Pops - Why the opposition?

[MatthewP]

I think people like the idea of pops because:

1) It adds a feeling of immersion - to me this seems hard to argue with but I'm sure someone will.
2) As a simulation it is closer to reality than something like EU4. Closer in terms of "at a lower/more granular level", though of course how close you get to historical outcomes depends on the implementation.
3) Maybe the biggest: having pops implies minigames for managing them economically and politically. Many EU4 players want this, not necessarily because they dislike games about war and diplomacy, but because EU4 is a terrific war/diplomacy game already but not a particularly interesting economic/political game. So it seems like a better area for improvement.

Now, is it actually a good idea? I don't know. Some of this definitely appeals; I love the immersion and dynamic and intertwined economic and political flow of Victoria 2. That said, my two favorite paradox games, CK2 and EU4, don't have pops, and are good in large part because their streamlined economies free up gameplay to go in other directions.

Victoria 2 on the other hand has major issues, and while some are fixable bugs, it seems like there are others that are unsolved problems of that type of simulation. Certainly other "pop" games, like Stellaris and Imperator, have not (in my view) worked as well as hoped. Stellaris is a fun exploration game but a mind-numbing management game. Imperator I admit I haven't played it a ton, but it seems like there's still a lot of micromanagement in a large empire that doesn't seem hugely rewarding. Sure, it's cool to see your pops "Romanizing," and I don't doubt you can build a decent game around that, but I'm not sure how you make one better than EU4.

I'd love to be wrong. It think part of the appeal is that a deep simulation seems to have a higher ceiling than a shallower one. I buy that. But it seems very, very hard to make it work as a game. On the whole, I'd probably rather EU5 focused on estates (who were probably more influential during the period than the masses of peasants) and made that the core of a new internal gameplay loop.

 

[master_kong]

I think people like the idea of pops because:

1) It adds a feeling of immersion - to me this seems hard to argue with but I'm sure someone will.
2) As a simulation it is closer to reality than something like EU4. Closer in terms of "at a lower/more granular level", though of course how close you get to historical outcomes depends on the implementation.
3) Maybe the biggest: having pops implies minigames for managing them economically and politically. Many EU4 players want this, not necessarily because they dislike games about war and diplomacy, but because EU4 is a terrific war/diplomacy game already but not a particularly interesting economic/political game. So it seems like a better area for improvement.

Now, is it actually a good idea? I don't know. Some of this definitely appeals; I love the immersion and dynamic and intertwined economic and political flow of Victoria 2. That said, my two favorite paradox games, CK2 and EU4, don't have pops, and are good in large part because their streamlined economies free up gameplay to go in other directions.

Victoria 2 on the other hand has major issues, and while some are fixable bugs, it seems like there are others that are unsolved problems of that type of simulation. Certainly other "pop" games, like Stellaris and Imperator, have not (in my view) worked as well as hoped. Stellaris is a fun exploration game but a mind-numbing management game. Imperator I admit I haven't played it a ton, but it seems like there's still a lot of micromanagement in a large empire that doesn't seem hugely rewarding. Sure, it's cool to see your pops "Romanizing," and I don't doubt you can build a decent game around that, but I'm not sure how you make one better than EU4.

I'd love to be wrong. It think part of the appeal is that a deep simulation seems to have a higher ceiling than a shallower one. I buy that. But it seems very, very hard to make it work as a game. On the whole, I'd probably rather EU5 focused on estates (who were probably more influential during the period than the masses of peasants) and made that the core of a new internal gameplay loop.

Fair points. Of course, having pops doesn't make a game a good simulation with interconnected mechanics in an instant. Victoria 2 is an outdated game from a past era of Pdx development, it got less support/DLCs after release and so forth. Stellaris and Imperator weren't get designed with those thoughts in mind from the start. And this has caused or is still causing problems.

I believe an EU5 game being developed with those things in mind from the start will turn out much better. Although, it's certainly not guaranteed and can turn out worse than EU4 in the end. EU4 is despite its flaws is a phenomenal game after all, hard to beat especially after all these years. They sure can mess it up, but people mostly support that idea because they think they'll like such a game from Pdx more because of the things you mentioned.

 

[Harpagon]

The 2 worst thing that could happen with EU5 is pops and CK3 like characters. The root cause of failure for IR is combining everything manna, characters, pops, map painting and then overwhelm the player with micro. Game development will also be hard as there are far too many things to improve and will make little impact. EU5 should be true to it's core game and focus on macro level economy simulation, warfare and trade (which is the weak point of EU4).

