Population in Cerilia

[soudhadies]

This topic is another spin off of the discussion on other low magic settings (http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2736). The other spinoff (slightly related to this one) can be found here: http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2739

Now as I was going through my calculations on the prevalence of Scions and wizards and such, I started to take a good look at the population levels listed in the BRCS, and they seem very low. For example, given the reported size of a typical province (40x40 miles), in a level 5 province we end up with a population density of 12.5 people / square mile. Even if we reduce the size of the province to about 30x30 miles (which I think is more typical after a quick scan of southern anuire), we get a population density of 22.2 people / square mile which is still low (MMS:WE, which I know I refer to quite often, says that the "typical" medieval kingdom has a population range of between 30-160 people / square mile). This is especially true when you consider that in Anuire at least, level 5 provinces seem to reflect the beginnings of truly urbanized/developed areas. Most larger domains have capital provinces of levels 5 or 6. Larger Provinces represent major urban centers, which should have greater populations to suppot them (I've only been able to count seven such provinces in all of Cerilia: Anuire in Avanil, the City of Anuire, Ilien, One in Kal Kalathor in Vosgaard, Two in Muden, and Ariya).

Going back to MMS:WE, I tried to figure out some decent levels of population that would not only expand the scion/wizard base (assuming the proportions I mentioned in the first thread I cited above), but also expand the population of Anuire beyond the roughly 1.5 million people at which the current table places it (which yields a very general estimate of about 10-11 people per square mile).

Basically, I worked from one principle, that generally, 2 adults are required to provide enough labor for every acre of staple crops under cultivation. There are 640 acres to every square mile, but for every agricultural square mile only about 75%-90% (I used 75%) of the acreage is devoted to staples. So in the 900 square miles of a typical province there are 576,000 acres. If all the land in the province was given over completely to agricultural pursuits, this would yield 432,000 acres of staple crops and 864,000 people. However, it is very unlikely that all of the land would be used for this purpose. Indeed, it would be very atypical.

Working from the a consideration that the typical medieval maximum population density would be reached somewhere between province levels 5 and 6, I developed a progressive chart as to just how much land was cultivated in each province, from 1% for a level 0 province, to 40% for a level 10 province.

MMS:WE also mentions that typically between 6.67-20% of a province's population is urban. Since I had already calculated the peasant/rural population, and didn't want all sorts of weird percentages that would result of calculating what the result of the unknown urban pop + the peasant pop and what not would be, I just added this percentages on top of the rural pop (the difference in acuracy would typically be within 1-2% anyway). Purely on my own estimate, probably about half of this urban population should live in the largest city in the province, while the rest would be divided among smaller population centers.

Province Level..........%Cultivated........Rural Pop.........%urban.......Urban Pop

0.............................1%.................. ...8,640................0%..............0
1.............................3%.................. ...25,920.............6%...............1,555
2.............................5%.................. ...43,200..............7%...............3,024
3.............................8%.................. ...69,120..............8%...............5,529
4.............................11%................. ..95,040..............9%...............8,553
5.............................14%................. ..120,960............10%..............12,096
6.............................18%................. ..155,520............12%..............18,662
7.............................22%................. ...190,080...........14%...............26,611
8.............................27%................. ...233,280...........16%...............37,324
9.............................32%................. ...276,480...........18%...............49,766
10...........................40%.................. ..345,600............20%...............69,120

Province Level...........Total Pop............Density.............BRCS Density

0..............................8,640.............. ...9.6....................0
1..............................27,475............. ...30.5..................1.1
2..............................46,224............. ...51.4..................4.4
3..............................74,649............. ...82.9..................7.8
4..............................103,593............ ...115.1................11.1
5..............................133,056............ ...147.8................22.2
6..............................174,182............ ...193.5................33.3
7..............................216,691............ ...240.8................44.4
8..............................270,604............ ...300.7................66.6
9..............................326,246............ ...362.5................88.8
10............................414,720............. ...460.8...............111.1

So Medoere, for example, instead of having 21,000 people and thus being limited to about 21 blooded individuals, would end up with a population of 224, 511 and about 225 blooded individuals.

These calculations don't even contradict the BRCS neccessarily, since that document makes it clear that the numbers given represent taxpayers, who would probably be landed gentry (whose peasants would pay taxes to them, not the royal coffers), and well to do urban peoples, such as guildsmen and merchants.

However, my tables give a slightly better estimate as to the actual populations of Cerilian provinces.

[soudhadies]

Using the tables above I get an Anuirean population (discounting Awnsheghlien controlled and nonhuman realms) of about 11-1/2 million Anuireans, which would yield about 11,500 Anuirean scions and perhaps 14 or so true wizards using the one per 833 scions ratio I came up with in the other thread, or 58 or so using the 1 per 200 I came up with before that (0.5%).

Using the historic Populations I found on this page (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pop-in-eur.html), that corresponds roughly to the population of Germany and Scandinavia in 1340, is slightly more than the population of Italy at that time, and is a good deal less than the population of France.

My recalculated estimated population density of Anuire would be of about 83 people per square mile, which falls well within the ranges I mentioned earlier.

[graham anderson]

I always thought that the pop was dodgy for the nations and provinces. As has everyone I have played with but rather than try and make up tables we just said x10 so for example anuire would have about 15 million people rather than 1.5.

[soudhadies]

I always thought that the pop was dodgy for the nations and provinces. As has everyone I have played with but rather than try and make up tables we just said x10 so for example anuire would have about 15 million people rather than 1.5.


To a certain extent either method tends to work well, if you look at the example of Medoere the two methods come up with a number that is only different by a margin of 6.9%. Although I will admit that my method is somewhat arbitrary at times, especially after provincial levels of 6, but as I said those are very rare anyway. Mostly this was since I didn't really have a precedent to work off of.

