Population convention

[vota dc]

I am not adding nothing of new for the wiki.Just want to make a population convention to avoid confusion:you could use this topic to decide the population...for now I reported the current realms population of the wiki.

Aerenwe 450000
Alamie 107500
Avanil 167000
Baruk-Azhik 75000
Boeruine 200000
Brosengae ?
Cariele 295000
Chimaeron ?
Coeranys 310000
Dhoesone 250000
Diemed 375000
Elinie ?
Endier 72000
Five Peaks ?
Gorgon's Crown 111500
Ghoere 860000
Ilien 80000
Imperial City 137500
Markazor 320000
Medoere 145000
Mhoried ?
Mieres 47000
Mur-Kilad 170000
Osoerde 230000
Rhuobhe ?
Roesone 325000
Sielwode ?
Spiderfell ?
Taeghas 405700
Taline 280000
Thurazor ?
Tuarhievel 81450
Tuornen 68000


My opinion is that-for example-Taeghas can't have more than twice the population of Avanil.We should lower Taeghas or increase Avanil?Well,maybe an increase is better,else we should even lower the non anuirean page (Muden have more than 1 million of people).
There is of course another problem:I read that Ruobhe population is very low even for a 2 level province....population shoud be different for level and race?

[Sorontar]

Just to avoid old arguments being treated as new, the wiki has a short description of the various interpretations of what "population" is at http://www.birthright.net/brwiki/index.php/Population .

Of course, this still doesn't answer the issue of how big the population of one area should be when compared to another.

Sorontar

[Birthright-L]

At 09:59 PM 7/29/2009, vota dc wrote:

>There is of course another problem:I read that Ruobhe population is
>very low even for a 2 level province....population shoud be
>different for level and race?

From what I can tell that province should have a population of
4-7... unless one is counting elves as "magical beasts" (and, thus,
part of the source potential of the province) for the purpose of
"population levels."

Gary

[Rowan]

What method are you using? The 2e pop tables, the 10,000 per province level, or some other?

Not sure how you ended up with more pop for Taeghas than Avanil, when Avanil has 37 province levels (none below 3) and Taeghas has 23.

I know the method is contentious, Sorontar, but what about pursuing a compromise method? One that maybe starts with a base level of habitation (like Kgauck's approach) and adjusts on top of that for province level?

The simplest form of this might look like saying that each settled province (about 1000 square miles) has a base population of 50,000. Every province level on top of this adds 10,000, representing both some additional population, but also largely level of organization and economic productivity. Then people can scale that base number up or down depending on what they think is appropriate, adding in whatever modifiers they wish.

I mention other modifiers because some things still would warrant adjustment to make sense. A few parts of Anuire are considered "frontier," and a few would be characterized as more heavily settled, having been civilized for a very long time. You could let province levels bear this out or adjust the base number for these. Also, as noted, Elves seem to have a sparser population, and the Brecht seem to have far too many province levels, even having provinces specifically described as being all but uninhabited and yet being level 3 or so.

Anyway, adding a base of 50,000 per province would give Anuire (~150 provinces) a population of something like 7.5 million, plus maybe 4.5 million from the other population levels, or 12 million. It's a starting point and compromise method, anyway. I might adjust it by setting the base for Frontier areas at 10,000 (Erebannien, Dhoesone, perhaps some provinces of Mieres, Coeranys, Roesone, Mhoried, and Talinie) and giving racial modifiers like Elves at 10,000 base, Dwarves at 40,000, Brecht at 40,000, Khinasi at 40,000, Goblins at 80,000. This would be mostly academic, since it wouldn't have any impact on Domain collections, but it could be worked in via any mechanism that limits total possible military sizes or resilience to random events/recovery from province level loss.

Hope this doesn't derail the thread too much. Looks like the OP was trying to find a standard method for determining population.

[vota dc]

This should be the population....if someone want a more populated Anuire should multiply this values,but the ratio shouldn't change.

Aerenwe 74000
Alamie 55000
Avanil 128000
Baruk-Azhik 54000
Boeruine 132000
Brosengae 30000
Cariele 47000
Chimaeron 16000
Coeranys 46000
Dhoesone 42000
Diemed 78000
Elinie 53000
Endier 30000
Five Peaks 49000
Gorgon's Crown 65000
Ghoere 128000
Ilien 40000
Imperial City 100000
Markazor 46000
Medoere 21000
Mhoried 87000
Mieres 47000
Mur-Kilad 27000
Osoerde 44000
Rhuobhe 4000
Roesone 49000
Sielwode 77000
Spiderfell 0 / 20000
Taeghas 67000
Taline 47000
Thurazor 42000
Tuarhievel 66000
Tuornen 60000

[Rowan]

Please record what method you used. It doesn't look like any I've seen. It's less than the BRCS 3.x, which is itself less than the 2e material. At least, that's going off of the one easy realm I checked:
Brosengae, 3 level 4s by either measure should be at least 40,000 (you list at 30,000)

2e:
0 = <1000
1-3 = 2000-10000
4-6 = 10000-40000
7+ = higher, to 100000

3.x:
0 = 0
1 = 1000
2 = 4000
3 = 7000

4 = 10000
5 = 20000
6 = 30000

7 = 40000
8 = 60000
9 = 80000
10 = 100000


By your calcs, 1,318,000 humans in Anuire. Man that's low...

[Agelmore]

This should be the population....if someone want a more populated Anuire should multiply this values,but the ratio shouldn't change.

[numbers snipped]

These numbers assume that each province have exactly the population of citizens - corresponding to its province rating - indicated in chapter five in our rules (Table 5-2).

Since a level province can be changed in one month by a single domain action, we can consider that some provinces are close to their next province rating level whereas some other provinces have just reach their current rating.

Therefore, I think population of citizens used for a single province when calculating realm population of citizen have to be the average of population between population for the current province rating and population for the next province ration.

[Urban fox]

Alamie seems to have too small a population too given its a heartland realm with 9 provinces.

Also given the fact that Tuornen fears that Alamie will reclaim their lands, you'd expect that Alamie would have a real manpower edge over the Tuors.


Boeruine and Avanil would be near even, I find it odd that Boeruine seems to have quite a bit more than Avanil...

[vota dc]

What method are you using? The 2e pop tables, the 10,000 per province level, or some other?

Not sure how you ended up with more pop for Taeghas than Avanil, when Avanil has 37 province levels (none below 3) and Taeghas has 23.

[quote continues]

I simply reported the population on wiki.I guess more methods are been used.
Now I already made a population with the classic system,and I will try to use the compromise method.
So---1 level anuirean province = 50000,2 level 60000...10 level = 140000
Goblin = 80000,dwarves = 40000,elves and exception = 10000

Aerenwe 320000
Alamie 580000 (500000 if you consider Sorelies and Nortmoor as frontier)
Avanil 730000
Baruk-Azhik 340000
Boeruine 720000
Brosengae 240000
Cariele 250000
Chimaeron 380000 (220000 if the eastern provinces as frontier,if all 100000)
City of Anuire 140000
Coeranys 480000 (320000 with north and east as frontier)
Dhoesone 220000
Diemed 420000
Elinie 360000 (north as frontier)
Endier 100000
Five Peaks 700000 (all goblins-maybe should be fixed)
Gorgon's Crown 820000 (goblin rule with exception sideath+province that border with non anuirean realms)
Ghoere 800000
Ilien 110000
Imperial City 140000
Markazor 690000
Medoere 210000
Mhoried 600000 (only 10000 for each north province)
Mieres 470000 (inner provinces with 10000)
Mur-Kilad 140000
Osoerde 450000 (the two all swamp provinces with 10000)
Rhuobhe 20000
Roesone 450000
Sielwode 240000
Spiderfell 130000
Taeghas 550000
Taline 380000 (10000 for the provinces that border with Thurazor)
Thurazor 600000
Tuarhievel 220000
Tuornen 550000 (450000 if 10000 for the provinces that border with Rhuobhe)

Anuire 12930000 with the lowest population

[Gheal]

By your calcs, 1,318,000 humans in Anuire. Man that's low...

