Population Growth and Losses in War

[JScott991]

1.04 needs to seriously fix the population problems that occur in Victoria as a result of a warmongering AI, massive casualties in war, and a poor population growth engine.

The solution is fairly simple. Eliminate POP losses due to war (the only wars during this period that resulted in even tiny demographic change are the Taiping Rebellion in China, the American Civil War, and World War One) and scale back population growth seriously.

I've mentioned this before, but population growth is absurd. You can almost double your historical populations if you play the game close to the vest. There should be 40 million Frenchmen in 1914. I can almost always have 70 million ethnically French citizens, whether I annex Belgium or not. Its because you can manage something like a .09% growth rate. If you arent' losing POPs to wars, and I rarely do due to a heavily defensive strategy, then your population grows like rabbits.

Sadly, though, the AI is not so good at managing its population. The constant AI wars and the fight to the death mentality of AI armies results in horribly underpopulated countries. Austria, Germany, and Italy never reach their historical population levels under AI control. Germany rarely cracks 50 million in my games. There should be about 60 million Germans in 1914. Austria has peaked at 45 million in one of my games, where they annexed Serbia. There should be 50 million people in Austria-Hungary by 1914.

Of course the most egregious example of pop losses in wars occurs in the United States, where the Civil War pretty much eliminates up to 25% of the American population and they never come close to their 1914 population level, even if their only wars after this are with Mexico.

Little countries can suffer even heavier losses. I think Greece suffers from nearly 33% depopulation on average if they stay allied with Russia throughout the 1800's, but this is anecdotal since I just noticed this problem.

POP losses from war is a nice touch, but the AI doesn't seem to know its going on. Since armies in Victoria fight to the death and wars go on far too long and involve hundreds of divisions, you can't afford to allow this feature to remain.

Scale back growth and eliminate war losses. The first change is more realistic and the second just a practical gaming consideration. The game's demographic engine simply isn't working.

 

[unmerged(6766)]

That might be what has to be done. I would prefer that the AI doesn't go into WWI mode every time it gets in a war, but I've been told that that's the only way it can be done - so for gameplay issues your recommendations are fine. I wanted short quick wars! That's the hallmark of the 19th century.

 

[Cavalry]

well, i don't found a way to ham the AI much in war without capture their provinces. After a lost war, they lost some provinces (sometimes not, but seem no problem for Russia, France.. anyway), some people, some money, but then again they build up their armies and declare another badboy war to you! And the rebels things don't have enough consequent! In real life just 200 rebel can make a much damage in money, not count anything else yet!

So let the wars damage them a bit!

 

[Memnon]

This is a game, not a historical odyssey. It's about changing history, not repeating it. The majority of people want a game that's rather historical but but that allows them to play differently from history. Just becuase the Crimean War didn't cause severe demographic changes in Russia doesn't mean it couldn't have if Austria nad Prussia had gotten involved. A prolonged war of German leadership with a strong Austria could have caused demographic changes in Prussia.

Besides, getting rid of this feature will severly reduce the penalties to small nations for going to war. Even in real life, the proportions of casualties for smaller nations were always greater than those for larger nations.

 

[unmerged(6766)]

Oh yes.. I did want to make clear that I do think army batallions should still be tied to population, but the problem is when fighting rebels, etc - it's not tied exactly. It varies depending on the speed and the quickness of combat - so 10,000 rebels does not always equal 10,000 population (which it should, or something to that effect).

 

[Waffen9999]

I've said it before, you get whacky population growths becuase of national pop growth level instead of cultural growth level. Ie. Russians and Russians only should breed like rabbits because during this time period they did. French and French only should breed slowly since they did while French North Africa should breed like rabbits since the arabs there were as well. But pop cultures don't have their own set growth rate. Only the national value so that's why you get some whacky populations and how it's not uncommon to see a Russia with China conquered to have a monstrous population before 1860 depending on when they conquered it.

