Peasants and Villages

[SirMeteora]

With the current culture system I think that there is a place for a new pop type, Peasants.

I think that we can make the case that there are too many slaves, especially in your primary and integrated cultures. I think that a part of those pops should be Peasants, a type of pop in between slaves and freemen.

Those new pops could live in Villages, settelmets that you'd upgrade for around 25 PI and would work like small cities with about 2-3 building slots. Those buildings would be smaller versions of some of city buildings like shrines instead of temples, maybe even introduce new village buildings (?).

I think those changed would make managment more interesting and add a new layer to cultures with options like prohibiting slavery (similar to the Persian Empires).

 

[IsaacCAT]

I agree there are too slaves, but peasants are already in the game as freemen. I do not think we gain making a difference between cities or settlement freemen.

 

[SirMeteora]

I agree there are too slaves, but peasants are already in the game as freemen. I do not think we gain making a difference between cities or settlement freemen.

I'd think freemen are sort of artisans no?

 

[IsaacCAT]

I'd think freemen are sort of artisans no?

Artisans and small holders, the plebeians, includes peasants IMHO.

Population - Imperator Wiki

imperator.paradoxwikis.com

Definition of PLEBEIAN

a member of the Roman plebs; one of the common people… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[SirMeteora]

Artisans and small holders, the plebeians, includes peasants IMHO.

you don't think artisans living in cities and farmers living in villages should be two different types of pops?

 

[Godd_Howard]

you don't think artisans living in cities and farmers living in villages should be two different types of pops?

Since only slaves are used for production it doesn't really matter. They would have to invent a new system of some kind of goods manufacturing in order to split up the plebs into peasants and artisans. Altough I must say I would like to see more types of population, I just do not know if it's possible to do without compromising gameplay.

 

[The_Sound_Of_Violence]

you don't think artisans living in cities and farmers living in villages should be two different types of pops?

Population in Imperator is divided according to their civic rights, not their productive specialization.

 

[Godd_Howard]

Population in Imperator is divided according to their civic rights, not their productive specialization.

Yes but only slaves do production gameplay wise.

 

[IsaacCAT]

Yes but only slaves do production gameplay wise.

you are right, I have said before that freemen should also produce goods.

There are also other posts that argue that food should be produced by POPs (slaves and freemen) and consumed by all POPs and not being a fixed number per territory.

But we do not need another type of POP for that.

 

[Godd_Howard]

you are right, I have said before that freemen should also produce goods.

There are also other posts that argue that food should be produced by POPs (slaves and freemen) and consumed by all POPs and not being a fixed number per territory.

But we do not need another type of POP for that.

Eeh, I can go both ways. I first didn't like the new Noble class but then I warmed up to them because they add more flavour overall. If they seperate the plebs and citizens into diferrent types I could see it working. But I can also say that most of the labour intensive production in the fields and mines were done by slaves and the game represents that very well. In real history one of the biggest problems was that most of the land was owned by rich people who had thousands of slaves working for them so the plebs couldn't really compete in any market other then their own town/area. Adding a specialized Peasant class would be too 500 AD. Altough artisans and manufacturing of specialized goods could be a nice idea if they find a good way of implementing it in the game.

 

[SirMeteora]

thanks for the replies, I would make a longer post in the future that expands this idea and few new suggestions that will support that.
Overall I think that cities should be more rare and have villages the most common type of settelment. For that I think freemen don't make as much sense. Splitting them into City Folk/Artisans and Farmers/Peasants and have them be the majoirty of pops in I tegrated cultures will open a door to alot of interesting laws, buildings and culture decisions..

 

[Bovrick]

you don't think artisans living in cities and farmers living in villages should be two different types of pops?

They're already differentiated by where they are - I can see a case to alter base Pop outputs based on the Territory Rank they're in. Making a famer-freeman who moves to a City also have to promote to a different Pop type, or vice-versa, seems superfluous.

Population in Imperator is divided according to their civic rights, not their productive specialization.

Civic Rights determine what a Pop of a certain Culture can be, their current Class specifies what they are right now, and is very much linked with economic class and their effective outputs for the state. There's two different systems there, one for each.

 

[SirMeteora]

They're already differentiated by where they are - I can see a case to alter base Pop outputs based on the Territory Rank they're in. Making a famer-freeman who moves to a City also have to promote to a different Pop type, or vice-versa, seems superfluous.ey're already differentiated by where they are - I can see a case to alter base Pop outputs based on the Territory Rank they're in. Making a famer-freeman who moves to a City also have to promote to a different Pop type, or vice-versa, seems superfluous.

Civic Rights determine what a Pop of a certain Culture can be, their current Class specifies what they are right now, and is very much linked with economic class and their effective outputs for the state. There's two different systems there, one for each.

I understand your point but in the end there would be a difference not just in name. For example, freemen would generate taxes while peasants, manpower and small amount of resources. Slaves will lose their tax income and instead will produce much more resources.

It would make sense as city folk had more "wealth" to pay taxes and later on villagers were a larger part of the menpower since they had important skills that people from cities didn't have.

There was a huge difference between artisans and villagers that I don't think it makes sense for them to be considered the same.