These numbers are not so low, if we take in consideration actual size of Anuire (less than Western Europe, iirc), rolling grasslands of Elinie and Coeranys, desolace of Chimaeron and Baruk-Azhik and forests and moors of Dhoesone. Three elven kingdoms, neglected Five Peaks, Talinie, ravaged by elements and neighbours - list can go on. IMO 1,5-2,5 million of people for Anuire is believable enough. 13-15 millions of people for 15-16 c. means big or highly civilised and packed by people country. Many lesser powers in Anuire have not much in the terms of industrial power and agricultural might.

just my 2 coppers

[vota dc]

These numbers are not so low, if we take in consideration actual size of Anuire (less than Western Europe, iirc), rolling grasslands of Elinie and Coeranys, desolace of Chimaeron and Baruk-Azhik and forests and moors of Dhoesone. Three elven kingdoms, neglected Five Peaks, Talinie, ravaged by elements and neighbours - list can go on. IMO 1,5-2,5 million of people for Anuire is believable enough. 13-15 millions of people for 15-16 c. means big or highly civilised and packed by people country. Many lesser powers in Anuire have not much in the terms of industrial power and agricultural might.

just my 2 coppers

The problem is how to explain that two provinces of level 1 (1000 population each) could field the same number of troops than a province of level 2 that as 4000 population.
Maybe 10000 for province +10000 for each level above 1 is a good compromise.Then as exception 5000 base for elves and less populated human provinces?

[Rowan]

The problem is how to explain that two provinces of level 1 (1000 population each) could field the same number of troops than a province of level 2 that as 4000 population.
Maybe 10000 for province +10000 for each level above 1 is a good compromise.Then as exception 5000 base for elves and less populated human provinces?

I had considered that option, too.

Gheal, in most discussions I can recall about population sizes and land masses, Anuire has been likened to France in size. Through the Renaissance period, IIRC France had a pop around 20 million. So <13 million is still a bit low. Recall that according to 2e, provinces were about 30 or 40 miles square (900-1600square miles). Population densities of 70-120 per square mile were pretty common even from Roman times through Renaissance. Take easy math at the low end of province size (1000sqmi) and multiply by the low end of pop (70/sqmi) and 70,000 people per province should be the low end. That fits with my suggested method of 50k + 10k per pop level.

So now you know the assumptions I was working off of :)

[Green Knight]

Yes, Anuire is small - the size of France.

Also, population density in Anuire is much much lower than in RW Europe. A lvl 4-6 province has a pop density of 10-40 people/square miles. And that doesn't take into account all the province with a lvl less than 4...

This is nowhere near what you are looking for.

[Sorontar]

I suspect that Rjurik places like Hogunmark are even lower density, or at least less urbanised. I would take them as the benchmark of what a low population means and then work your way up to the City of Anuire to be equivalent to Paris or London etc around 1400.

The problem with province levels is that they represent so much:
* population levels
* commerce levels
* industry levels
* how developed the land is (vs source potential)
etc etc

Level 0 means there is no real sense of society or organisation in the area except the odd family-based group but it doesn't mean no-one lives there.

Sorontar

[Green Knight]

Given that Anuire is a relatively homogeneous and small area that has been settled for 20 centuries, I'd say that infrastructure/industry/commerce etc. is fairly uniform throughout entire region.

That leave total population as the only real variable when it comes to province level.

Sure, there can be some exceptions, but as a general rule I'd stick with the above.

[vota dc]

According to this page http://www.birthright.net/brwiki/index.php/BRCS:Chapter_six/Armies_and_warfare/Military_units a unit is 128 soldiers.So Ghoere army (18 units) has 2304 soldiers.For a 128000 population is enough for medieval age,but with the compromise system,that is 800000 population is a very little army.
If we use the compromise we should also change the size of the units.

[Rowan]

IIRC, during the early industrial age, when Total War had become a possibility (an economic and military revolution allowing much larger proportions of the population to be engaged in warfare), France still only organized armies of 1 man for every 125 people. On the other end, Prussia had an extremely efficient militaristic society and engaged 1 in 25.

I think 1 in 100 is a reasonable rule of thumb. But you must consider that this would include the entire treasury tapped out, plus extensive loans, plus all the levies called up.

Ghoere's 2304 easily-maintained standing army is way too high for a population of 128,000. It's more doable for a population of 800,000. Call up all the levies and tap out all resources and finance the war, and I bet Ghoere could easily call up units such as would greatly exceed 8000, and thus greatly exceed the 1 in 100 rule of thumb.

[Birthright-L]

At 12:02 PM 8/3/2009, Rowan wrote:

>IIRC, during the early industrial age, when Total War had become a possibility (an economic and military revolution allowing much larger proportions of the population to be engaged in warfare), France still only organized armies of 1 man for every 125 people. On the other end, Prussia had an extremely efficient militaristic society and engaged 1 in 25.
>
>I think 1 in 100 is a reasonable rule of thumb. But you must consider that this would include the entire treasury tapped out, plus extensive loans, plus all the levies called up.

There are a lot of these kinds of numbers out there in the historiography world, so one should be a little cautious in using them as the basis of any analysis. I`ve heard some numbers as high as 10% of the population in "military" positions (which was defined as both front-line and support troops) for war periods. Other folks point out that in certain societies (pastoral nomads) nearly every able bodied man is considered a warrior, and just about every other member of the culture could be considered what we might want to call logistics and support. Then there are issues with the difference between a standing army and the sort of permanent reservists who can be called up to serve during the "war season" but expect to return home for agrarian work with their families for most of the year, but who may wind up serving for longer than is under many feudal systems considered their obligation.

>Ghoere`s 2304 easily-maintained standing army is way too high for a population of 128,000. It`s more doable for a population of 800,000. Call up all the levies and tap out all resources and finance the war, and I bet Ghoere could easily call up units such as would greatly exceed 8000, and thus greatly exceed the 1 in 100 rule of thumb.

One of the assumptions that people (myself included) usually make when looking at the BR system of large scale combat is that the units represent full-time soldiers. But do we really need to make that assumption? It does, at first blush, look like that, but couldn`t we just assume that the abstraction of the warcard/units is really a core of officers and sergeants, maybe just 12-15 men) while the majority of soldiers are called up in a sort of endless revolving series of recruitment and release? Actual war moves might include the soldiers being pressed into service, equipped, battered into some sort of military shape, etc.

Gary

[Rowan]

I didn't bring up the nomads and barbarian types because I wanted to stick with Anuire's civilization.

For agrarian civilizations, a lot depends on what time period/tech level you place them in. Total war required very organized and powerful centralized governments, reliable abundant crops, and major industrial production of materiel. I don't think Anuire's quite there, but I do like placing it well into Renaissance periods where landowners and nobility paid sufficient scutage to hire professional soldiers in their place. So I think full time armies is an acceptable abstraction. I believe the Roman infantry was similarly full-time for a good part of Rome's history.

I'd love to play a more medieval period with shorter seasons of warfare and the logistical issues that entails, but default BR rules don't accommodate that well. Your description of rotating soldiers comes close to allowing it with default rules, but is still a bit problematic (why keep rotating--why not let them stand down for a season or two? For those called up in Spring and Fall, how can they make a livelihood if they can't plant or harvest?). I've considered a number of rules variations to reflect limited service, but I haven't been able to play them yet :)

If we're going with full time, year-round soldiers, and we're looking to inform total population levels and vice versa, I think 1% of the population as an average, tapped-out, front-line military is a good rule of thumb. The other major demographic rule of thumb we typically operate under is that only 10% of the population lives in proper towns and cities, so 1% ready for military service seems well in perspective.

