Urban Provinces

**Athos69** · 07-14-2004, 05:13 PM

Would it not look alot more realistic, as well as make more sense to redefine the borders of the province you are creating the urban province in to include *only* the city, and have the lands around it become the province (0) or (1)?

In reality, people would flock to the city as it became more prosperous, and leave the fields, thus creating the equivalent of a food shortage, which would ned to be managed by the regent.

In other words, let's not think of this as creating an 'Urban' province, but instead calving the farmland off of a city into its own rural province. The city holdings would not change (Temples, Law, Guilds), since they are well established and likely to be concentrated in the city anyways. the 'room' for all of these regents to exp[and is going to be in the rural areas.

**soudhadies** · 07-14-2004, 06:10 PM

To Tcharzazel:

Probably a DC of 21 to create the UP, but then afterwards the city would be ruled independently from the mother province. So there is a major effort to overcome first, then the city can be ruled more normally. The reason for this would be to divorce the fortunes of the city somewhat from the fortunes of the mother province. The only precedent that we have, after all, is the level 10 imperial city of anuire, whch is level 10, while the province of Anuire has only a level of 7(Presumably lowered by 500 years of civil wars). I think that a level one UP is more realistic, because level 0 indicates no developement whatsoever, where in fact this is a major city that has been around for a while (years even) and is being emancipated from its surroundings. Plus, the rule action creates a new province level, which becomes the base level of the UP. However, the largest a provincial city can grow is fairly small compared to how large the emancipated city can grow, which explains the small starting level.

However, it could be added as a comment to the rules that ruling an urban province adds +10 to the standard rule DC. That would divorce the fortunes of the the UP and the mother province, while still making UPs very difficult to rule.

To Athos69:

It wouldn't really be more realistic at all. Even in the most populous medieval lands, at least 80% of the population is rural, and of the 20% that are urban, many are split amongst the province's towns and cities. So probably only about 10% of the population live in the major city that will become the UP. In the case of my chart, about 35,000 out of 400,000 people in a level 10 province. In the standard chart, about 10,000 out of 100,000 people. Creating the urban province through the rule action means that those 35K or 10K are just now considered an independent province (whose borders, like you said, are the limits of the city), while the rule action brought enough people into the original province to replace the losses. If we used you suggestion, well the movement of 365,000 or even 90,000 people is a mass exodus the likes of which are very rarely seen, especially over the coursse of a domain turn. Not only would they all starve, since the fields would produce only enough food to supply the people that remained to work them and maybe a couple hundred or thousand others, but the infrastructure of the city would be completely unable to house the immigrants. Probably the city gates would be shut to keep them out. I know if I was a citizen of a prosperous city and I saw a mass of tens of thousands of ragged people flocking to my home I would do everything in my power to send them away.

For holding divisions, probably the best thing to do (assuming the creation of a level 1 UP, is to say that the majority holder of any given holding in the mother province gets a level 1 holding while all the other holders each get a level 0 holding. In the case of a tie in holdings level the level one holding's owner would be randomly determined.

**tcharazazel** · 07-14-2004, 06:34 PM

Heheh, and now we degrade into the problems we had before when coming up with a means for creating UPs...

Ok, so Athos if we were to expand upon ure idea then: current province would drop to level 1 lets say (as not everyone would want to move into the city) and the UP would begin at level 9. Why would it have to be so extreme though? If we look at Bearcat's populatin spread, it would be more like province level 9 and UP level 3. As the urban population is the equivalent of a level 3 province.

The major problem here is that it is not equal, province level wise when it is population wise. We seem to be forgetting the important beuacratic infrastructure that it takes to run any type of province, which is created when you do the create province action and increased with every rule province action.

Now, realistically there would already be some infrastructure in the city and its likely where most of the infrastructure would be... which then leads to the opposite problem... If the city becomes a UP then how does all the infrastructure within the city suddenly go outside the UP to control the level 9 province?

Of course if we do it your way Athos, infrastucture isnt as much of a problem. However, in a level 10 province, its doubtful that the equivalent of 9 levels of infrastructure is in the city when the majority of the population is not in the city. So, that would lead us back to the starting level of the UP be 3 instead of 9. So as there isnt enough infrastructure, we can say that even though there is enough population for a level 9 province, there is only enough infrastructure for a level 7 province equivalent, or even less.

There also is one other problem that we havent addressed yet, does the maximum level for the province with the UP in it, drop when the UP is created? The reason for the question is based on the fact that the UP is obviously in the best location for a city in that province so if it suddenly is no longer apart of the province. The next city that the province would have to make to get to the higher levels would not be in the ideal location, so would it get to as high a level?

Heheh, when we try to make it more real it starts to get a lot more difficult, as there are a lot more details that the system just glosses over.

**Athos69** · 07-14-2004, 07:07 PM

But the majority of the population is not in the province. I'm seeing the fallacy that people are using is directly related to a 'true' medieval population distribution. If you look at Anuire as being a *bit* later in period than that, to reflect for the rise of the middle classes (represented by the Guilders, who would not be any force at all in a 'true' medieval cultural setting), then you will find a much different population distribution, as the middle classes tended to migrate to where the wealth was -- the cities.

**tcharazazel** · 07-14-2004, 07:34 PM

And how much of the population was middle class? not very much, especially when compared to the serf or lower class. So, it really is the movement of the lower class that makes the big change in population shifts. As the majority of the lower class will be farming then it doesnt make sense that they would all pick up stakes and head for the city. If they are similar to serfs then they couldnt really leave the land either, as they are tied to the land.

**soudhadies** · 07-14-2004, 08:51 PM

But the majority of the population is not in the province. I'm seeing the fallacy that people are using is directly related to a 'true' medieval population distribution. If you look at Anuire as being a *bit* later in period than that, to reflect for the rise of the middle classes (represented by the Guilders, who would not be any force at all in a 'true' medieval cultural setting), then you will find a much different population distribution, as the middle classes tended to migrate to where the wealth was -- the cities.

But it is also a logical fallacy to assume that people are no longer required to work in the fields. Despite technological advances that make farms more productive, you generally don't see a reduction in the number of people required to really work the land until heavy mechanization comes into play. The only numbers that I could easily find were for the US, which in 1880 still only had about 24% of its population urbanized.

In general, 20% is a very generous urban population, in my opinion. MMS:WE cites the range as being 6.67% to 20% with an average of 8%. The average being given in the DMG is 1/10th to 1/15th (10% to 6.67%, p. 155 of the 3.0 DMG). So 20% is a very hefty urban population all things consideered.

Heheh, when we try to make it more real it starts to get a lot more difficult, as there are a lot more details that the system just glosses over.

Which is why I like my method. Its simple and fairly elegant (and its also based on my own demographic calculations, not the ones in the BRCS, so there would be no level shifts for the mother province and the UP would be level 1). One rule action creates the urban province, with 1 level, and then rule actions with a +10 DC can be used to raise it. Traderoutes and what not can probably even be ignored if we assume that the UP is a generalized food sink in the same way that a major river has a drainage basin, a little bit from everywhere in a three to four province area instead of all from one source.