If you look at province levels 2, 3, and 4 (which are by far the most common province levels in Anuire) our two methods would generate roughly equivalent population levels: 46,224 vs. 40,000; 74,694 vs. 70,000; and 103,593 vs. 100,000.
The main divergence comes at province levels 5 and up where the standard table times 10 begins to double the population every iteration, while mine, though increasing growth at every iteration due to increasing urbanization, tends to grow at a more linear rate. Thus, a level 10 province in my tables has a density of 460.8 people per square mile, while using the x10 method, it has a density of 1,111.1 people per square mile.

[geeman]

FYI, I totalled all the population levels from the original materials many

moons ago (2000.) Along with those totals are the numbers used to comprise

them, totals by race and region, a break down of character levels amongst

those population, character class distribution, and the whole kit an

caboodle is presented in several tables. That information and the

associated numbers can be found in the birthright-l archives under the

title "Cerilian Census."



Gary

[Raesene Andu]

While working on the Atlas of Cerilia I made some major adjustments to the population levels, including changes to the table included in the BRCS. After adjustments, the population of Anuire came in at around 6 million I believe, which didn't strike me as too far off an acurate figure, given the history of the region and the fact that there are still some wild lands and mountanous region that will be poorly populated.
I can post that information if anyone is interested, although I thought I had done, some time back...

[epicsoul]

Doesn't increasing the size of the population necessitate increasing the size of militaries and/or occupation armies? If Medoere has a population of a quarter million mean they should have an army larger than 1200 to keep order, and defend the populace? Mulitplying the military size then, decreases the effectiveness of the character, thus removing the heroic concept... although, it does decrease the value of battle wizards. It means that the battle wizard will only scratch the amount of troops in the army.

[Athos69]

Military is not th only way to keep the population in line. Don't forget that the Law holdings represent not only bureaucracy, but Constables, Reeves, Sherrifs, Game Wardens, caravan guards, etc...

They all keep the peace...

[Raesene Andu]

Medoere would not have a population of 250,000 unless you want to increase the population density to unrealistic levels. We had a lot of discussion about this when working on the BRCS, and I actually sat down one day and worked out the exact size of Anuire and them compared the population to Medieval france. Using that method, 6 million is not too far off, as Anuire isn't as large as France.

[soudhadies]

Medoere would not have a population of 250,000 unless you want to increase the population density to unrealistic levels. We had a lot of discussion about this when working on the BRCS, and I actually sat down one day and worked out the exact size of Anuire and them compared the population to Medieval france. Using that method, 6 million is not too far off, as Anuire isn't as large as France.


Out of curiousity, how big is Anuire? As I mentioned earlier I did guestimates, mostly by noting that it would fit in a square roughly 480x480 miles, but that probably only 60% of that square is territory that would actually be considered anuirean (and not, say, water or the Gorgon's crown). My result came to something about the size of modern Germany. I also compared my size and population calculations to France (at 1340 pop levels) and came up with Anuire being 65% the size of France and having 60.5% the population. One of my guestimate 30x30 mile provinces turned out to be about the size of Luxembourg.

[Raesene Andu]

Here is the population info I created for the Atlas, basically a list of realms and their populations. It is created using a formula that is based on province level and average populations.

ANUIRE

Aerenwe...........227,000
Alamie..............185,000
Avanil...............417,000
Baruk-Azhik......193,000
Boeruine...........405,000
Brosengae........123,000
Cariele..............147,000
Chimaeron........59,000
Coeranys..........171,000
Dhoesone.........156,000
Diemed.............245,000
Elinie.................175,000
Endier................85,000
Five Peaks.........175,000
Ghoere...............434,000
Gorgon’s Crown..233,000
Ilien....................113,000
Imperial City.......135,000
Markazor............175,000
Medoere.............79,000
Mhoried..............290,000
Mieres................173,000
Mur-Kilad............86,000
Osoerde............156,000
Rhuobhe............13,000
Roesone............179,000
Sielwode............253,000
Spiderfell............13,000
Taeghas.............216,000
Talinie................155,000
Thurazor...........158,000
Tuornen............200,000
Tuarhievel.........215,000

TOTAL...............6,039,000


KHINASI

Aftane...............248,000
Ariya..................179,000
Basilisk...............10,000
Binsada..............187,000
Black Spear Tribes..109,000
Direwood............18,000
Djafra..................342,000
Ghamoura...........147,000
Innishiere............108,000
Iron Hand Tribes..176,000
Khourane.............215,000
Kozlovnyy............194,000
Lamia...................99,000
Magian................127,000
Mairada...............123,000
Maze of Maalvar...17,000
Merasaf................182,000
Mesire..................86,000
Min Dhousai.........219,000
Mour el-Sirad.......26,000
Rhuannach..........81,000
Sendoure............151,000
Serpent’s Isle......89,000
Sphinx.................152,000
Suiriene...............155,000
Tarvan Waste......32,000
Zikala...................203,000

TOTAL..................3,675,000

I can't find the original discussion on the developer boards, but I believe my calculations for Anuire came in at around 2/3 the size of France. The population was a little more difficult to determine, but I eventually settled on a number of around 6 million for Anuire and then set out to create a formula that would reflect this. The formula (which I don't have on me at the moment) uses the following population chart.

POPULATION CHART

0-----0
1-----2000
2-----8000
3-----18000
4-----32000
5-----50000
6-----72000
7-----98000
8-----128000
9-----162000
10----200000

I never went into as much detail as you have done though. I also measured all the major river and listed populations for major cities. This info should find its way into the Atlas sometime...

[soudhadies]

I can't find the original discussion on the developer boards, but I believe my calculations for Anuire came in at around 2/3 the size of France.


Cool, so my guestimate wasn't too far off :) 65% vs. 66.67%

How did you come up with the 6 million number? (You say you came up with this first and then created a formula to reflect this).

[Raesene Andu]

The 6 million number came up in the dicussion when we were comparing Anuire to France (which I think had a population of around 14 million in that period). From what I can recall, there was dicussion about birth rates, how many Anuirean survive Deismaar and subsequent wars and so forth.

The actual formula works by averaging the population of a province. So a level 4 province has a minimum of 32,000 people, and a maximum of 50,000, so the average is 41,000. Then you add together all the province population and you get the total. Not very complex really.