Ghoere is the most populous realm by any measure (40 province levels). I believe its wartime income could easily be around 110GB. It's 18 unit standing army might cost around 36GB if active. With wartime deficits (and using the treasury for Musters and actions), another 60-80 units of various types could be supported, active. That's some 7500-10000 men. Tapped out, 40 units of levies would represent at least 6000 more men. Thus it's possible for Ghoere at the beginning of a game to raise some 18,000 men for a season of heavy warfare, or sustain around 10,000 for a few seasons. That's way too many if the population is only 100-200,000. It's quite reasonable if the population is closer to 1-2 million. And keep in mind that by Ruling a few province levels, linking up a bunch of trade routes, and getting the Temples and Guilds almost fully behind you, and taking out loans, that army size is just a starting point. And, those figures were for active militaries; a smaller field army could be maintained with many more garrisoned reserves from which to field replacements.

[vota dc]

Ghoere has 50 GB income and it is already a militaristic realm with a big army:a X4 mobilization is nearly impossible,however you can reach a X2 easily.

However the classic system fails in other reigns.For example Chimaeron is an unpopulated reign (only 16000) but has 768 soldiers (5 irregulars and 1 mercenary infantry),that means 4,8%....a huge standing army.
Medoere has the same problem...and also...if Medoere is 21000 population,how it can get more troops than Endier that has 30000?
Classic system fails because too much gap between province levels.

[Rowan]

Yes, the smaller realms are problematic without some base level of settlement. Ghoere has a higher wartime income than that, though. 40 province levels * 1.5GB per level (heavy taxes) is 60GB. Then add at least 10GB for Law Holding income. Then add taxes on trade routes (probably at least a few GB). Then add required contributions of the guilds and temples during times of war (themselves raking in probably another good 60GB or more, with likely at least half of that commandeered by Ghoere during wartime). That's where I get >100GB starting income. Then there's Financing, Bless Land, and tapping the treasury. I think a massive army is pretty doable :)

[Birthright-L]

At 06:56 PM 8/3/2009, Rowan wrote:

>I`d love to play a more medieval period with shorter seasons of
>warfare and the logistical issues that entails, but default BR rules
>don`t accommodate that well. Your description of rotating soldiers
>comes close to allowing it with default rules, but is still a bit
>problematic (why keep rotating--why not let them stand down for a
>season or two? For those called up in Spring and Fall, how can they
>make a livelihood if they can`t plant or harvest?). I`ve considered
>a number of rules variations to reflect limited service, but I
>haven`t been able to play them yet :)

I`ve always assumed that the "average" soldier in a BR unit is
replaced or promoted fairly quickly, and that any experience of the
unit is really more of a reflection of the unit`s leaders rather than
a general XP level of all the individuals in it. That way, there
aren`t units made up of vastly experienced "privates" or "recruits"
who somehow manage to remain unrecognized despite their obvious
prowess. This interpretation of a unit as really being the core
members of its leadership with the "common soldiery" recruited on an
as-needed basis would follow along the same lines as that. Those
soldiers who distinguish themselves might be those who remain full
time soldiers, while the rest go back to their farms....

Gary

[Rowan]

At 06:56 PM 8/3/2009, Rowan wrote:


I`ve always assumed that the "average" soldier in a BR unit is
replaced or promoted fairly quickly, and that any experience of the
unit is really more of a reflection of the unit`s leaders rather than
a general XP level of all the individuals in it. That way, there
aren`t units made up of vastly experienced "privates" or "recruits"
who somehow manage to remain unrecognized despite their obvious
prowess. This interpretation of a unit as really being the core
members of its leadership with the "common soldiery" recruited on an
as-needed basis would follow along the same lines as that. Those
soldiers who distinguish themselves might be those who remain full
time soldiers, while the rest go back to their farms....

Gary

There's still the problem of those 100-or-so men per unit serving during the planting and harvest seasons. How do they subsist when they have no crops? Your units would have to be effectively disbanded during those seasons, I think.

[Birthright-L]

At 06:45 AM 8/4/2009, Rowan wrote:

>There`s still the problem of those 100-or-so men per unit serving
>during the planting and harvest seasons. How do they subsist when
>they have no crops? Your units would have to be effectively
>disbanded during those seasons, I think.

Well, this is all part of a generalized abstraction, so it needn`t
affect anything in particular.... That said, how often are units
really active year round in a way that would need to be reflected by
their actually being at full strength with full-time soldiers in them
24/7/365? Only combat really requires that they be seen as actually
occupied by the rank and file. Garrison duty is easily enough
explained. Any time troops remain in a particular province for a
turn is just as easily accounted for. Movement might be explained as
the cost of disbanding troops, the travel of the officers and
sergeants, and then pressing into service new soldiers, or recalling
those who have been allowed to return home. Since that could all
take place within a province, we`re talking about distances of maybe
10-15 miles... and in that context, we should bear in mind that
nobody even really knows how large a BR battlefield was originally
meant to be. It`s a very simple grid, but that grid might represent
any number of small skirmishes ranging over a province (a war turn is
a week long...) rather than some sort of set piece battle.

Gary

[vota dc]

But the compromise system fails too for mustering.
Classic system 1 level = 1000 2 level = 4000 / compromise system 1 level = 50000 2 level = 60000 both doesn't explain why for 2 level you have the double of troops (too few with the classic and too much with the compromise).

Maybe the easiest solution is
1 level = 10000, 2 level = 20000....10 level = 100000
Then we could use modifier for elves and "unpopulated reigns" level 1 = 6000 etc,for goblins we can use 12000,for dwarves 8000

Aerenwe 200000 (184000 with modifier for the forest)
Alamie 220000 (212000 with modifier for the north)
Avanil 370000
Baruk-Azhik 190000 (152000 with modifier)
Boeruine 360000
Brosengae 120000
Cariele 130000
Chimaeron 100000 (60000 with modifier)
Coeranys 200000 (176000 with modifier for province on Chimaeron border)
Dhoesone 220000 (132000 with modifier)
Diemed 230000
Elinie 200000 (192000 with modifier on the swamp province)
Endier 60000
Five Peaks 210000 (180000 with north goblin and south bandits)
Gorgon's Crown 330000
Ghoere 400000
Ilien 70000
Imperial City 100000
Markazor 200000 (240000 with modifier)
Medoere 90000
Mhoried 310000 (278000 with modifier on north)
Mieres 210000 (170000 with modifier on south and inner provinces)
Mur-Kilad 80000 (64000 with modifier)
Osoerde 200000 (184000 with modifier on sunken lands and spiritsend)
Rhuobhe 20000 (12000 with modifier)
Roesone 210000 (198000 with modifier on Abbatour)
Sielwode 240000 (144000 with modifier)
Spiderfell 50000 (60000 with modifier)
Taeghas 230000
Taline 180000 (160000 with modifier on Thurazor border)
Thurazor 180000 (216000 with modifier)
Tuarhievel 220000 (132000 with modifier)
Tuornen 230000 (194000 if I put modifier on north and west-Rhuobhe and Five Peaks keep low the population,and also make sense that Tuornen fear Alamie)

[Sorontar]

So now Ghoere is only "just" larger than Avanil and Boeruine?

Sorontar

[Rowan]

If we're looking for the most popular standard to use in the BRwiki realm descriptions, there are a couple of things we could try:

1. Have a poll for which of several methods is most popular. This may not get enough participation to really be representative.

2. Use whatever published standard there is for province levels/population levels. This would result in the very low population numbers.

3. Link from every Domain page to a Population page discussing the various alternatives and presenting a succinct list or table of population numbers for each game region (Anuire, Cities of the Sun, Havens of the Great Bay, etc) for each population determination method. This might be the most complete and fair. It could even provide quick summaries of advantages and drawbacks of each method, or what assumptions/purposes the various methods were designed for.


Regardless, I think somewhere we do need to note what method we used.