I'm all in for population where you have a total amount, culture mix, religious mix. Would make culture shifting and conversion a lot more fun not to mention the implication on manpower. If you have the pop system with 90% of the population peasants I just don't see how that would add anything to the game like one pop per 10K of people when I could just have a simple number representing it.

For me the important thing is that EU5 remains a unique game not a mix of CK3, Victoria 2 or any other paradox titles. I love Paradox games and would like to have a broader mix of experience when I play different titles.

 

[Guibou]

My oppinion on the pop system is that I don't really like it as it can change a game vocation all together. People that really like the state of EU4 atm probably don't want a pop system because it would change the core of the game, making it another entity that they probably would like less. On the other hand people that want pop added, do so most of the time to have a ''play tall'' aspect to EU4. Both option are not exclusive to one another but in the end, it would change the game as we know it.

I didn't play Victoria so I can't say about that one but I played Stellaris (1500 hours) and I:R (300 hours). I have 3600 hours into EU4.

In Stallaris, you chose a species with the traits ideal for the game you want to play. Then conquer more planet/species. You have the problem of having a subpar species into your empire. Then you have to micro them out of the jobs you need, or modify there gene code and so on . It's way better now with the new job/planet system then on release where you had to micro out every pop on wich tile you wanted them to be to minmax. But in the end these pops leads to a lesser optimisation of production of ressources. I find that it doesn't give more deph to the game. There's no more plus side to the pop mechanic out of just differenciation between empires. There's just a minmax headache of putting the right pop at the right place while you want to plan you next invasion. I found out that all my last games on Stellaris were either machine or swarm because i rather get rid of all the xenos in my empire than bother to put them at the right place.

In I:R, I stoped playing the game purely because of the pop system. And I feel like alot of people that blindly want pops would really like the pop implementation in I:R. The micromanamegement of every province with multiple religions, multiple cultures, spread on 4 cast of citizenship. The madness of having 200 slaves in your capital after every war that are starving your citizen. Having a gradual change over time with edicts and goverment oriantation, having to plan migration of your pop with the infrastructure to do so is just to much micro for my taste. I'm not saying it's not good, i'm saying it's not for me.

In EU4, dev is a short for pop. And I know the critics that say is too simplified are valid. But that's the strenght of EU4 to me. The simplicity of it. You have a good or bad religion, good or bad culture. It's up to you to decide if you want to invest in it to change it. Of course it's not organic and gradual like irl, but it's simple. It's just a click. But in the end, a click in a map painter game is what it should be.

I understand that some people want more. But introducing pop to EU4 would change the core of the game. Some will like it, some not. I'm a nobody and if the devs want to introduce pop into EU5 that won't mean it will be better or worse. It will be a different game and i'll chose in time if I play it or not. People that are drooling about Vicky's pop should (and I know they do) hope for a Vicky 3 and leave EU4 alone.

Honestly, all the functions that people want out of pops are in I:R atm. Just make a mod with a 1444 start date and leave EU4 as it is, a (almost) brainless map painter.

 

[MatthewP]

I'm all in for population where you have a total amount, culture mix, religious mix. Would make culture shifting and conversion a lot more fun not to mention the implication on manpower. If you have the pop system with 90% of the population peasants I just don't see how that would add anything to the game like one pop per 10K of people when I could just have a simple number representing it.

Worth mentioning, there are two quite different pop systems used in Stellaris/Imperator and Victoria 2. In the first two, pops are fixed size (though the actual number is left to the imagination) and you grow more of them. In Victoria, you have one pop per territory * culture * religion * job (I think, may be missing something). Population growth does not create more pops, it just increases a number as you suggest.

 

[Junuxx]

I think a simplified representation of religious and cultural minorities would suit EU better than a full-fledged pop system.

Like, a province being 60% Catholic (+0.2/yr), 30% Sunni (-0.1%/yr), 10% Orthodox (-0.1%/yr) would be more than enough detail and a big improvement over the current system.

I don't need to know how much money everyone in the province makes doing what, or what they're upset about, or had for breakfast today.

 

[love sweden]

How are you gonna simulate pops with no statistics on population growth, numbers, location, density or anything else that matters. Almost all the pops will be exclusively farmers so outside of general population size you cant simulate anything else since a farmer in Beijing wont be more productive then a farmer in Belgrade.