So for Medoere, which has a level 4, a level 3, and a level 2 province you get average population levels of 41,000, 25,000, and 13,000 for a total of 79,000 people.

[Raesene Andu]

Of course the problem with any sort of population table like this, is that it isn't accurate across the whole continent. An level 4 elven province is going to have a very different actual population that a level 4 human or a level 4 goblin province. This was another thing that came up in dicussions as we were working on the BRCS.
It doesn't do a bad job just as an estimate though.

[Ksaturn]

My knowledge of the roman time frame is much stronger but it seems anuireans are still very busy killing each other. Personally i would allow variation based also on recent wars/longstanding peace. while the change in population won't be the core workers of the society(which would affect province & holding levels) it would be the.... pherifery?(i can't remember that word).... i.e. people not tied dircetly to the societies internal workings tend to gravitate toward the more peaceable places.

[brechtdragon]

(wanders back to these pages after a looog absence, pls try to excuse any ignorance from me)

I am very much in favour of increasing the population levels, but wouldn't
all these increases, while strengthening versimilitude on one scale, dcerease it
for any realm actions (who are very strange as written for AD&D anyway)?

Let's say I rule a province from 4 to 5. On your scales this means the instant apearance of 18,000 to about 30,000 people in one to three months - litterally out of nowhere. Yes, out of nowhere - obviously there can't be any immigration from outside the continent nor is there any reduction of other population levels on Cerillia itself. Now, while this problem also exists in the original BRCS, I say
I can be easier done away with at much lower levels. But come one TENS of
THOUSANDS in one month? And the rules even allow that I rule a province
three times in one domain turn. Given the more extreme stats given in this thread I could clone 100,000 people a season.

Doesn't that spell death for any believability???

[destowe]

There are two ways I rationalize this.

The first is that I use the Variant of Tribal mustering from the BRCS. If there are enough squatters and nomadic people to make war units, there could be thousands of them in a low level province.

By expending RP and taking the time to convert the locals, the regent is able to bring in many of them to swear allegiance to the lord. The tribes get a decrease, and the privince gets an increase. It is not new births, or immigration. It is making the locals willing to fight and pay taxes. (For an movie example I love Braveheart. The locals are there, just not paying taxes. By converting the local nobility the king got men and money. Historically accurate, maybe not. But it could reflect a rule action.)

The other way is that rule province can only be done once a season as a domain action, never a realm. If the other provinces send their apprentices and younger sons and daughters, the population could support a drop. A maxed out level 4 could send 18,000 people without becoming a level 3. If they all send some, it may be enought to raise the province. If there is a bad roll, the province may be closer to the upper end of its current level. But not enough to break into a new level. (I would give a player a +1 bonus in the next season if the tried again, as the population is closer. So not so many are needed to increase the province. At 1GB/level attempted this gets very expensive. Maybe even cumulative if taken over and over untill it is raised.)

[geeman]

At 03:10 PM 7/16/2004 +0200, brechtdragon wrote:



>And the rules even allow that I rule a provincethree times in one domain turn.



Actually the rules allow a regent to rule a province`s population level

only once per domain turn. In the RB, the rule was that a "province can be

ruled only once per domain turn" or every three rounds while the BRCS

qualifies the way it works a bit by making any attempts after the first

automatically fail, regardless of whether the first attempt was a success

or not. That clarifies and interprets the original rule a bit since one

interpret as meaning "successful rule" actions are only possible once a

month without too much rationale. As in, a player tries to rule in the

second action round of a domain turn in a province he tried to rule in the

previous action round but failed.



DM: You can`t rule that province this round. You already performed a rule

action last round.

Player: Yeah, but I didn`t rule it. The action failed. The province

hasn`t been "ruled" this turn....



I`m not saying that`s particularly more realistic, but I think it should be

noted that it does mean that ruling a province from nothing up to level 10

takes at best thirty months rather than ten. There`s nothing that I can

see, however, that would prevent a regent from ruling three different

provinces in succession in a domain turn, thus increasing the population of

his provinces over that same period in a way that quickly circumvents the

game mechanical limitation. No, a single province doesn`t go from no

population to 100,000 in ten months, but three go from nothing to 300,000

in thirty.... That`s not a particularly satisfying difference.



On the whole, however, I just don`t know if one is going to come up with a

very satisfactory solution to the population problem using the basic BR

system. One can rationalize the way population levels increase to a

certain extent with immigration or by interpreting it as gaining control

over existing but unaligned people within the province as has been

mentioned. There are, however, a couple of problems with either

rationale. Existing but the uncontrolled population rationale breaks down

on several levels when examined in the context of the rest of the BR domain

rules:



1. It contradicts the fundamental population vs. potential source

system. That is, potential source levels are, supposedly, reduced by

population levels. If population levels are really just the control of

existing, unallied people then why should the process of gaining their

loyalty (or just control over them) reduce the potential source level of

the province? An existing but uncontrolled population should reduce the

population level of a province whether it is controlled or not.



2. The "uncontrolled population" rationale also begs the question... why

are holding levels limited to population level? Just because the province

ruler doesn`t have the loyalty of all the people in his province that

doesn`t mean that they buy fewer goods or worship no gods. (Law one could

argue equates to population level in some way.) A guilder or temple ruler

should be able to tap the "potential population level" of a province unless

there is something about the nature of being loyal to a province ruler that

otherwise makes one also potentially loyal to a regent who controls

holdings... which seems nonsensical.



3. Why can there be only one province ruler? If there is a large

population of uncontrolled civilians running around in a province then they

act as a sort of maximum population level potential for that province,

right? It`s comparable to the source potential of the province in that

way. Why can`t another province ruler step in, rule the province, and gain

his own population levels in that province the same way population level

interacts with holding levels to allow for more than one holding of the

same type?



The rationale I`ve argued for in the past is that immigration is the only

way to account for the rapid increase of population level, but if one

really thinks about what immigration means, it is just a step away from the

uncontrolled population issue. That is, an increase in population level

allowed by immigration just makes for uncontrolled population from

somewhere else. Where are these people coming from and why can`t they

simply stay where they are to be ruled by their respective regents?