We've discussed 3 methods here: the BRCS Province Level chart; a 10,000 people per province level, adjusted for race/region; and a compromise base 40,000 per province +10,000 per level, adjusted for race/region.

The fourth option I can recall being discussed in the population threads was mentioned earlier, and I think Kgauck originally proposed it. That is that Cerilia has been settled for plenty sufficient centuries to be considered fully settled to the extent possible for current technology (carrying capacity more or less reached in every civilized province). This would then fix a population for each province according to maximum province level (by terrain and race), using that base of 10,000 per level. Thus every human-inhabited Plains province would actually have 80,000 people, 90,000 if by a river and 100,000 if Coastal. Here, province levels represent organization and economic development, level of control and infrastructure.

This latter option can also have optional modifiers, as well. Modifiers proposed include changes to the base numbers for race and for length of civilization (Decadent realms like Avanil and Diemed might have 10% higher pops, while Refugee or Frontier or Wild areas might have far fewer). This system, I think, offers the most realism, but begs some further impact for the population (larger armies possible but perhaps more problems in the Decadent realms; much slower province Ruling among the less populated areas).

I favor the Population wiki page approach with the 4 options outlined. To avoid confusion and having to correct the BRCS, Domain pages can retain their miniscule population numbers by that formula.

[Rowan]

By the way, I recently came across a few scattered charts and references mentioning European populations. The best internet sources I've seen regarding population estimates from 0-1600AD I can't seem to find right now. Of course, the best sources aren't on the internet.

I've posted figures for Europe over time, for France, and for the Roman Empire. This is because I operate on the assumption that:
A. Cerilia is about the size of Europe;
B. Anuire is about the size of at least medieval France;
C. The Anuirean Empire at its height was roughly comparable to the Roman Empire at some major historical period.
D. Anuire (25%) is the most populous region, followed by Brechtur (18%), Khinasi(12%), Rjurik(8%), Vosgaard (5%), Dwarves, and Elves, with goblins (25%), orogs, and gnolls(7%) fitting in probably around the middle. I'd place these groups at a percentage of total continental population equal to what I have in parenthesis after their number, though this could vary significantly. Of course, these races vary in their ability to use the land, and are typically more specialized in how well they can use the terrain and how dense their populations are, such that elves, dwarves, and orogs at least really shouldn't count in any comparison to human populations of the real world (I've left them out of the % of total calcs).

I'm not looking for an absolute analogue, just something to inform our numbers. I realize that the non-human populations and regions of Cerilia throw off comparisons, but given the stability inherently assumed in D&D settings with 3000 years of medieval/Renaissance technology and the availability of clerical magic (presumably meaning that "medical" care was much better than in our real world earlier history), I tend to think that human settlement should be pretty populous within its tech level period.

The figures posted below suggest a few things:
1. Population fluctuates up and down, but only over many generations/centuries, so the snapshot years or (occasionally) decades during which a BR game is played should NOT involve much real population change (unless there's something like the Black Death). Thus, the Stable, Settled assumption (option 4 above) that doesn't have Rule Province adding 10's of thousands of people to the population is the most reasonable approach, historically.

2. As a side note, in the discussion of Roman populations lower in this post, my benchmark of 1% of the population normally being available for the soldiery is supported. There's a link including Crusader figures suggesting that Knights can be supported around 0.1%, or 10% of the fighting force (of 1% of pop).

3. Even taking the _lowest_ population figures for analogue time periods and slashing them dramatically in HALF, the Anuirean Empire at its height may have had some (45million/2) 22 million people; Cerilia may now have (38/2, 50/2, or 103/2) 19/25/50 million people depending on whether you place it at 1000, 1350, or 1650AD (closer to the latter end being within the Renaissance period most of Cerilia is supposed to be experiencing); and Anuire could have anywhere from 8-10million.

4. Thus you can see that, if the geographical assumptions are correct, option 4 as I presented in the previous post, which renders the highest populations (probably around 30-50% higher than the Compromise option 3), is still a little low. It can still account for the esistence of the non-human races.

I think this shows that options 3 and 4 are much, much more reasonable than options 1 and 2, if any comparison is to be drawn at all from history. Options 1 and 2 support only something like 3-10% of the real world figures.

1650 Europe at 103 million
http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/ChinaFood/data/pop/pop_6.htm
http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/history/world-population-growth.htm

www.thesolutionsite.com/lesson/862/population_graph.doc
Year Population
1000 38 million
1100 48 million
1200 59 million
1300 70 million
1347 75 million
1352 50 million

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_France#Historical_population_of_me tropolitan_France
Population of France:
1226 16,000,000
1345 20,200,000
1400 16,600,000
1457 19,700,000
1580 20,000,000
1594 18,500,000
1600 20,000,000
1670 18,000,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_demography
400-1000: stable at a low level.
1000-1250: population boom and expansion.
1250-1350: stable at a high level.
1350-1420: steep decline
1420-1470: stable at a low level.
1470-onward: slow expansion gaining momentum in the early 16th century.

1250-1350
By 1300 Europe had too many people and not enough grain production.[2] England, which had a population of around 1 million people in 1086, is estimated to have grown to somewhere between 5 and 7 million people. France in 1328 (which was geographically smaller than France is today) was believed to have supported 18 to 20 million people, which it would not surpass again until the early modern period. The region of Tuscany had 2 million people in 1300, which it would not reach again until 1850. Overall, the population of Europe is believed to have reached a peak of 70 to 100 million. By comparison, the 27 member-states of the European Union in 2009 had a population of 499.6 million. This compares to grain yields that in the 14th century were between 2:1 and 7:1 (2:1 means for every seed planted, 2 are harvested). Modern grain yields are 30:1 or more, but the population is only 5-7 times higher.


http://www.unrv.com/empire/roman-population.php

"The population of the world circa AD 1 has been considered to be between 200 and 300 million people. In that same period, the population of the early empire under Augustus has been placed at about 45 million. "

"At the height of Roman power in the mid 2nd century AD, conservative opinion is that the Empire was comprised of some 65 million people."

"Breaking down the 65 million population estimate, some additional assumptions can be made:

* 500,000 soldiers (legionaries totalling 150,000 and auxilia making up the rest)
* Approximately 600 Senators made up the elite of the elite.
* Perhaps up to 30,000 men filled the roles of Equestrians (knights), or the second tier of the aristocracy.
* 10 to 30% or 6 million to 19 million people lived in the cities, leaving the vast majority of some 46 to 59 million people to live in the country as independent and mostly tenant farmers.
* Rome itself was made up of over 1 million people and, though it would shrink remarkably after the fall of the west, no city would surpass that number until the great urban population booms of the industrial age, 1,500 years or more later.
* The slave population of Rome approached 500,000 on its own, probably half of which were owned by the 600 men of the Senate. Additional estimates have suggested that of the total 65 million people, 2 to 10 million may have been slaves.

After the plagues of the 160's to 170's AD, and the wars of Marcus Aurelius, the population of the empire fell from its previous high, likely down to about 40 million in total. By the beginning of the 4th century, and the reign of Constantine, civil wars and foreign incursions had taken their toll. The number had grown again, likely to somewhere around 55 million, but the rate of growth had obviously slowed considerably."
http://www.google.com/search?

q=Roman+population&hl=en&tbs=tl:1&tbo=u&ei=PZF5Sp2YH47wMcykrKMO&sa=X&oi=timeline_result&ct=title&resnum=15

http://www.tulane.edu/~august/H303/handouts/Population.htm

"In 100 A.D., Rome boasted a population of over 1,000,000 permanent residents; Alexandria was perhaps between 500,000 and 750,000. The cities of Antioch, Ephesus and Carthage had populations on the order of 350,000 to 500,000 residents. "

"The imperial army perhaps mobilized for military service 3-4% of an adult males reckoned at 4.5 million."