 

[Gwalcmai]

Oh yes.. I did want to make clear that I do think army batallions should still be tied to population, but the problem is when fighting rebels, etc - it's not tied exactly. It varies depending on the speed and the quickness of combat - so 10,000 rebels does not always equal 10,000 population (which it should, or something to that effect).

IIRC, the casualty/pop loss ratio depends on the difficulty level. If you play on Normal, they should be 1/1, but on VH that's more like 1/4. Considering each of those units in the pop are four people in the total country population, each dead soldier costs 16 people to the country. I think that is the problem, not the fact that casualties in war reflect in the population. Maybe it would be better to first try just dropping that casualty scaling according to difficulty and judge the results. Only if that still leads to depopulation should dropping the feature be considered.

 

[Heretic]

The problem may also be of the simulation running for almost 100 years. In each later scenario, I would hope that population levels are more correct.
Starting from a fairly accurate 1836 level, there are then lots of variables that would prevent levels anding up at historical 1920 levels. It is naturally very difficult to design a system to simulate this well. And probably even trickier to do in in an enjoyable game environment

Heretic

 

[JScott991]

This is a shocking opinion.

I agree that many players want less of a simulation and more of a wargame, but leaving things how they are now is absurd. The AI can't deal with the population losses. Its fine to assume that another round of Napoleonic Wars might break out in 1850 and lead to WWI type changes. Its ridiculously unlikely, but maybe the game should allow for it.

The problem is that Napoleonic Wars/WWI break out every five years! The AI continually fights, in complete disregard to the demographic changes it is causing in Europe. It just doesn't care.

It is MORE historical to cause losses in war to lead to demographic changes, especially since the casualties in even a small great power war are outrageous (if there is a Victoria II, please let it have an entirely new combat system; I don't know if anyone out there has bothered to keep a tally sheet on their losses in a war, but they are ENORMOUS; I kept a tally sheet and in the Franco-Prussian War alone, I had to replace over 2.5 million manpower points in less than two years of fighting; Its hard to even imagine what the AI casualties were). The AI fights ridiculously long wars and suffers enormous losses every time.

The game engine simply can't handle population losses from wars. Its a gameplay issue that needs addressed. At the very least, let players turn it off if they want. Why is that so hard to do?

This is a game, not a historical odyssey. It's about changing history, not repeating it. The majority of people want a game that's rather historical but but that allows them to play differently from history. Just becuase the Crimean War didn't cause severe demographic changes in Russia doesn't mean it couldn't have if Austria nad Prussia had gotten involved. A prolonged war of German leadership with a strong Austria could have caused demographic changes in Prussia.

Besides, getting rid of this feature will severly reduce the penalties to small nations for going to war. Even in real life, the proportions of casualties for smaller nations were always greater than those for larger nations.

 

[Darkrenown]

The game engine simply can't handle population losses from wars. Its a gameplay issue that needs addressed. At the very least, let players turn it off if they want. Why is that so hard to do?

I'd say don't have the difficulty levels affect pop losses. The depopulation on VH is insane. Or do you think it's too bad even on normal?

 

[unmerged(27839)]

Victoria would be great without the population losses in war. This could make the game funnier. Of course this isnt realistic, but is Europa universalis realistic? No, but its definitive fun to play when you dont always have to think about war losses and instead just can concentrate on war.
Its a great idea about leting the player decide if he wants to have it on/off.

 

[Kanitatlan]

There is a second issue with the historical depopulation effect. Historical studies of population recovery show that the loss of male population has substantially less long term impact than the loss of female population. Very often population levels will recover after war losses and this is not covered by the game. In fact the population losses seem to assume that when a soldier dies, his whole familay dies with him. If a mechanism like this was built into the game then population concequences of wars on normal difficulty would probably be more correct.

I am also not convinced that there were no wars with major population concequences in this period. Whilst this may be true of Europe and North America (excepting the civil war) there were wars elsewhere with significant concequences. Unfortunately I haven't got any reference books handy so I can't check.

 

[Golden_Deliciou]

In particular, I'll note that the number of lost soldiers who are actually dead is much less than the total casualties. Many surrender or are just wounded, and kill still have children etc. Losses from war should still be counted, but they should be halved or quartered.