There are a few other rationales that make some, limited sense.



First, it`s possible that what population level represents is not

individuals but family groups. An increase in population level, therefore,

represents a concerted effort to take those members of family groups who

are capable of operating as heads of their households and putting them into

such households independently, functioning as more efficient economic

units. That is, a family unit in which there is a single, patriarchal

"head of the house" is broken up into two groups, the first led by the

original head of the house and the new one by a first son or some other

person of age and capacity to run a household. The actual family size

decreases as certain members split off to join other families. That is, an

increase in population level might represent the change from (population

level 2) 5,000 family units with an average of 12-20 members each to

(population level 3) 10,000 family units with an average of 10-15 members

each. The next increase to (population level 4) 15,000 changes the family

group dynamic to 8-12 members each, etc.



That`s a neat explanation in that it abides by a certain level of medieval

thinking regarding who paid taxes and how, the way a patriarchal system

worked, the economic role of the family/clan, etc. It also increases the

"real number" of people in a province to get closer to a more believable

population density for a 12th-15th century culture.



Unfortunately, it does still fall prey to some of the previous

objections. Going from a few thousand households to a hundred thousand in

the same period might not represent a large increase in population, but

since the "economic unit" is increased and there is greater economic

productivity, we can see how that might oppose the potential source of a

province, so that objection can be explained, and its still plausible that

only one province ruler controls that population since he controls them all

to begin with. But just what can someone be doing that increases the

number of family units so dramatically, and whatever it is, the speed with

which it occurs is just too rapid.



Another rationale that people have suggested before is that it isn`t just

the population level being increased but their relative technological

progress. As in, the population level is itself a rating of population

efficiency, not just numbers. Numbers might still be a factor, but

increasing population represent a more efficient productivity and

bureaucracy, making for greater revenue from the population just as it

allows greater holding levels. It opposes source potential because the

population makes more extensive use of the land and doesn`t allow for more

than one province ruler for the same reason increasing the number of family

units doesn`t. However, I personally find the increase of population level

as technical advance to be lacking in two regards. The speed with which it

occurs is insanely vast. Population numbers actually increase more quickly

than does technical advance through the majority of human history or, at

least, the progress is very much closer in terms of timescale. Only in

very recent years does technical progression outstrip population

increase. Second, for all that technical advance there appears to be no

other technology gained by the process. That is, if increasing population

level represents an improved technology shouldn`t Anuireans start getting

steam engines and firearms at some point in a level 8-10 population? There

simply is no correlation expressed between population and technology in BR,

and when viewed with that in mind it doesn`t really make a lot of

sense. On the whole, I prefer that technology be handled separately from

population level.



When it gets right down to it, I don`t think there is a rational or

believable explanation for how the BR domain rules handle population. The

best I can get is some limited combination of all the factors listed above

along with a few other influences. That is, increasing population

represents the regent gaining control of some of the unallied civilians in

his province, some immigrating from nearby provinces, an increase in family

unit efficiency and a more efficient population management system. How

much of any of those factors (or even the factors themselves, really) can

be left open for the purpose of play. It`s either that or come up with an

entirely new system of rating population... which is probably what I`d

prefer in the long run....



Gary

[Ksaturn]

When i see a province go up in level i see homes being built... new farmlands tilled... new mines opened... Forests hunted and harvested. The appearance of more people is the side effect. The people go where jobs are. People in the province lands but seperate from society now find more to gain from it... some may move in looking for work or homes... The rate of birth will go up to later flesh out the locals numbers... The numbers you people throw around reguarding population make little sense to me really. Sure they may work as averages maximums or such but the population should be very fluid. the people will go where they can make a living... and rasing the province level makes that easier.

[Osprey]

When i see a province go up in level i see homes being built... new farmlands tilled... new mines opened... Forests hunted and harvested. The appearance of more people is the side effect. The people go where jobs are. People in the province lands but seperate from society now find more to gain from it... some may move in looking for work or homes... The rate of birth will go up to later flesh out the locals numbers... The numbers you people throw around reguarding population make little sense to me really. Sure they may work as averages maximums or such but the population should be very fluid. the people will go where they can make a living... and rasing the province level makes that easier.

While migration of people following jobs makes sense for the post-medieval world, I don't think it fits as well in a medieval one, where people are much more closely tied to the land. While BR doesn't include true serfdom, there's definitely a ring of it in that most commoners tend to stay where they were born and eke out a living there rather than migrating to some far-away realm to work for another lord. Serfdom gets replaced by traditional loyalty to the land and lord, a theme emphasized by the landed regents' connections to the land in the BR setting.

Geeman,
As province levels limit holding levels, they must to a certain extent represent the local level of economic and military infrastructure and sophistication. In the original rulebook, this is represented by the types of military units that can be mustered by holdings. Only high level holdings can muster units like Knights and Artillerists, units which require much greater levels and numbers of skilled craftsmen, engineers, levels of training, etc. This isn't as extreme as getting gunpowder and steam engines at high levels, but it does represent that at levels 6+ we begin to approach the more advanced levels of medieval technology and sophistication.

Court levels are another representation of greater levels of sophistication, education, and general worldliness. High level provinces support much higher levels of these things.

In general, Geeman, I like and agree with many of your points about the inherent contradictions in the province levels, and agree that in general it is a constant thorn in the side of believability, at least in my own BR campaigns.

I liked the increased population levels, however my own preference is that these should be published as typical population levels. I think keeping province levels somewhat abstract allows DM's to be more flexible in explaining what those levels represent in a given realm, and allows regent PC's to be a bit creative too when explaining their particular tactics used in ruling provinces up a level. In some cases (esp. w/ elves), this might be a high-tech, sophisticated province with a lower-than-average population. In other cases, it might be large numbers of peasants and commoners adding up to a similar effect (less revenue per person, but more of them), and in most [human] instances a balance of those two things.