Western Europe: Figures for Western show remarkable growth from 900 A.D. on as northern Europeans cleared forests and perfected deep ploughing techniques. By the eleventh century the populations of Western exceeded those of the Mediterranean world and Near East for the first time in history.

Crusader States: By 1140, the Crusaders occupied the most densely populated regions of the Levant, possibly dominating 1,625,000 residents. Crusader numbers can be sensed by the number of knights who could take field in 1140. The King of Jerusalem could field 675 knights from his vassals and additional 300 knights of the military monastic orders of the Templars and Hospitalars. The Count of Tripoli could field possibly 100 knights; the Prince of Antioch and Count of Edessa together could field no more than 700 knights. This was a potential force of 1,775 knights, but the greatest host that ever engaged was at the Battle of Hattin in 1187, and King Guy of Jersualem could muster no more than 1,200 knights.

[vota dc]

A poll is a good idea,but I still don't understand why giving so importance to the number of provinces for the population.A level 3 province realm could bully against 3 allied realms of 1 province each,but with the territorial system they have less than half population.If the problem is population,we could increase to 20000,or even 30000 for level.


So now Ghoere is only "just" larger than Avanil and Boeruine?

Sorontar

Eheehehehe.It is interesting:the classic system create a big gap between 4,5 and 6 level while a 3 province level has similar population to a 4 level.Because Boeruine has 3 provinces of level 6,it has more population of Ghoere.
The compromise system and the Kgauck system give more population to expanded realms,so Ghoere has more population since has 10 provinces.
My system is based on the total provinces level and Ghoere has more than Boereuine and Avanil.

OT I noticed an error here http://www.birthright.net/brwiki/index.php/Table_5-1:_Province_Level#Table_5-1:_Province_Level mountains max level should be 3,but Brosengae has a 4 level mountain province

[AndrewTall]

OT I noticed an error here http://www.birthright.net/brwiki/index.php/Table_5-1:_Province_Level#Table_5-1:_Province_Level mountains max level should be 3,but Brosengae has a 4 level mountain province

It's on the coast - so the normal max is increased by 2 from recollection. Of course the map suggests that it's as much plains as mountains anyway...

[Rowan]

A poll is a good idea,but I still don't understand why giving so importance to the number of provinces for the population.A level 3 province realm could bully against 3 allied realms of 1 province each,but with the territorial system they have less than half population.If the problem is population,we could increase to 20000,or even 30000 for level.

Number of provinces should be far more important than province level for determining population. This is because provinces represent territory. Most territory (provinces) in Cerilia are claimed and settled. Anuire in particular has been settled for 2-3,000 years. Even Dhoesone shows up on the timeline as being over 1000 years old. Settled land naturally fills to a certain density based on available arable land and amount of food imports. Land thus has a carrying capacity, dependent upon the efficiency of the populace in supporting population.

Although BR has usually provided some chart listing a population number next to a province level, it has also always been careful to explain that province level means much more than population. And those population charts were made by people who really had no clue about demographics and history.

Furthermore, the functional BR domain action rules actually only make sense if the population is pretty stable and independent of province level. I mentioned these before, but consider that:
1. Provinces can be Ruled up by 1 level every year. Yet we know historically that if that were population growth, even population growth by migration hardly ever happens that fast. Instead, populations in a settled region vary only over whole generations, and even then generally by just a percentage, not by 50% or more.
2. Provinces can lose levels by Pillaging. Do you really think Pillaging means massacring thousands, even 10 or 20,000 people? If so, must it be done in such a mathematical fashion--make sure you kill 10,000 to drop that province level by 1 and gather up 6GB.
3. Even more telling, provinces can lose levels by the deaths of Levies outside their borders. Now we're talking about the whole province losing a level when a few hundred men get killed or dispersed.

These things are much more reasonably explained by making population almost entirely independent of province level and instead acknowledging that province level is a representation of the infrastructure, organization, centralization of government, efficiency, and economic sophistication of a populace in a given territory.

Your level 3 province realm is able to take on 3 level 1 province realms not because of population, but because it is run more efficiently, its government has more control and organization over a more sophisticated people. Prussia was able to spank France all over the map not just because they had better tactics, but the Prussian army was even similarly sized (despite France being much larger) because Prussia was organized more efficiently. The U.S. today is more powerful and has more economic output than many countries that are much larger, even ones like China that are 4x as large. This is a matter of organization and better utilization of resources, not of population.

[Sorontar]

I tend to agree with Rowan.

Population size can be derived from province level, but province level does not govern population size.

Let us say that the original BR ruleset and atlas described a "stable" world where each province was equal technological and bureaucratic capability with respect to its population. Therefore, if it was a level 3 province then it would have the same size industries etc as any other level 3 province. Therefore, from that we can say that all level 3 provinces *at that moment of time* have roughly the same population. Therefore, we have our table of level vs population range, which can be used to define the populations for any province that is to be used in a campaign.

However, once the campaign starts, we can ignore the table. If a province's level goes up or down, it does not mean that the population changes. If the population changes, it does not mean that the level changes. The table is best for setting up the game, not for use in the game.

Sorontar.

[Sorontar]

Just been thinking about one thing that throughout history has rapidly increased the population size of regions - gold rushes. It happened in Australia. It happened in the US of A. I suspect it has happened all over the world. Would you agree that

gold -> population increase -> industry increase -> asset increase -> technology increase

for an area as new businesses, roads and skills spring up to meet the needs of the larger community.

This is one way that I can see that a "random event" can change a province level and its population in one season. After one year, the population may drop back down but I imagine that many of the other changes will stay, provided they are "maintained" by regents.

Sorontar

[Green Knight]

I must say I wholeheartedly disagree and restate a previous comment:

Population is the governing factor when it comes to population level. People do not live in a vacuum, but rather must be supported by all the trappings of civilization. You can't have 100.000 Anuireans living in one 'primitive' province, all huddling in little hut and doing nothing productive. The province will have to be well-settled for a long time, and will sport an array of towns and cities supported by farmlands.

Moreover, population growth is a steady inevitable process, limited only by available land and technology level. You could possibly speed this process along by investing a lot of time and energy (rule province action; although as written it is broken IMO) or have events affect it (both positively or negatively - war, famine and plague comes to mind), but by an large it is an automatic process.

So in concision; if you take two lvl 4 Anuirean provinces, chances are very high that those provinces will have a similar total population (and about the same level of 'infrastructure or whatnot). There might be some exceptions, but not very many.

[Mirviriam]

About that roman empire thing - need to check those facts for what they are qualifying in surveys...

~Pre 500 or 600 CE if not all, most of the roman survey's only counted 'citizens', those not recognized by the government or not contributing to the army did not get counted. (it's been at least 8 years since I've looked at my professors notes of his understudy in Italy).

Then there's a large discussion about if slaves were counted when the head of the household annouced how many people he claimed to have.

The other portion to consider is that in those counts they often didn't include all of their terrorities till certain periods or requirements were met.

I suggest that the population levels with small considerations be reversed engineered from the game mechanics...for the simply reason that they were ignored as being relatively unimportant in the scheme of things, when the game mechanics & world history are completely arbitrary (versus the real world where food & population with technology decided the history).

1) Find solid facts based off of data from no earlier than 1,000 CE & then the size of the armies/navies they had to determine the proportion of army to population.

2) Take the current province levels and assume basic infantry units are raised upto the max level of the province.

3) Apply the proportion decided from step 1.

OT: We shouldn't necessarily exclude the bubonic plague, as there are a number of evil wizards out there who can call it up to decimate various regions, and sadly history has proven that most churches require $$ (under what ever term they call it to hide the greed) for their help.

On topic again:

# of province versus level of provinces arguments are useless. The Jurgens took over China with less population/land ... though arguably they had better density (which doesn't show really in text books). Regardless, it would be wrong to make assumptions of densities of people always increasing when the wars during their midevil periods had the equivalent of super-nuclear weapons in play.

