Why no pop system for CK3?
- Thread starter ray243
- 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.
I think there are 2 main reasons I can see that pops are not in CK3.
There is the cost of adding pops. Pops take up both computational time (thus potentially slowing down the game) and development time. I'm guessing the devs thought both of these were better spent on other parts of the game (specifically the characters and dynasty interactions)
The other is unlike n I:R where you have a bunch of pops across your realm you can interact with, in CK3 you'd probably only be able to interact with the pops in your demnse as the other would below other vassals who would have control over those pops. So there's the question of what fun game mechanics would pops add to the game that make them worth their cost in computational load and development time given the smaller pool of pop you have to work with (and I say this as someone who likes pops). A mechanic that adds complexity without out depth is often considered a bad mechanic. I can see the complexity pops can add to CK3, but it's hard to see the depth it can add (especially to the core engagement of CK3 which is character and dynasty interactions).
This is already handled by county development in CK3 which is just pops and wealth rolled up into one number (and is much more streamline).
There is the cost of adding pops. Pops take up both computational time (thus potentially slowing down the game) and development time. I'm guessing the devs thought both of these were better spent on other parts of the game (specifically the characters and dynasty interactions)
The other is unlike n I:R where you have a bunch of pops across your realm you can interact with, in CK3 you'd probably only be able to interact with the pops in your demnse as the other would below other vassals who would have control over those pops. So there's the question of what fun game mechanics would pops add to the game that make them worth their cost in computational load and development time given the smaller pool of pop you have to work with (and I say this as someone who likes pops). A mechanic that adds complexity without out depth is often considered a bad mechanic. I can see the complexity pops can add to CK3, but it's hard to see the depth it can add (especially to the core engagement of CK3 which is character and dynasty interactions).
This is already handled by county development in CK3 which is just pops and wealth rolled up into one number (and is much more streamline).
- 28
A pop system just seems like a very large investment for little gain. If I wanted to be managing pops I wouldn't be playing CK.
- 15
- 5
- 1
Well there a population number/development attached to the development is sufficient for my take. I don't disagree right now, but I don't see a reason for an intricate pop system. This is railroading things too much. You will have a hard time making a large scandinavic/russian empire or modernizing the steppes because, tough luck, the population there is extremely low. It is similar to Imperator where you have a hard time properly building up smaller migratory tribes in the less inhabitated regions and build an empire there (like deciding to move around to the Kaspian Sea). While it is a boon for players in the highly populated areas, such as the ERE, India, Italy, some of the Arabic regions and some other Western European regions, others would get the other end of the stick. Try being the Emir of Najd, or the High Chief of Oulo, or the Chief of Konda. This would make some of the starts way worse because you have these regions compared to Constantinople, or Rome, or Cairo. Which have it afterwards easier to blob too.
Last edited:
- 10
- 2
How horrible that playing the game in different parts of the map would feel different.
- 14
- 4
Isn't that kind of the point. There is a reason the Vikings didn't just conquer the HRE.
- 10
- 3
A reason for not having a POP system.
We don't have population statistics about minority cultures and religions at the start dates in any given province.
We don't really have statistics for the relative proportions of economic activity and roles.
What would you even *have* as the "classes" for the period?
We don't have population statistics about minority cultures and religions at the start dates in any given province.
We don't really have statistics for the relative proportions of economic activity and roles.
What would you even *have* as the "classes" for the period?
- 15
- 4
It is not about feeling different, that can still be reached with development. I also want to feel different when playing in the ERE or in Oulo, but the issue is, that this would need much more thought than yeah pop instead of development. It is about implementation. How do you compare the densely populated mediterran regions or India with Scandinavia, or the British Isles, or Russia, or the Steppes. I said before, that we would have to give many regions only one or two pops. With blobbing still being an issue, this would cause the dense regions to blob even faster. Implementation is the key there.
And it will still be, there is just development instead of pops. It will still take a while to develop Scandinavia but not with a pop system where you have to hope to get some pops after a while. The fun part of CK2 was to develop random regions and dynasties to superpowers, even if this wasn't historical. With a pop system you are already a bit locked and it didn't change Imperator Rome from being rather tedious at the beginning.
- 1
Idk about HoI or Vic, but i would like to play immortal(not-aging) character in Imperator Rome, what is imposible at this moment as i know.
- 3
To be clear, I am against having a pop system. I believe that good game design comes from having a clear vision where the core systems are interconnected in many ways. CK is about pops. If we add pops, there would be two worlds. The characters world and the pop world which would barely interact. I think this non-integration is what doomed IR. I simply don't believe the pop system would make the game more fun. Development suffices for most cases pertaining to the medieval world
- 9
- 4
- 1
.png){kind=avatar}
What kind of pops would average European provinces have?
Something like:
1 aristocracy pop
2 clergy pops
1 merchant pop
20 peasant pops
Aristocracy and Clergy pops wouldn't and shouldn't really grow that much over centuries.
Some regions would have more merchants, but it would also be silly to expect this pop to grow too large.
Might as well just have peasant pops and divide them into several sub-categories.
Serfs, free peasantry, vagabonds?
Would it really matter in the grander scheme, beyond simply roleplaying purposes?
