14th century a Malthusian Crisis?

The areas that had seen the greatest population growth were in Southern Europe while the worst of the famines with in the North, if it were population outstripping food production during the Great Famine, we'd have expected far worse losses in the South.

Regardless the biggest cause of death was the Plague, but that appears to again not correlate with either population size or growth rate. Instead, it follows the old Roman plague model of trade (particularly linking China & Europe) spreading a novel pathogen when there was enough movement of people to keep the pandemic alive.

Malthus, frankly, is pretty poor at modeling actual conditions on the ground. In spite of having one of the highest sustained growth rates in the early modern world, the only famine in American history came not from population pressures but from a volcanic eruption (which may well have caused those 14th century famines). Even in land constrained countries, we see no correlation between French growth rates or total population and famine or death rates.

Frankly, the 14th century appears to be a reversion to the mean with inclement weather and trade dependent plague determining the death counts.

Malthusian theory does suggest that once a Malthusian Crises begins; war, famine, instability and plague are rampant which was his general justification for the enhanced effects of the plague. It would be easier to represent as a game mechanic then other options which is why I preferred it to weather and trade which would be both harder for the player to deal with but also for the Developers.

French growth rates in Paris often fluctuated with mass drops in population, depending on the harvest due to farmers hoarding much of the agricultural produce. Madrid's food riots (by far the most frequent in Europe) were caused by famine, lack of agricultural production in the region (or the ability to transport it), although it still increased due to an influx of peoples across the Spanish empire moving to the capitol.

Malthusian theory predicts the much of Mesoamerica (excluding the Inca) would of entered a Malthusian crisis if the Spanish did not arrive and cause havoc anyways and some Historians would argue that they were forced into one early with the presence of the Spanish. The Australian Aboriginals also experienced a Malthusian crisis once the Europeans arrived and put strain on the food supply.

Either way the only reason for such a feature (population decline) would be to offer incentives for colonization, a rush of benefits for all Europeans from it and to propose a system which is more representative to the reality of the time (although the causes can clearly be disputed and are often multifaceted).

 

[Alias72]

I disagree. Malthusian theory suggests famine and if we look at agrarian society we see that one year after a drought there tends to be a famine and an accompanying rebellion.This provides a clear malus for civilizations near their cap and may be part of the reason for repressive reforms that stifle development (ironically the type of development that may increase carrying capacity.)

 

[War_lord]

The problem with Malthusian theory is that it fails to account for progress in the field of agricultural efficiency. I.e. it looks at the current food production of say Spain, and treats that as a hard cap on the population of the country. In the modern era countries produce far more food then they actually consume, to the point were the surplus is often dumped. Modern famine is a result of political and economic problems.

Population dictates Agricultural production, not vice versa.

Malthus was writing in the late 1700's and early 1800's, he did not, and likely could not, have predicted the future.

 

[krushka5]

The problem with Malthusian theory is that it fails to account for progress in the field of agricultural efficiency. I.e. it looks at the current food production of say Spain, and treats that as a hard cap on the population of the country. In the modern era countries produce far more food then they actually consume, to the point were the surplus is often dumped. Modern famine is a result of political and economic problems.

Population dictates Agricultural production, not vice versa.

Malthus was writing in the late 1700's and early 1800's, he did not, and likely could not, have predicted the future.

His theory was largely based on the agricultural production of pre-industrialized society, which most of the game is set. There is no need to apply it to post 19th century society as that is not what the game deals with. His observation of the past are arguably correct (even if only partly) although it could not be applied to modern models. Without efficient free market structures in a world dominated by mercantilism, tributary systems and overall disjointed due to the lack of globalization, population could not possibly dictate agricultural production.

Monarchs, angst driven farmers and the nobility controlled agricultural production in the early periods of EU4. It was not until later that these trends diversify. The Plantations of the America were managed predominantly by the middle class and hence fall into population dictating agricultural production but at the same time, much of Europe's agrarian production was still arbitrary.

 

[Jomini]

Malthusian theory does suggest that once a Malthusian Crises begins; war, famine, instability and plague are rampant which was his general justification for the enhanced effects of the plague. It would be easier to represent as a game mechanic then other options which is why I preferred it to weather and trade which would be both harder for the player to deal with but also for the Developers.

Except that the 14th century crises do not follow the geometric/linear population/food production schema Malthus posited. The great die offs of the era were caused not by population outstripping food production, but by the beginning of the little ice age, late rains (which might be related) and possibly a couple of antipodean volcanic eruptions.

French growth rates in Paris often fluctuated with mass drops in population, depending on the harvest due to farmers hoarding much of the agricultural produce. Madrid's food riots (by far the most frequent in Europe) were caused by famine, lack of agricultural production in the region (or the ability to transport it), although it still increased due to an influx of peoples across the Spanish empire moving to the capitol.

But none of this of this is correlated with a geometric increase. The fortunes of Paris, Madrid, and the like were not tied to the birth rate (as Malthus has it) as all of the cities had extremely low birth rates, particularly relative to death rates. Instead their growth was tied to economics.

Malthusian theory predicts the much of Mesoamerica (excluding the Inca) would of entered a Malthusian crisis if the Spanish did not arrive and cause havoc anyways and some Historians would argue that they were forced into one early with the presence of the Spanish. The Australian Aboriginals also experienced a Malthusian crisis once the Europeans arrived and put strain on the food supply.

Malthusian theory is pretty much bankrupt. I have never seen a actual real world data estimates that show anything like his predictions. Frankly the Mesoamerican civilizations are doomed regardless, once smallpox and other Eurasian diseases hit civilization is not sustainable. Similarly the Australian Aboriginals did not die from anything related to food production (which drastically increased in Australia with the introduction of high yield Eurasian crops), but to disease. Certainly trade and migration patterns were much better predictors of survival than food production.

Either way the only reason for such a feature (population decline) would be to offer incentives for colonization, a rush of benefits for all Europeans from it and to propose a system which is more representative to the reality of the time (although the causes can clearly be disputed and are often multifaceted).

The central problem is that Europe was virtually never near carrying capacity. Throughout the time period (largely due to hard the Plague hit), Europe was labor and not land constrained. The output per acre in Mesoamerica or China easily surpassed most of Europe ... but even without war or pestilence Europe had a long, long ways to go before it reached the maximal carrying capacity of the land.

Frankly, I'm not sure what a population system would bring. It would need to span issues like the exceedingly quick population explosions of the New World; the density of China, Japan, and India; the Baltic and Black Sea grain trades; and the depopulation of the 30 Years Wars. That is a lot to ask of one system.