[Rowan]

On gold rushes: I don't think most of them resulted in immediate and lasting increases in the power and influence of a region. Seems most were chaotic affairs conducted by largely poor people who constructed temporary settlements that often later became ghost towns. And still, that population migrated from somewhere; it was not "created." A better example of "Rule Province," IMO, is the founding of Constantinople. Refugees created by war can also shift populations, but it generally takes them quite some time to become integrated and not be a nuisance and burden on the area they migrate to. And again, it's migration. If most realms in Anuire are attempting to Rule every few years, that would seem to preclude migration. Pillaging and random events can reduce organization and infrastructure in a realm, however, offsetting much of those Rule Province actions.


Population is the governing factor when it comes to population level. People do not live in a vacuum, but rather must be supported by all the trappings of civilization. You can't have 100.000 Anuireans living in one 'primitive' province, all huddling in little hut and doing nothing productive. The province will have to be well-settled for a long time, and will sport an array of towns and cities supported by farmlands.
Wherever did you get the idea that they're all "primitive?" People can use whatever farming techniques they have available and live in villages and towns and do plenty of productive things and still not be organized into a powerful nation. Many leaders, like Louis XIV, took the great unused potential of their realms and rapidly restructured it, greatly empowering centralized government, greatly expanding the ability to tax and organize the people, greatly improving the infrastructure of the realm and enabling much more mercantile activity. THAT is what Ruling is; it has very little to do with increasing population. It's just better organizing what's already there.

So yeah, Ghoere can have plains provinces with 80-90,000 people, hills with 70-80,000 people, living in various towns and farming communities. To the extent that Ghoere improves administration and efficiency, it can better utilize those people, make the country more stable and turn its productivity towards more focused goals, collect more taxes and open up opportunity for mercantile expansion and the better distribution of skills and resources. In fact, the rules as written in both the original boxed set and the BRCS speak of this. They also speak of how there are a lot of people living in the provinces who aren't necessarily well organized or under the thumb of the central government.

On the Rome statistics: Yes, I am well aware of the census irregularities and incompleteness. If you had read the sources you would have seen that they addressed these as well. You realize that if you're arguing that my numbers are just male citizens, the actual populations are much higher? And thus put in perspective, Cerilian populations are even more ridiculously low?


I suggest that the population levels with small considerations be reversed engineered from the game mechanics...for the simply reason that they were ignored as being relatively unimportant in the scheme of things, when the game mechanics & world history are completely arbitrary (versus the real world where food & population with technology decided the history).
By all means, if population isn't important to you, ignore it entirely. For many of us, Birthright holds an attraction because we would like to simulate life and rulership in a roughly historically-analogous time period with fantastical elements. We seek realistic explanations for things. If you're not interested in realism, why participate in simulationist discussions?

I reject the idea of reverse engineering from game mechanics, though. That's just bass-ackwards. Game systems are first intended to simulate something in reality, then modified for fantastical elements. Why you would first make a rule and then try to explain it is beyond me. I'd rather have as realistic a world (and interaction of fantastical elements) as can possibly be described by fairly simple rules.



1) Find solid facts based off of data from no earlier than 1,000 CE & then the size of the armies/navies they had to determine the proportion of army to population.
I gave you a bunch of those, as well. And the Rome statistics were likely weighted, if anything, conservatively.


2) Take the current province levels and assume basic infantry units are raised upto the max level of the province.

3) Apply the proportion decided from step 1.

I don't understand what you mean here.


Regardless, it would be wrong to make assumptions of densities of people always increasing when the wars during their midevil periods had the equivalent of super-nuclear weapons in play.
What "super-nuclear weapons?" Realm spells? Not if wizards are few and far between, generally low level, often easily counter-acted by clerics or hunted down if they start laying about them with Mass Destruction spells and Death Plagues (if they can even cast the latter). Have you looked at the descriptions of those spells? Hardly "nuclear." They can inflict just a few hits on a few units at VERY, VERY high RP and GB cost. I don't know how many BR games you've played, but in my experience, and from what I can see of the impacts of the rules, Wizards have a fairly minor impact on casualties in war.

That magic exists to make life easier would have a greater impact. Bless Land and similar magics can easily represent improved crops and reduced disease. I know you're down on religion, but religions in the real world freely did what they could to reduce the spread of plagues (they threatened everyone), so I reject your notion that the existence of curative magics has no effective impact on life in such a setting as this.


I really don't know why you guys are trying so hard to justify arbitrary and uninformed game mechanics (province levels and tables) when becoming informed and thus making better game interpretations is so easy and so clear. When in doubt, shouldn't you err on the side of historicity? What is so sacred to you about tiny populations and population densities so low people have no neighbors?

I think I've shown that, in light of the historical setting from which this game takes its inspiration, the populations stated in the game materials are ridiculously low, and the idea of tying population to province level creates even more problems, considering the availability of Rule Province actions and the various things that reduce province level. Why not change our description of those actions and statistics in the game just a little bit and make it much more realistic?

[vota dc]

High level provinces have already better quality troops.I don't expect to outnumber 10 to 1 (or to fight with even number against a realm with X10 my population) another province with the same population because I am more organized.Even if they cannot afford a realm army they could use peasants with forks,just like Lord of the Realms.

[Mirviriam]

Rowan -

' "YOUR PRIESTS CAN'T SAVE YOU NOW!! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!" ' EDIT: in reference to the plagues...OT now:

Read all the pages before i posted, my point about the statistics - they're flawed naming only the number of people who could have been part of the army. What if you just say, "The population levels of the birthright setting listed are for men capable of fighting only." Just like the roman surveys? Discussion over?

According to most of the posters I've been reading...the power of the realms lies in their army mustering. Therefore, I called for preserving the power balance & not having to remake the game completely, but allowing you to insert the population levels you expect( # of units mustered TIMES ratio of people to soldiers supported ). That way all realms still create the same amount of units & the population matches what you expect.

You still have to look in to which period you're going to use for your ratio...I'd actually recommend doing based on argicultural technology. Nothing later than Dark Ages? Pre the mass cotton movements.

Also - you can't look at balance as just one level 3 province pushing 3 level 1 provinces around...gotta be by region when you run the simulations.

OFF Topic: Since you're asking about my personal views...we're talking either redesign birthright totally: history, political geography & mechanics or work within the system already existing. I'm going at the game as if it was designed for ages 12 & up. The more selective you history buffs become in the rules and settings, the more elitist and less players we have.

Which means one of two things...accept the game is dead and will limp along till most of us hit 50 or become bored of eachother or design it to be played easily by as many people as possible in as many ways as they wish.

I like the idea of historical influences, I really do. If you inflate the number of common people, then you need to inflate the number of mages and priests, thus pushing how many high level mages will exist & making magic more influential in history. How far will it go though? When does the idea of birthright making sense interfere with players laughing & having a cold soda on a saturday afternoon on their back porch with the barbeque going? Try to imagion it's people other than yourselves & they're young.

Personally I've said three times already we should have levels of Birthright play...because otherwise to keep creating new rules & ad-hoc'ing them on to the old ones is going the route of thinking which says Birthright is dead, we might as well make it exactly what we want instead of an open place for everyone.

I tried searching on it when I came back this year...was there every any official dialogue about the designing of the game, methods of play encouraged, balance issues ... beyond keep it simple(ultimately the best advice but still)?

[Birthright-L]

At 11:29 PM 8/5/2009, Green Knight wrote:

>Population is the governing factor when it comes to population level.

Since this is a bit of a quibble anyway, I`ll go ahead and quibble a bit. Population is the governing factor of...
population. Population LEVEL is a gaming quantification of the general effects of population in a particular province. It`s not a census. It`s not a rating of technological advancement. It`s open to interpretation.

>People do not live in a vacuum, but rather must be supported by all the trappings of civilization. You can`t have 100.000 Anuireans living in one `primitive` province, all huddling in little hut and doing nothing productive. The province will have to be well-settled for a long time, and will sport an array of towns and cities supported by farmlands.