 

[Zhetone]

How are you gonna simulate pops with no statistics on population growth, numbers, location, density or anything else that matters. Almost all the pops will be exclusively farmers so outside of general population size you cant simulate anything else since a farmer in Beijing wont be more productive then a farmer in Belgrade.

pops would basically be similar to development, i.e. abstracted values reflecting the wealth/production capacity of a province, at least in terms of mapping them at game start.

look at imperator for example - and you can have stratified pops representing for example estates as an effective means of dividing them into "classes" (such as imperator has with its slaves, freemen, citizens, nobles)

you don't need to try to do what eu3 did with exact population numbers, which quickly became absurd. pops aren't meant to be literal representations of a county's population, but are instead vehicles for representation of a multitude of social and economic changes which occurred in eu's timeline, such as class mobility, conflicts between nobility and clergy, conflicts between burghers and nobility, representation of minorities, etc. on a more granular and complex level

that most populations would be peasants doesn't really matter, I don't get why you bring that up. with regards to different levels of productivity, this could be handled with modifiers affecting peasants in particular nations or counties - where is the issue?

 

[MW4Merc]

pops would basically be similar to development, i.e. abstracted values reflecting the wealth/production capacity of a province, at least in terms of mapping them at game start.

look at imperator for example - and you can have stratified pops representing for example estates as an effective means of dividing them into "classes" (such as imperator has with its slaves, freemen, citizens, nobles)

you don't need to try to do what eu3 did with exact population numbers, which quickly became absurd. pops aren't meant to be literal representations of a county's population, but are instead vehicles for representation of a multitude of social and economic changes which occurred in eu's timeline, such as class mobility, conflicts between nobility and clergy, conflicts between burghers and nobility, representation of minorities, etc. on a more granular and complex level

that most populations would be peasants doesn't really matter, I don't get why you bring that up. with regards to different levels of productivity, this could be handled with modifiers affecting peasants in particular nations or counties - where is the issue?

I think that heavily connecting the estates and a pop system would be a good way to go. The pie chart that they have for the estates would be a good way, imo, to be able to see at a glance where our pops were at as well as abstract it a little.

 

[RichardOlcese]

The only effect of this will be as a huge Diplo mana sink for the AI, which doesn’t know how to spend its points.

The player will somewhat think strategically about this (not too much though as diplo mana is the least important). Players don’t tend to run all over the map like the AI does.

We need POPs. Everybody needs POPs. Where are the POPs? I need to convert, massacre, plunder, expel, tax, each POP separately. Not a province, but the individual POPs. Without POPs, the game loses connection to reality. A province with absolute values (it's all Protestant, or all Catholic; all French, or all Flemish) is too much of an abstraction. As I said previously, we need POPs! POPs are everything. The only problem is that they crash the game. And they reset their preferences each time you reload the game. Then I hate POPs. But if they fix those problems with POPs, I'd definitely want POPs. POPs.

This.

 

[Battlex]

What people think pops are:

Spoiler

View attachment 690042View attachment 690043View attachment 690045

What pops really are:

Spoiler

View attachment 690048
View attachment 690047

Abstrasct numbers =/= pops

From time to time, I see threads talking about adding pops into the game, but it always appaers to me that, generally speaking, there is pushback to the idea on the forums. Why is that? What is it about a pop system that you do not like? How do you think it could be remedied? Is it simply dislike or is there another reason behind it?
Please, satisfy my curiosity.

I really want pops in EU, but it would require a complete overhaul of the system, so we'd need it in eu5 instead. Population data for 1444 would also be very hard, especially with the mass increase in provinces of EU compared to vic2

 

[Sapa Inca]

I like the idea of pops my only concern with pops is the lack of data for huge regions during the period, estimates are fine but gross errors would be annoying.
Pops have potential to make the experience more immersive and the economic/development game much more interesting but only if the implementation and mechanics are good.

 

[Zaddy]

There is a player type especially in this forum that opposed to the very idea that this game should be more on the simulation side. Adding pops is the core idea of that simulation aspect. They are actually more of a minority considering the whole player base but they are more vocal at the same time.

Forgive me for being suspicious of players who ideas for improving the game include bangers like:

unbreakable conquest walls
pre-determined tech costs for nations instead of dynamic tech costs
troops ignore your orders

and other brilliant ideas sure to bring any fun in the game to a grinding halt. I have no issue with a good simulation game, as long as there's rewards for conflict and good play that rewards highly skilled players. Unfortunately I think some people on this forum forget that games should be fun first and foremost.

 

[Shogun96]

No opposition from me. I would love pops being implemented into the game. I remain firmly convinced that pops the superior way of representing culture/religion/development of a nation / territory, and, despite its many flaws, imperator Rome shows that they can work. Of course they should be represented in a way fitting the time period EU is set in.