I think having the effect of losses dependent on difficulty level is absurd. Can't some other way of making the game harder be found? Maybe make it more difficult to acquire resources, etc.

It would be a more difficult fix, but it sounds like the ideal situation would be to have a 'dependent' POP appear as a result of losses in war, perhaps 3/4 the number of soldiers lost. This POP can't be used for anything as it represents women and children (sorry to any women reading this but in the 19th century it's the way things were) and perhaps any maimed soldiers, but in fifteen-twenty years it restores to a full POP. Also there could be a mechanism making sure that 'dependent' POPs never outnumber regular POPs, killing off or migrating the 'dependent' POP if there are too many.

Otherwise, I don't think France's population doubling in 80 years is too outrageous. Britain's population rose from c. 17 million to over 41 million in the period 1836-1914.

 

[Cavalry]

when a soldier die at battle, there are sometimes more soldier die out ouf battle. And there are sometimes more civilians die than soldiers! As the moment I feel no need to change this. I wish I can find a better way to damage the loser, like destroy factories or something, war indemnities is not enought!

 

[Golden_Deliciou]

when a soldier die at battle, there are sometimes more soldier die out ouf battle. And there are sometimes more civilians die than soldiers! As the moment I feel no need to change this. I wish I can find a better way to damage the loser, like destroy factories or something, war indemnities is not enought!

Mm. It's certainly something that could be modelled. I think occupied provinces already suffer a negative growth rate, and partisans are presumably drawn from the populace. These should be lost outright as they are currently to represent reprisals etc. (even if Paradox doesn't like that sort of thing). Additionally there should perhaps be a % chance that factories could be destroyed when a province changes hands.

 

[Golden_Deliciou]

I am also not convinced that there were no wars with major population concequences in this period. Whilst this may be true of Europe and North America (excepting the civil war) there were wars elsewhere with significant concequences. Unfortunately I haven't got any reference books handy so I can't check.

The Taiping rebellion cost tens of millions of lives, I believe.

 

[Cavalry]

you can check the Thirty Years War in German states. In my Asia country when the French captured the capital :-(, they raped, kill almost anyone they found. Nearly every family in the capital have someones killed and they remember that Black Day. The soldiers of the King get light casualties, though. Because they run away fast!

 

[Rosey Palmer]

Population seems ok on normal, but on VH the losses due to war can be ridicoulous. Especially during the liberal and social revolutions. They cut or population by 25% sometimes.

 

[JScott991]

Its not as bad on normal but its still out of control.

I see no reason to include it at all. The extra realism is offset by the massive damage to gameplay and the over all effect on historical reality.

There were no serious large scale conflicts during this period outside of the American Civil War, the Taiping Rebellion, and the First World War. You could argue that the Mexican Civil War was a large scale, long term war that lasted all the way to Pancho Villa, but you would be hard pressed to show what kinds of casualties this government instability caused. Perhaps it should be included as a large scale war during this period, but its certainly not the type of conflict that Victoria comes anywhere near modeling.

As I've said, if Paradox and some players love pop losses due to wars and the ENORMOUS casualties even the smallest battle will cause, then keep it in. But at the very least, give the rest of us a chance to turn it off. In my opinion, it is hard to construct a case that the AI can handle POP losses as its currently written and for that reason it should be dropped since even in a MP game, the AI is playing 90% of the world.

I'd say don't have the difficulty levels affect pop losses. The depopulation on VH is insane. Or do you think it's too bad even on normal?

 

[ArmchairGeneral]

I like the population growth factor, but I see the problem with the excessive growth. What needs to be done is that certain nations that begin to face 'overpopulation' be hit with events which allow for the growth factor to decrease. Furthermore, I believe the greatest problem lies in the lack of immigration. People of differing political orientation should be more willing to move. Immigration is also decreased by the fact that there is always an overwhelming demand for jobs. If pop units were increase from the 1/4th factor to a 1/2 factor it would be more difficult to provide jobs for all the workers.