Well, they`d certainly not live in a single hut and do nothing... but why couldn`t 100,000 Anuireans live in a space 30 miles by 30 miles or so in relatively primitive conditions? Let`s call 30x30 is 900 square miles, but let`s say one thousand square miles just for the sake of simple math. That`s 100 people per square mile, or 6.4 acres per person. Give me that many acres and I could drop right off the grid... arguably, contributing "nothing productive" to a regent`s demesne other than, say, some RP.

>Moreover, population growth is a steady inevitable process, limited only by available land and technology level. You could possibly speed this process along by investing a lot of time and energy (rule province action; although as written it is broken IMO) or have events affect it (both positively or negatively - war, famine and plague comes to mind), but by an large it is an automatic process.

Population growth is steady and inevitable... when viewed from the regional/national POV. At the level of a province like that described by the BR domain rules, though, it can be much more dynamic and unpredictable, and our ability to use historical demographic studies to reflect what we`re talking about in the setting becomes much more dicey. Lots of folks want to do things like cite a study on the Languedoc region of France in the 15th century, and use that as the basis for their interpretation of BR population levels. But BR does a bad job of modelling real world historical settings, and the extrapolation of one survey into the game doesn`t accurately portray the range of influences that exist in the setting, nor does it take into consideration the vagaries of the study itself, or even the simple fact that it is a much broader study than the things being described in the setting.

>So in concision; if you take two lvl 4 Anuirean provinces, chances are very high that those provinces will have a similar total population (and about the same level of `infrastructure or whatnot). There might be some exceptions, but not very many.

Let me make the following comparison, to illustrate what I think might be the issue. Consider these provinces: Moriel in Osoerde and the nearby province, Ruorven in Coeranys. Both have a population level of 4. Both are Anuirean. Both are in the Eastern Marches. Both are inhabited by humans. Both are rightfully ruled by a chaotic good regent. They have law, guild temple and source holdings within a level of each other. The domains of both lands are generally described as having horses and cattle as major resources. They have the same terrain types (though in differing amounts) in them.

Despite those many fundamental similarities, they are very different places and the population of those provinces would have very different rates of productivity.

Moriel is the capital of Osoerde. It has a city of the same name that is large enough to get a little star on the BR map. Though supposedly ruled by Jaison Raenech; the rightful ruler, William Moergan, is fighting for his throne, so the land is in a state of civil war. Most of the province is plains, though a little smidge in the corner is swampland. The central location of the province makes it a good HQ for the government seat, and it is described as being a place from which the usurper can easily affect his entire domain. The political situation makes the population "cowed" and that certainly suggests a certain lack of productivity, innovation and freedom. We can, therefore, surmise that the population of Moriel is at the high end of whatever a level 4 population level represents because it is a capital, but because of the political situation, the boring terrain and the constant threat of war, the population is less productive than it could be simply because they are unable to operate with much freedom or opportunity.

In contrast, Ruorven is half swamp, and half its borders are water (river or coast.) Its rulership is pretty benevolent and stable. We can imagine that the swamp acts as a kind of natural border with the domain`s neighbor to the south, preventing most really serious problems from easily slipping into the province. Swamps are not known for their population-friendly characteristics, since things like disease and unkind animals reside there in plenty. Plus, it`s hard to build in places where the mud sucks up buildings. However, the coast makes fishing a possibility and in combination with the river that means traffic can pass up and downstream from anywhere in the world, carrying goods that can be exploited, traded or taxed. The overall domain has its own military provinces what with the border with the Chimaeron but it`s relatively secure since that awnshegh is less expansive than others. All things considered, that province`s population numbers would probably be on the low end of what a population 4 province represents, but the advantages of the province`s political situation, location, terrain, and features make it more likely to be productive rather than densely populated.

Folks often have different ideas about how many actual people a population level represents, so I`ll not bother with actual numbers. My point is that whatever a population level is, there can certainly be a range within that level that we can assume to include a wide range of significant factors that illustrate not just a head count, but the ability of the population of a province to actually contribute.

Gary

[Rowan]

Mirviriam:


What if you just say, "The population levels of the birthright setting listed are for men capable of fighting only." Just like the roman surveys? Discussion over?
That's one explanation that would work better, yes. I think that creates the confusion of people wanting to somehow justify fielding half or more of that listed population on the battlefield (like later European Total War). I also think it leaves people who really are interested in knowing how many people live in the province and how many people you rule rather high and dry.

It also assumes a much larger population. So what's wrong with just providing some general measure of about what that population is? Like 10,000 people for each maximum terrain level in long-settled provinces?


According to most of the posters I've been reading...the power of the realms lies in their army mustering. Therefore, I called for preserving the power balance & not having to remake the game completely, but allowing you to insert the population levels you expect( # of units mustered TIMES ratio of people to soldiers supported ). That way all realms still create the same amount of units & the population matches what you expect.
What do the population numbers we've seen have to do with how many units you can raise in the game? They don't affect the game's mechanics at all, whether you say a province has a population of 1,000 or 100,000. The effect on gameplay is in how you describe things, how believable they are. That's where the historical view is far superior to the arbitrary and uninformed base population tables.

The important thing to note is that this historical view is already totally compatible with all the game mechanics in question. It's just a matter of how we're describing things, and what we say the population is (which actually has no effect on game play, per the game mechanics). So I don't see how you can have any concerns about this:

either redesign birthright totally: history, political geography & mechanics or work within the system already existing. I'm going at the game as if it was designed for ages 12 & up. The more selective you history buffs become in the rules and settings, the more elitist and less players we have.

Which means one of two things...accept the game is dead and will limp along till most of us hit 50 or become bored of eachother or design it to be played easily by as many people as possible in as many ways as they wish.

I am talking about working withing the system. I agree with keeping the system simple. In fact, in my own version of the game, it is quite a bit simpler than RAW or 3.x BRCS. But the descriptions are more historically accurate, more realistic, and less impeded by rules anomalies. This isn't about elitism or complexity or a total redesign of the system. It's about the most realistic description of the existing rules, or (in the case of warfare) minor/not appreciably more complex rules changes.


You still have to look in to which period you're going to use for your ratio...I'd actually recommend doing based on argicultural technology. Nothing later than Dark Ages? Pre the mass cotton movements.
Depending on when you place the so-called "dark ages," you might find yourself in the Medieval Warming Period with populations higher than you'll find again until the 18th century :) I favor 1500/1600s, as the setting has consistently spoken of Anuire, Brechtur, and Khinasi having Renaissance-level technology.


I tried searching on it when I came back this year...was there every any official dialogue about the designing of the game, methods of play encouraged, balance issues ... beyond keep it simple(ultimately the best advice but still)?
In the development of the 3.x playtest, I think so. I wasn't really around then. Some 4e discussion has gone on since, but we've got several personal versions of that going on.

I agree with your "3 levels" concept; I've been working on a system that is more scalable, intended to allow play at the intra-holding level to the traditional domain level to a greater Faction or Alliance level. These necessitate different levels of detail, which could actually be used at any level, but keep the time/effort overhead consistent if used in the appropriate level.

I plan on promoting my version of the system the good-old-fashioned way--through the marketplace of ideas. If it proves simple enough and elegant enough to be successful in PBEMs, it may get adopted and used as a major alternative version. If not, hopefully at least some of the concepts will prove useful to other people in their games.

[Birthright-L]

I floated this idea quite a while back, and in the context of the
current discussion I`d just like to reiterate it.

Why should a system that uses population levels and holding levels go
to units of soldiers at all? Shouldn`t military power be represented
in a system that works more along the lines of a holding? That is,
the military in a province 6/1 might be an Army(4) and
Navy(2). Military battles would work in a way that compares to
contest holdings. The exact composition of a military unit needn`t
be any more articulated than the population and holding levels, or if
one has a rationale for how population or holdings are physically
manifested, the military units would be portrayed in a way that
compares to that.