PS - In the BRCS, as I understand it, you may only attempt to rule a province once per season, regardless of whether it succeeds or fails. In other words, that domain action may only be taken once per season. NOT 3 times w/ different provinces. As it is, a level a season can still be ridiculously fast in terms of believability.

Osprey

[the Falcon]

Originally posted by geeman@Jul 16 2004, 09:10 PM
If population levels are really just the control of existing, unallied people then why should the process of gaining their loyalty (or just control over them) reduce the potential source level of the province?

The "uncontrolled population" rationale also begs the question... why are holding levels limited to population level?

Why can there be only one province ruler?

Hear, hear! My sentiments exactly.

[brechtdragon]

It's good to hear/see that my doubts about the Domain system are shared,

Sorry for not being not so much up to date for the number of rulings allowed, :(
but i think this downscales the problem only a bit.

People have tried here to give rationales for how the population "increase" can be
explained, but IMO geeman offered a sufficient reply to cast doubt on them. I am
well aware that in the end the current domain system is basically a framework for
ROLEPLAYING Lords, not really aimed at simulation. At least the published adventures strongly suggest this.
But once you get past the conquering the whole of Anuire part -as e.g. in the computer game (in other world this is the equvialent of saving the world each adventure) - and
want to try out small-scale intrigue, small feuds and other such concepts, the domain
system mostly fails you: no tiers in the feudal system etc.

Getting back to population, the numbers given in trhe BRCS are probably not aimed
at simulation and verisimiltude. So let's say we could accept them as a rough basis:
a level one province is about 1000 people.
From there I could divide other populations levels in smaller units of about 1000 people.
the second level of a province would the consist of 2 such units, the third of 3 etc.
Thus a level 2 province has in summa 3 pop units, a level 3 contains 6 etc. The numbers thus obtained are along the lines of the BRCS table.

I could model thus:
- natural poulation growth
- the effect mustering (i.e. turing craftsmen to soldiers) would have on the population of a province
- a much more fine-grained "rule" action. I tried several approaches:
a.) each rule action adds only one unit of population
b. ) a rule action in aprovinve would only add to the chances of "natural growth"
I was much in favour of b.) but players really want instant growth, so I adopted a version of a.)

Such a system could keep a holding level system (& thus most of the Domain system), while giving a finer grained picture of the population.

Whaddya think? Am I thinking in the wrong direction?

Edit: Maybe we should hold a vote in the design forum if we want more simulation
in the new BRCS v3.0 or if the keep the simple & easily usable system of old ........

[the Falcon]

Originally posted by brechtdragon@Jul 30 2004, 06:07 PM
Edit: Maybe we should hold a vote in the design forum if we want more simulation
in the new BRCS v3.0 or if the keep the simple & easily usable system of old ........
Simple? Easily usable? I think not! :lol:

[graham anderson]

I have the rule province attracting people from neighbouring domains and while ruling once may be absorbed by multiple provinces ruling more than once may cause decreases in neighbouring provinces and related disagreements between regents as the work force is attracted away by another regents incentives.

I also have each of the regions anduria etc slowly growing in population but wars and plagues can halt this growth or even cause a decrease in the pop of an entire area.

In this way I even let guilds and churches rule provinces as they are capable of atracting people to the province for work or religion although I make it more difficult for them.

I think this explains the pop inceases easily and makes for good roleplaying situations as regents fight to stop their people moving to a neighbouring domain.

[Athos69]

Originally posted by brechtdragon@Jul 30 2004, 09:07 AM
It's good to hear/see that my doubts about the Domain system are shared,

a level one province is about 1000 people.
From there I could divide other populations levels in smaller units of about 1000 people.
the second level of a province would the consist of 2 such units, the third of 3 etc.
Thus a level 2 province has in summa 3 pop units, a level 3 contains 6 etc.
<snip>
Such a system could keep a holding level system (& thus most of the Domain system), while giving a finer grained picture of the population.
Ony major problem with this is when you have mutiple regents holding the same type of holding in the province.

A good example would be a Level 5 province, which by your reconing shuld have 15,000 people in it.

Two temples vye for control of the souls there, one is a Temple 3 and the other is a Temple 2. Do they see to the spiritual needs of athe entire population? Do they, combined, have the same number of worshipers as the neighbouring province with a Temple 5?

Nope.

A Temple (3) would serve 6,000 souls, and a Temple 2 serves 3,000. In a province of 15,000, that leaves 6,000 who are wandering without guidance -- enough for another Temple 3, if we work holdings on pure numbers...

Of course if we were to dictate that Holdings represent a fraction of the entire province, that leads us smack into another quandary -- Is a holding 1 in a Province 10 some five and a half times more productive than a holding 1 in a Province 1? We can&#39;t have that happening, or it will throw economics all to Hades...

A possible solution in this latter problem is to say that in order to exert one&#39;s influence in a larger province, compete and extract the wealth, one has to spend more, be it advertising, wages, properties, influence, etc, which makes the scenario work out to roughly equal incomes, both GB and RP.

[Osprey]

I think breaking down province levels into sub-levels is simply too much micro-management.

Don&#39;t know if I ever posted this, but I decided if I am to run another campaign, I would make a simple rule.

Rule Province may be attempted once per season. If it succeeds, the regent may not attempt to rule that province again until a full year has passed. Thus, a regent could rule (at best) 4 provinces in his realm up by one level each, but couldn&#39;t rule one province up by 4 levels in a year (an all-too-common phenomenon in my current campaign). I can live with a more widespread growth effect in a realm, but it&#39;s just too unbelievable when one province multiplies its population almost overnight.

Osprey

[Athos69]

I like that Osprey -- it works, is simple, is logical, and nixes an abuse of the rules.

[Osprey]

I like that Osprey -- it works, is simple, is logical, and nixes an abuse of the rules.

Thanks - I&#39;m thinking this might be a decent rule to introduce for the revised BRCS, when the time comes for some Ch 5 revisions (beyond what we&#39;ve introduced already).

[Foundry_Dwarf]

25 people per square mile is not outrageous (early medieval England).