Or go on a different path and differentiate artisans, farmers and miners? Then you would need to have proper economy and trade mechanics to justify such pops.
You'd still have an overwhelming amount of unskilled peasant pops. At least in High Middle Ages Europe.
Something like:
1 aristocracy pop
2 clergy pops
1 merchant pop
20 peasant pops
Aristocracy and Clergy pops wouldn't and shouldn't really grow that much over centuries.
Some regions would have more merchants, but it would also be silly to expect this pop to grow too large.
Might as well just have peasant pops and divide them into several sub-categories.
Serfs, free peasantry, vagabonds?
Would it really matter in the grander scheme, beyond simply roleplaying purposes?
Or go on a different path and differentiate artisans, farmers and miners? Then you would need to have proper economy and trade mechanics to justify such pops.
You'd still have an overwhelming amount of unskilled peasant pops. At least in High Middle Ages Europe.
- 8
- 1
- 1
What's the difference between what you see as a general population number and POPs? I don't think you need a detailed breakdown of the different type of population in your county, because the majority of the population in most middle age kingdoms are working in agriculture. But having some difference between serfs and freeholders is useful. More free-holders, weaker nobility. More serfs, stronger nobility.
It doesn't really address the issue of what happens when you levied most of your manpower to fight a long and distant campaign. Even HOI makes an attempt to model the impact of overdrafting your population, and that's in an age where you don't need that much manpower for agriculture production.
It's not about having population statistics. We don't have that for the ancient world either yet IR has a pop system. What we do have in the middle age is serfs and freeholders. Some place has more serfs, and that makes the power of the nobility stronger. Other place with more freeholders have slightly weaker nobility.
- 4
...is this one a joke?
Are legally-defined and stratified hierarchies not a thing people study? Not even the basic, oversimplified "triangle" of feudal society?
- 5
- 2
- 1
No need for pop system in a game with CK´s focus.. But don´t worry, if that is what you desire then you can try it out in Vicky 3 in a few years.
- 6
- 5
Ostsiedlung.
Other migrations that resulted in wide political changes.
Migration to the Holy Land and Iberia would change culture and religion.
Come on, now. This thread reeks of "immersion and realism bad, simplification good"
- 10
- 6
I'm quite used to the terminology of "POPs" meaning something like... Stellaris? If we use a PDX example. This mash up of individual and general number for the class/type.
So lets say you have 5 Merchant POPs and 10 Serf POPs.
While general population to me is more like "Population: 10,000"
I don't think so? Back in high school, and this was ages back, I didn't have anything resembling the feudal hierarchy pyramid. We did have ancient greek epics and aztec history. I don't know why. Schools are weird.
I studied it on my own cause I'm a massive nerd for medieval era stuff though.
- 2
- 1
Fair enough. I can see why you want to go with your system. Most of the population in the middle ages are involved in agriculture, and the main economic cost to having a smaller population is less harvest, which equates to less food, which translate to less population to do other economic activities beyond agriculture.
I think there should be a need to differentiate freeholders from serfs though. It's a big distinction in many places, as it means the nobility aren't as powerful as they otherwise would be. More freeholders, more power to central authorities and less dependent on nobles to furnish manpower for your armies.
- 5
Sorry, I'll clarify, since I mean neither "those who labour, those who pray, those who fight", nor the slightly wider "noble, priest, knight, peasant" set up.
For the county of Kent in 867, what should the assorted "types" of POP be?
Should they for example be farmers, hunters, merchants, clergy, servants, nobles, artisans who produce trade goods, artisans who produce luxury goods? Should the farmers be divided between those who mostly work with plants and those who mostly work with livestock?
Indeed, should the farmers be divided between bonded, free, and landholding?
Is a "serf" POP under (say) the Normans different to a "thrall" POP under the Saxons or Norse? Is a "free peasant" the same as a "coerl"? Where would "slave" POPs come into it?
What about if we shift to Ireland, where there weren't technically any slaves, but there were bonded, unfree classes which don't have an exact equivalent in England (or elsewhere as far as I'm aware), since the family were automatically restored to being free after a number of generations, or the unfree individual could pay off their debt and return to being free?
It's not a simple matter, because the classes and classifications of people weren't consistent even within the same kingdom sometimes.
- 9
- 2
That can be handled by a modifier to taxes based on your levies being raise (or I think the devs said vassal levies now cost money to raise which is essentially the same end result).
Medieval realms weren't mobilizing their populations anywhere near the level seen in WWII. Germany was mobilizing around 30 percent of its population and the US was around 10 percent. These are both much higher than the around 1 percent seen in the middle ages. The levies a middle age ruler could raise was limited by the fact that people needed to stay at home to create food, but as this applies to all realms there isn't a need to model this from a gameplay perspective.
- 7
- 1
Yes, but the cost of raising levies does not grow exponentially. The longer you keep your levies in the field, the more expensive it becomes to keep them there because you need to start feeding them and keeping them supplied while they can't work in their farms.
Yes, but at some point you will be able to develop your lands sufficiently to have more excess population. Some places lucked out in the sense that they have an extremely rich agriculture region ( like Egypt), while others make use of captured slaves to free up the population to do other economic activities. The more excess manpower you have, the more you can do in building up your infrastructure or building a professional army.
- 5
- 3