A rounding problem with population

[B0rsuk]

PvK said:
Loren wrote: "it just seems so wrong that a depopulated province doesn't ever recover. People would move in!"

Pre-industrial non-nomadic people didn't move very often. As in, peasants generally spend their entire lives within a day or two's walk of where they were born.

True, but
1) non-nomadic people existed. It seems silly to rule out nomadic peoples in early era, at least. And even if you assume a strictly stationary society of late era, there are still
- bandits, outlaws (depopulated areas would be better for a hideout)
- gypsies
- bards
- beggars
- various homeless people. By the way, it wasn't ALL about settlements in medieval ages, at least not in Poland. Owning land meant power - true. Land can't really burn down like a windmill or workshop may. Everyone wanted to own land, but if you couldn't you could still work as a worker on somebody's land. And they wouldn't pay you for sitting idle, so you'd have to move on once the harvest is over. Hopefully someone else would have other crops, or other work to do.

Unlike peasants, townsfolk were technically free to move around. Artisans and guilds in particular would sense an opportunity in being the sole supplier of a small population. No or little competition etc.

2) Even if we assume people don't move at all, there would be more room for everyone who's left. More resources, food, space. So there should be a population boom, just like there typically is after a war. Speaking in ecology terms, there's environment capacity. It works primarily for animals, because humans are able to work around since the Neolithic Revolution (transition from hunters/gatherers to agriculture/livestock ). But humans would still benefit.

Overall, it looks like you're looking for an excuse to justify current mediocrity of growth scale.
I think it's too late to change it now. But it would be sweet if population growth was sort-of inversely proportional to current population size. So a depopulated province should grow much faster provided there's a growth scale. This would both make growth scale more useful and the game more realistic. Win-Win.

[MaxWilson]

B0rsuk said:
Overall, it looks like you're looking for an excuse to justify current mediocrity of growth scale.
I think it's too late to change it now. But it would be sweet if population growth was sort-of inversely proportional to current population size. So a depopulated province should grow much faster provided there's a growth scale. This would both make growth scale more useful and the game more realistic. Win-Win.

I think you're wishing for logistic growth curves like in Master of Orion, where you have a theoretical maximum population and a sort-of-exponential growth rate when there's excess capacity and a diminishing growth rate as you approach capacity.

-Max

[capnq]

Just curious, when you get the event where a chunk of population leaves "looking for a better life", do they actually go to other provinces, or simply disappear?

[Humakty]

I've never seen the "looking for a better life" peons move into another province I controll (but maybe they do with no notification, I don't check every turn the pop in all my provinces(booh, lazy me)).
So we can suppose they all meet ravenous wolves during their travel to a better land.

[PvK]

B0rsuk said:
1) [nomadic] people existed. It seems silly to rule out nomadic peoples in early era, at least. And even if you assume a strictly stationary society of late era, there are still
- bandits, outlaws (depopulated areas would be better for a hideout)
- gypsies
- bards
- beggars
- various homeless people.

Yes. Bandits and outlaws are already directly represented as independent units and events. Beggars, indigents and refugees aren't liable to increase your tax income. In fact, population from which a medieval overlord extracted wealth and resources was generally limited to peasants and tradesmen. I don't see gaining much or any tax wealth from wandering minstrels and gypsies, and besides, they will keep moving on.

By the way, it wasn't ALL about settlements in medieval ages, at least not in Poland. Owning land meant power - true. Land can't really burn down like a windmill or workshop may. Everyone wanted to own land, but if you couldn't you could still work as a worker on somebody's land. And they wouldn't pay you for sitting idle, so you'd have to move on once the harvest is over. Hopefully someone else would have other crops, or other work to do.

Unlike peasants, townsfolk were technically free to move around. Artisans and guilds in particular would sense an opportunity in being the sole supplier of a small population. No or little competition etc.

Act now! Be the only blacksmith in Deebsdale, where 97% of the population was exterminated by magic last year in the Ascension Wars - now's your chance!

No, you do have some good points, but there are also good counterpoints. What you suggest would I think happen, eventually, though not I think very quickly, in most cases.

2) Even if we assume people don't move at all, there would be more room for everyone who's left. More resources, food, space. So there should be a population boom, just like there typically is after a war. Speaking in ecology terms, there's environment capacity. It works primarily for animals, because humans are able to work around since the Neolithic Revolution (transition from hunters/gatherers to agriculture/livestock ). But humans would still benefit.

Yes, but again, only eventually, not right away, and it depends on details that aren't explicitly included in Dom 3 game data. I don't think the game even tracks a base population capacity for each province, and the map generator intentionally gives great variety when it sets initial population levels (though this is based on terrain and other values).

Overall, it looks like you're looking for an excuse to justify current mediocrity of growth scale.

Well I'm offering counterpoints to your suggestions mainly just saying what I see as so - what comes to mind when I read your suggestions, and not merely to be argumentative. I do find it interesting that values don't quickly regenerate. I like Dominions' contrast to other games in that war is mostly destructive and some disasters are nearly impossible to repair.

I think it's too late to change it now. But it would be sweet if population growth was sort-of inversely proportional to current population size. So a depopulated province should grow much faster provided there's a growth scale. This would both make growth scale more useful and the game more realistic. Win-Win.

Hmm. I'm not sure that's exactly the mechanic I'd choose, but I'd welcome more detailed population modeling including growth scale effects, or even just more random events including occasional re-migrations from over-populated to under-populated regions.

[Hoplosternum]

PvK you make some reasonable counter arguments but I suspect there are always a reasonable sized minority who would move to somewhere better for them fairly quickly (within months).

There are few examples of complete depopulation in European history. In fact I can't think of any. But even in medieval times I suspect that there would always be a few, more enterprising peasants, who would move to farm their own lands rather than someone elses.

If you look at the later examples of the colonisation of the US (and other Oz etc.) people flooded in to get their own lands and make their own fortune. I know there were some actual people owning much of that land but that just shows the powerful draw of 'empty' land. People flocked to it even if they needed to fight for it.

Bringing it back to dominions 60 people (the smallest population block?) is just a few families, not many. Plus you have a Pretender God who cares about these things (growth scales) providing 'encouragement'. It doesn't seem that unreasonable to me even in Dominions time scales.

There are three things that could be done to change the current system should the devs wish. Which they may not of course.

The first and best would be to create a spell or ability (like preaching or reanimation) to summon people from other provinces. Perhaps linked to nature paths and/or growth scales. But this would be a big code change for what the devs may consider a very minor issue. So I think it's extremely unlikely.

The second is simply to round up, rather than down, population increases under growth. This should be a simple change. Just a line or two of extra code in the growth formula.

The third is your suggestion of extra re-migration events. I play with luck and growth scales a lot, especially single player. These events are extremely rare IME. Although maybe they require growth 3 which I rarely use? The population leaving appears very common by contrast if you have neutral luck or any misfortune. But there would have to be a lot. Like the magic gem finds, to make this useful. After all it would usually affect provinces with plenty of population.