200 people per square mile is the maximum rural for medieval (400 people per village ... above that and they can&#39;t grow enough food to support themselves unless they are in a river valley that floods ever year or six, and thus they become a town; a village takes up 2 square miles as 1 mile is the longest you want to walk every day to and from your jobsite from dawn to sunup and from sundown to dusk (half an hour)).

From Braudel, "The Structures of Everyday Life":
Remember that the average for the world in 1979 was 26.7 per sq km.
Between 1300 and 1800 it was estimated at from 2.3 to 6.6 inhabitants per sq km.
Also looking at where population was at 200 per sq km or more is less than 10% of the dry land area of the world.

Looking only at those highly populated areas the following are figures in pop per sq km in 1600:
Netherlands 40; France 34; Germany 28; etc.

Daniel Defoe estimated in 1709 that 3 acres of good land or 4 of average land were required to support one man, allowing for crop rotation.

Back to the Dwarf:
If we take that figure of 3-4 acres per person, then since there are 640 acres in a square maile, and two square miles in a village, that puts maximum village population at 360-426. Of course these figure assume an entirely rural population with no cities. Therefore to support a city of 100,000 you would need a minimum of 300,000 acres (500 square miles) just to feed that population. Even if the farmers are running twice as many acres as they require to feed themselves we are talking 1,000 square miles. It gets worse.
Since only 10% to 20% of the population was urban in medieval times we know that figure is off, so if the city is 100,000 there must be a rural population of 450,000-900,000. To feed than many people (aka, 600,000-1,000,000) you need 1,800,000-4,000,000 acres, or 2,812 - 6,250 sq miles. 6,250 sq miles is about 80 miles by 80 miles IFF nearly 100% of the area is devoted solely to agriculture (which is not possible). That means that the average distance to the city is 20 miles. Therefore gathering points (towns) are needed. The total town population should be at least equal to the city population. Now we are at 5,624-12,500 sq mi to support a city of 100,000. Food generally arrives in wagons pulled by horses or oxen, plows are pulled by horses or oxen, and so forth. Now we are at 11,248-25,000 sq mi. Accounting for rivers, hils, fens, and other waste lands (~25%) and, at maximum density, a minimum of 14,000 - 32,000 sq miles to support the one city.

Note that this is with everything maxed out ... no woods (except in the 25% marginal lands) and no sheep. Real figures would easily start this going out even further and get figure down to 25 per square mile (light rural, possibly herding) to 150 per square mile (France, overcrowded).

-Dwarf

[Ksaturn]

Good god... The numbers... oof... Seems that all this is based entirely on grain agriculture... what of fish, deer, apple trees, vinyards, corn, potatoes and all the other edible things under the sun?

[Foundry_Dwarf]

Originally posted by Ksaturn@Aug 7 2004, 02:28 AM
Good god... The numbers... oof... Seems that all this is based entirely on grain agriculture... what of fish, deer, apple trees, vinyards, corn, potatoes and all the other edible things under the sun?
Deer have to eat, as do most other animals.
Potatoes and corn (maize) are crops not available in medieval times. (Oh, and corn is a grain)
Fish is not included in the equation, but populations dependant on fishing and what the food-to-people ratios are and how much water area is needed to support a certain size population are all things I have no data on, but, in many way, are not significant to the numbers I have posted. Why? Because populations able to afford to buy fish from the fishermen, eat meat (such as deer), etc, have a much higher caloric requirement then I have indicated (the minimums for standard survival) and thus could be assumed to be consumed without marked decrease in the numbers of grain producers in the nation.
Apple trees have great yields per acre, a lot lower people requirement, and so forth, but, again, I have not yet researched them. (btw, IIRC a "hamlet" is a small village that deals with fruit production). I also did not over complicate the structure with the major meat growing (sheep and cattle) which requires way more land per pound produced per year. Also in the same vein is the parchment and vellum requirements (sheep and cattle), game/hunting preserves, woodlands for major building projects. Speaking of such, there are a lot of people who are not directly involved with agriculture who act as game wardens, harvest wood for buildings, quarry stone, etc, that may not be accounted for in the city and town populations. All these would reduce or negate any advantage on yields from apples and other fruits that yield many bushels per acre.
-Dwarf
p.s. What I did was a simplifiec model, the true model clearly demonstrates why population per square mile should be well below the maximum density model.

[Ksaturn]

Tu&#39;shay... Back to the point...

What about holding the population seperatly. Such as using the population as a background that determines max province level (after or instead of terrain). The effects of this can be demonstrated several ways. For Example...

You could say a &#39;region&#39;s population can support a maximum number of province levels. In peacetime and properity this &#39;max&#39; or population grows. In war, famine and plague however it inevitably drops. Let&#39;s take ghoere ... Anuire would have a relatively high population so initially you might have a maximum of, let&#39;s say, 4.5 x # of provinces (in area your keeping track of). For simplicity let’s take one realm in Anuire, Ghoere, which initially has 10 provinces and 40 levels according to the map. With 45 avaliable population the government/ruler has control/cohesion of 40 levels leaving 5 to fend for themselves as independents or people who have relatively little effect on a national scale (1000 bums/foragers/wanderers deal less damage to mehbhigal then a 1000 farmers/soldiers/laborers… IMHO)

[Bokey]

I also had a problem with the rapid explosion of population levels when a regent ruled up a province. However, instead of trying to justify where these people came from, I changed the rules on how ruling a province worked.

It&#39;s really a pretty basic system. If a regent has a level 0 province, and he spends a domain action and sucessfully rules the province, it becomes a level 1 province. I believe that is unchanged from what the rulebook states. I also believe that this is believable, as you are basically moving into undeveloped land, plopping down some farms, handing out some tools and telling your peasants to get to work.

However, lets assume that the regent in question is attempting to rule up a level 4 province to a level five. Agriculture has already been established in (hopefully) the most effective areas; i.e. the good land is already taken. I believed (as most of the people in this thread) that importing and setting up that many farms/communities in such a short period of time was unreasonable. So I ruled that to "rule up" a province requires a number of sucessful rule actions equal to the new level of the province desired. In the example above, to rule up a province from level 4 to 5, it would take five sucessful rule actions. These actions didn&#39;t have to be in sucession, nor was every attempt required to suceed.