I understand that many players are opposed to the "simulation" end of the GSG spectrum, and that's fine, just my 2 cents

 

[master_kong]

Forgive me for being suspicious of players who ideas for improving the game include bangers like:

unbreakable conquest walls
pre-determined tech costs for nations instead of dynamic tech costs
troops ignore your orders

and other brilliant ideas sure to bring any fun in the game to a grinding halt. I have no issue with a good simulation game, as long as there's rewards for conflict and good play that rewards highly skilled players. Unfortunately I think some people on this forum forget that games should be fun first and foremost.

And why is that relevant to me and my post? I'm not defending any of that, also agree games should be fun first and foremost, even though it's a very subjective thing.

I know there are people who prefer things like that, who prefer historical railroading. But you(and other guys) think there is a dichotomy in here. That is wrong. You can't put every other player not think like you in the same basket.

There are some mods that give pre-determined tech costs etc., you can give them a look and see how popular(!) they are.

Just because I pointed out there is a player group that prefers this game to be otherwise and they are more vocal while in minority you guys reacted as if I insulted you. I respect your choice of enjoyment from the game and wanting it to be more sandbox but why being overly-defensive over a mere inference. I didn't insult or anything. I'm not talking just to you btw as you can understand.
Anyway, I don't like disputes and dramas so I'm done. Now you can continue with disagrees and laughs if you all want. I'm started to getting old for this kind of stuff.

 

[Zaddy]

And why is that relevant to me and my post? I'm not defending any of that, also agree games should be fun first and foremost, even though it's a very subjective thing.

I know there are people who prefer things like that, who prefer historical railroading. But you(and other guys) think there is a dichotomy in here. That is wrong. You can't put every other player not think like you in the same basket.

There are some mods that give pre-determined tech costs etc., you can give them a look and see how popular(!) they are.

Just because I pointed out there is a player group that prefers this game to be otherwise and they are more vocal while in minority you guys reacted as if I insulted you. I respect your choice of enjoyment from the game and wanting it to be more sandbox but why being overly-defensive over a mere inference. I didn't insult or anything. I'm not talking just to you btw as you can understand.
Anyway, I don't like disputes and dramas so I'm done. Now you can continue with disagrees and laughs if you all want. I'm started to getting old for this kind of stuff.

ok dude lol

 

[alexti]

For the start different people put different meaning into "pops". It seems that in the recent years there was a trend to call "workers" "pops". From the original Civilization workers were a staple of 4x genre (and Civilization might have inherited this concept from the board games). They represented population in a very abstract form and player had a direct control over them (such as directing them to do the research or build infrastructure and so on...). This seems to inevitably lead to micro-management hell. There were many attempts to address it in different games, but I haven't seen a particularly successful one. So if "EU Next" were to add this micro-management hell instead of addressing already existing micro-management hell that is warfare, objections to it are very understandable.

"Pops" first appeared in Victoria, I think (but I might be wrong about it). And their defining characteristic was that they were an abstract representation of population in statistical terms - basically demographic groups with the size of the group. Player didn't have direct control over them and could only influence them at macro-level (taxes, social policies etc...) This allowed to model many things (prices, trade, prosperity etc...) in a logical manner, so instead of something like "we are Prussia therefore our troops are the best" any nation that had high number of pops with military ethos (which would be a result of various government policies and decisions over the time) would have a superior army.

 

[hayseed]

I recently (last week) became aware of MEIOU 3.0 (still in development). For those who hanker for pops and a deeper dive into the economics and politics of EU 4, the DDs are worth a look. There is a sub forum for it.

 

[Zhetone]

I don't think anyone wants micromanagement pops you would have to shuffle and promote or whatever manually, the only people I've seen mentioning that as a possible mechanic are people who don't want pops.

That sort of implementation would be the exact same garbage that EU4 development is, something that lacks any sort of organic dynamism and instead would rely upon player intervention to represent things that should happen naturally (i.e. a nation/county/city's growth, movement of people, etc.)

 

[MatthewP]

I don't think anyone wants micromanagement pops you would have to shuffle and promote or whatever manually, the only people I've seen mentioning that as a possible mechanic are people who don't want pops.

That sort of implementation would be the exact same garbage that EU4 development is, something that lacks any sort of organic dynamism and instead would rely upon player intervention to represent things that should happen naturally (i.e. a nation/county/city's growth, movement of people, etc.)

Unfortunately this is basically what Stellaris is like, so I can understand the worry. It definitely should not be the way to do pops if they come to EU4 or any other game.