Whether the military units are capped at population level might be up
to the DM, but it could go in one of four ways:

1. Military units cannot exceed population level.
2. Maximum military units might be equal to some combination of
population and holding levels.
3. Military units have two different costs: the first up to pop.
level, the second for the cost after having reached pop. level.
4. Military levels have no relationship to population (like fortifications.)

Other factors (terrain, racial issues, technological advances, etc.)
might also add a point or two to the maximum levels or cost of
creating units. Province rulers should have an advantage over most
other regents when creating military units. Units move out of the
respective provinces in a "War" action with costs equal to the number
of levels moved and the distance travelled. Conflicts are resolved
like Contest actions with units reduced or destroyed based on the
results, and RP can be spent on them just like any other action.

Like provinces and holdings, a military (X) "holding" would represent
a general number of troops and troop types, but only in the abstract
way that need not really be articulated in detail. That is, where a
temple holding might represent six small, three medium and one large
structure along with a staff of various levels, a similarly rated
military of a province might be six irregulars, three veterans and
one elite unit.

I know this is something of a departure from what most folks are used
to, but... well, the original concept of how to resolve battled in BR
was something of a weird departure from many of the existing game
mechanics. That departure has led to all kinds of arguments in the
BR community about what those units really represent. Those kinds of
discussions are interesting, but wouldn`t it be simpler and more
sensible to just put a system in place that compares to the already
abstract domain rules and employs the same kinds of ideas, rather
than break into a warcard/unit by unit wargame in the middle of a domain turn?

Of course, the details would need to be worked out, but in the long
run doesn`t this sound like it`d work better, and make more sense
with the domain rules than turning the war portion of the setting
into an entirely different mini-game?

Gary

[Mirviriam]

Gary - I like the idea - as it explains how rome over reached itself and tore itself apart after the great leaders died off.

The minimalist approach of D&D means that any unit over the province level has to be mercancy (still keeping in tune with the rome theme).

Any objections as such? What the province level as limiting factor is saying is that basically you don't have enough people, to train, coordinate, equip, feed, etc large groups of ppl being made into soldiers. Then it hurts the economy & normal life to do so ...

SO now, you're saying it just became more expensive to do as they are renting rooms, training grounds, buying up extra food, hiring more fitters?

The one thing that always mystified me is that provinces only lost their level on the domain tax sheet after the unit was destroyed or not disbanded in their home province (referring to levies). The province level should adjust the minute the men begin training.

[Mirviriam]

Mirviriam:

...What do the population numbers we've seen have to do with how many units you can raise in the game? They don't affect the game's mechanics at all, whether you say a province has a population of 1,000 or 100,000. The effect on gameplay is in how you describe things, how believable they are. That's where the historical view is far superior to the arbitrary and uninformed base population tables.

The important thing to note is that this historical view is already totally compatible with all the game mechanics in question. It's just a matter of how we're describing things, and what we say the population is (which actually has no effect on game play, per the game mechanics). ...

I agree with your "3 levels" concept; I've been working on a system that is more scalable, intended to allow play at the intra-holding level to the traditional domain level to a greater Faction or Alliance level. These necessitate different levels of detail, which could actually be used at any level, but keep the time/effort overhead consistent if used in the appropriate level.


To the first point - yea - the number of fighting men idea seemed like far fetched & doesn't tell a history major how many people are in the cities etc...but maybe that works because we're in a fantasy setting...let the DM flesh out his descriptions. Only a few lords in any city would know the population anyways - it should be described in terms of larger or smaller than whatever hometown the character is from? :)

The second paragraph in there is what I completely agree with - we have an independant number which says how many units can be raised...there's no reason to tie population to that. Maybe some religion is promoting rapid breed for a few generations & another cult is grabbing the kids up to sacrifice to the apocolypse to keep him from destroying all the cities...the trouble is some people will never be happy till they have their way & insist on the demographs look like some athropology project...so why try to appease them & just use the mechanics to create the ratio we choose?

As to the 3 levels, I'm referring to more mechanics things ... like say spells. No spell with more than one variable or ratio for figuring out regency cost (IE: subversion) would be allowed in level 1 rules. In sieges there would be no opposed warcraft/siegecraft check, the fort levels would simply drop each round as long as the units numbers are kept within requirements.

So what I'm saying is once we get how to work the population, it would all be used with any level of the rules...since the history/map should be independant? The level of rules would apply here as level 1 means, it doesn't have to satisfy every history major on the internet :)

[Birthright-L]

At 11:16 PM 8/6/2009, Mirviriam wrote:

>Gary - I like the idea - as it explains how rome over reached itself and tore itself apart after the great leaders died off.
>
>The minimalist approach of D&D means that any unit over the province level has to be mercancy (still keeping in tune with the rome theme).
>
>Any objections as such? What the province level as limiting factor is saying is that basically you don`t have enough people, to train, coordinate, equip, feed, etc large groups of ppl being made into soldiers. Then it hurts the economy & normal life to do so ...

Interpreting units of a "military" holding over that of the province population level as "mercenaries" makes good sense. As a general rule, I try to avoid PROscribing what things like the various levels represent, but I think they should DEscribe _something_ material....

> SO now, you`re saying it just became more expensive to do as they are renting rooms, training grounds, buying up extra food, hiring more fitters?
>
>The one thing that always mystified me is that provinces only lost their level on the domain tax sheet after the unit was destroyed or not disbanded in their home province (referring to levies). The province level should adjust the minute the men begin training.

Yeah, the original rules didn`t really take into consideration the fundamentals of Economics 101... but, to be fair, neither do most other games.

It seems like "levies" might also qualify as a description of those troops raised above the population level.... They could also be called mercenaries, but the idea would be that the loss of such troops represents an extraordinary material cost. If they are mercenaries then their destruction represents an extra cost of treasure, while levies cost more blood....

Like a lot of other "simple" ideas there are a lot of little nuances that need be worked out, but as a general method I think it makes a lot more sense for BR in general, and does address the weirdness of warcards, which some old-timers in the BR community might know I`ve always hated....

Gary

[Rowan]

I like the idea, Gary, for quick resolution and high-level abstraction. Mirv, it seems like that rule is a good Level 1 rule for you--it is reasonable and simple and quick to resolve.

I personally prefer more complexity in combat, so I would favor a Level 2 or 3 complexity rule. I like determining army composition, monthly or weekly strategy, and battlefield tactics. The Armies-as-holdings rule only gets that complex in description, not in resolution.

What I was referring to about the levels of game play I have gradually been working on is similar. Holding level play can be pretty detailed because the scope is much smaller--you're talking about only a few domains involved. Warfare can be pretty detailed, because there's not much of it, so it won't get bogged down by more attention to detail. Domain level play is more abstract, including with warfare, but still can involve tactical decisions. Faction/Allliance level play is higher level, necessarily less complex and more abstract because there's more going on and thus less attention can be paid to individual things. Warfare should be easier to resolve, such as with Gary's rules suggestions.

Of course, these complexities could be mixed and matched. The simplest game would involve simple abstract warfare and simple abstract domain rulership at the holdings level of play. Games that wanted to de-emphasize warfare might use the simpler warfare rules, but more complex holdings rules, and vice versa.

[Mirviriam]

Are we talking about explaining level populations or set them Rowan?

This post was actually before I really started considering the levels of play as my next motion. I recognized in working through the idea the mechanics of rule sets have to be seperate from the campaign level world sets.

[Rowan]

Are we talking about explaining level populations or set them Rowan?

This post was actually before I really started considering the levels of play as my next motion. I recognized in working through the idea the mechanics of rule sets have to be seperate from the campaign level world sets.

I'm not sure what you're asking. I have talked about two different things here: what realistic population numbers would be and, at your prompting, some basic principles behind different sets of game rules.