It did require some additional bookkeeping, as now a province could be a 4.0, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, and when the province reached a 4.5, it morphed into a 5.0. In the end I found it a much more reasonable system, as it now took a minimum of 5 domain turns (a little over a year) to increase just one province from 4 to 5. Some bad luck rolling, or other pressing issues could delay this even futher. Effectively, it also became a much bigger investment to rule up a province, because you still had to pay the cost each time you attempted it. But in the end, my players still attempted it, because the long term benefits still out-weighed the short term costs.

What do you all think of this system?

[tcharazazel]

Cool system, though very damn expensive to raise the prov levels it seems. Did you lower the cost for each attempt or leave it the same? Cause otherwise after a while it just wont be worth it for the players to raise the province level if they would have to shell out 5 times the normal amount of GB to raise a province from 4 to 5 as in your example.

The system also really makes sure that high level provinces are almost never gonna happen in a regular campain. I mean, to get 1 province to level 10 lets say, starting with a level 4 province will take 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 = 45 turns minimum. That would require approximately 11.25 game years to raise the province up.

Now, if you are going for realism this is still very fast as that is about 1 generation to suddenly have increased from about 10,000 tax payin citizens to about 100,000 tax payin citizens. Thus, really trying to go for realism in such a fantasy game may not be the best course of action here. I would suggest just setting a set time period required to pass before the province can be raised again, ie a province can only be raised up 1 time per year and maybe increasing the DC to raise the province as were heading towards setting the DC base to 15. This way, you avoid the huge costs of multi attempts, you allow higher level provinces to be more attainable in a shorter campain (unless you regularly play through about 20+ game years when playing a campain) and you still make the higher level provinces difficult to attain.

[tcharazazel]

One other idea:

normally I define a generation as roughly 10 years, however, in this instance for ease of understanding I&#39;ll define it as 15 years or approximately the time for women in the medieval era to reach puberty and get knocked up.

If you wanted to improve upon the basic 1 year to raise prov (to slow down the growth of the realms), you can always do it on a scale, ie 1 year must pass for levels 1-3, 2 years for 4-6, 3 years for 7-9 and 4 years for 10 (would take 17 years then to get from 4 to 10 that way thus closer to about 1 generations to get from 10,000 to 100,000).

A nicer scale maybe: .5 years for levels 1-3, 1 year 4-6, 1.5 years 7-9 and 2 years for 10. This way would take 8.5 years to get from level 4-10.

Heheh, it really all depends on how slow you want the PC and NPC provinces and realms to grow. IF you really wanted to go for realism then it would be more like 4 years for levels 1-3, 6 years for 4-6, 8 years for 7-9 and 10 years for 10. Thus in about 46 years or roughly 3 generations you would get a level 4 to a level 10. As it is reasonable to assume that families would have about 5 kids in a medieval setting, it makes sense that starting with about 10,000 to get about 25,000 in roughly 1 generation and then 62,500 next generation and then 156,250 in the 3rd generation.

I used 50% of the population who will be having the kids as a rough estimate and to include the fact that not everyone has kids at the same time, some are too old, some have less, and considering that one of the major reasons in medieval times there were many farming families with 12 kids is cause most were not expected to live, however, thanx to divine magic thats not as big an issue thus smaller family sizes makes sense.

However, unless you plan on playing through several generations in the game, there really is no point in taking the realism to that level. And if you really want to, you would need to increase the time on everything else also, as making castles, wonders, ect in such a short time period is very unrealistic. Heheh, how I see its an all or nothing deal for realism. As for power, well limiting power is cool, just dont forget that you are also limiting the bad NPC guys then, and thats not cool... as bad guys always want more power, heheh.

[Bokey]

Cool system, though very damn expensive to raise the prov levels it seems. Did you lower the cost for each attempt or leave it the same? Cause otherwise after a while it just wont be worth it for the players to raise the province level if they would have to shell out 5 times the normal amount of GB to raise a province from 4 to 5 as in your example.

I agree that it is expensive. I also must note that I only charge half price compared to what is listed in the BRCS, and don&#39;t require a roll to succeed. However, looking at the rules, you make the money back fairly quickly. According to the BRCS, a province now collects money equal to the province rating per season. That means that if you invest 10 GB [(4*5)/2] to raise a level 4 province to a level 5, you will make the money back in 10 domain turns, or about 2 1/2 years. As tcharazazel mentioned earlier, I do have a tendency to run long winded campaigns, usually stretching 20+ years, and then possibly even extending on to the next generation.

The reason I implemented this change was to prevent all my players from instantly ruling there provinces up to max level. In terms of old-school game play, if one ruler got a couple of lucky rolls on his initial attempts, then he was leaps and bounds ahead of the competition (be that from the DM or from other PC&#39;s). This way, it was more methodical, and your investments was not immediately going to pay you dividends. The fact that it made more sense from a population standpoint was just the icing on the cake.

However, I do think your following idea works great:


If you wanted to improve upon the basic 1 year to raise prov (to slow down the growth of the realms), you can always do it on a scale, ie 1 year must pass for levels 1-3, 2 years for 4-6, 3 years for 7-9 and 4 years for 10 (would take 17 years then to get from 4 to 10 that way thus closer to about 1 generations to get from 10,000 to 100,000).

For those of you that would rather leave it to chance, this would still assure that exponential population growth curve would be stymied.

[Ksaturn]

For all the awesome ideas here they seem to ignore population loss... really if it takes 20 years to make a 0 lvl a 10 then gobbies come in an raze it down to a 9 before the army got back... someone got jipped. are you saying ALL those people died? while obviously many did, 9-10 is a lot of people, many IMHO would get forced out or just run rather then be put to the sword. often pillaging is more for the goods & gold then the death & destruction(but exceptions are not uncommon). could someone deal with these issues? eh?

[Foundry_Dwarf]

Originally posted by Ksaturn@Sep 1 2004, 05:14 AM
For all the awesome ideas here they seem to ignore population loss... really if it takes 20 years to make a 0 lvl a 10 then gobbies come in an raze it down to a 9 before the army got back... someone got jipped. are you saying ALL those people died? while obviously many did, 9-10 is a lot of people, many IMHO would get forced out or just run rather then be put to the sword. often pillaging is more for the goods & gold then the death & destruction(but exceptions are not uncommon). could someone deal with these issues? eh?
Driven out.
Killed.
Diesease.
Famine.

Sounds about right to me. B)
Think WW1 ... more people on the front lines died of diesease than died of bullet wounds
(and more on the home front fell to Influenza than died on the battlefield).

Battles and wars can easily eliminate 10%-50%+ of the population.

[Osprey]

Driven out.
Killed.
Diesease.
Famine.

Sounds about right to me.
Think WW1 ... more people on the front lines died of diesease than died of bullet wounds
(and more on the home front fell to Influenza than died on the battlefield).

Battles and wars can easily eliminate 10%-50%+ of the population.

Except that in a D&D fantasy world there are decent numbers of priests and paladins with magical healing - while it doesn&#39;t play in much at an adventure level, paladins&#39; ability to Remove Disease (multiple times per week at high levels) makes them quite a boon to society. Similarly, clerics able to magically heal various diseases, magically create food and water, etc. makes them a powerful factor in slowing population loss in every sector - war, disease, and famine would all be less severe than their medieval equivalents.

IMC I had Tuornen infested by plague, intentionally spread into the castle wine casks by Carilon Alam&#39;s agent during the Harvest Festival (when all the people are invited into the castle to feast from the Duchess&#39; tables). It was quite interesting to compare its virulence (how fast and deadly is it) to the realm&#39;s clergy and healers - were there enough priests, paladins, healers, and apothecaries around to combat its effects and spread? In the end, I decided it spread too quickly and invisibly - within a month or so, it had spread not only thoroughout the capital provinces, but also to surrounding ones and in pockets throughout Tuornen and even beyond. Trade came to a standstill (NO ONE trades into a plague-ridden realm), and quarantines were in effect everywhere. Luckily for Laela, she was friends with the PC regents (one of whom was courting her at the time) who generously gave/loaned her a large sum of GB to help offset the costs of hiring every able-bodied healer, priest (the WIT had the audacity to charge fees for its services&#33; So the rich were healed while the poor died...classic), paladin, and apothecary she could find within a hundred miles. With such an effort, the plague was first controlled and eventually (in about three months&#39; time) passed over - though the death toll was high in some places and the plague&#39;s touch felt nearly everywhere. A better scheme than dolls with poison needles for certain...

Naturally, Carilon Alam was also invading withan army about a month after the plague had set in, expecting to meet a bunch of sick and weakened units, and armed with a great excuse (plague) to burn every town, village, and dwelling he came across. He was stopped in the end, but THAT is a story for another day. :)

Osprey

[ConjurerDragon]

Foundry_Dwarf schrieb:



>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=2740

>

> Foundry_Dwarf wrote:

> QUOTE (Ksaturn @ Sep 1 2004, 05:14 AM) For all the awesome ideas here they seem to ignore population loss... really if it takes 20 years to make a 0 lvl a 10 then gobbies come in an raze it down to a 9 before the army got back... someone got jipped. are you saying ALL those people died? while obviously many did, 9-10 is a lot of people, many IMHO would get forced out or just run rather then be put to the sword. often pillaging is more for the goods & gold then the death & destruction(but exceptions are not uncommon). could someone deal with these issues? eh?

>-----------------------------

>

> Driven out.Killed.Diesease.Famine.Sounds about right to me. B) Think WW1 ... more people on the front lines died of diesease than died of bullet wounds(and more on the home front fell to Influenza than died on the battlefield).Battles and wars can easily eliminate 10%-50%+ of the population.

>

While I agree with you, that many people not involved in fighting die in

a war the comparison with WW1 trenchwarfare seems to modern to me. The

30-years war (or for Arjan the achtigjahrige Orloog?) would be more fitting.

bye

Michael

[tcharazazel]

Hey Ksaturn,

Btw for youre quote, its actually, "I apologize for being the only one who truly comprehends how screwed we are&#33;"

[Hrandal]

Here&#39;s an idea I&#39;ve been toying with using some variant of in my BR campaign - see what you make of it...

I thought it would be interesting if the population / total levels of your kingdom influenced how quickly it could grow. As someone pointed out in an earlier post (sorry, can&#39;t be bothered to scroll back and find out who), its not realistic to expect medieval peasants to move around too much. However, it is reasonable for a lord to order his peasants around (for an extreme example, look at the Khans, who strip-mined conquered cities for artisans.) If you assume that each Level of every Province you own generates 1 "population point" (for want of a better term) at the start of each season, then you could use these as the basis for Ruling a province to a higher level.

With this justification, you would have to spend not just GB, but also excess population to increase a province level. As long as you set the cost in "population points" high enough, it would stop most kingdoms being able to skyrocket their population. Then, if a tiny kingdom is dead set on increasing its size, you could increase the cost for attracting true immigrants (kingdoms might even be tempted to "trade" surplus population - although I feel that goes down a sticky road.)

If you didn&#39;t want the complexity of totalling all the levels, you could just do it by the number of provinces. More simplistic and less accurate, but it would be a damn-sight quicker. As with so many things in the domain level BR, it all depends on how proactive your players want to be about book-keeping, and whether they think its worth the time.

[Nephyte]

I know there are people out there who dislike Zombie threads, but what can ya do :)


Just wanted to give you all this link, I can&#39;t testify as to it&#39;s veracity, but it looks fairly well researched and I think most likely it&#39;s accurate. It&#39;s a demographic site.


Medieval Demographics (http://www.io.com/~sjohn/demog.htm)




PS: Nice to see Foundry_Dwarf here. I can only assume you&#39;re one and the same person from Kenzer&Co.