Demographics is my kink.
I like Imperator pops, and the cultural mechanics quite a bit *1. Still, it does not stop me from thinking how i could tweak it more to my liking (which means, more realistic without sacrificing gameplay or ai efficiency).
So:
1) Generally, rural areas did not assimilate readily. Even Romans with much better incentives to assimilate - aka get to know latin, and behave like a proper Roman (career, acceptance in upper class, or even understanding Roman legal system) - did not spread into countryside much (Gallia being basically Gallic even after 4 centuries. Btw, 3-4 centuries of direct foreign rule is what it usually takes for region to switch to new majority).
And you can easily understand that the incentives do not apply in village much, indeed there are factors working against it (many times rural assimilation worked in the opposite direction)
2) Cities, now these are different. Here we have people who can readily switch their acquitances, have opportinities if they assimilate, etc. Now, that does not always work, but the difference is huge.
How does it translate into Imperator? Well, not well. Countryside actually assimilates faster without theaters... *2
I was thinking, how i could change it, and:
A) Remove basic assimilation speed. Change to either zero, or very minimal (like, one pop per 80 years).
B) Leave policy affecting this. While it's not very realistic, it's nice from gameplay perspective.
C) Now, onto new assimilation model. I wanted to have some player control, but limited to cities. I have two ideas here, either leave it to the theater, or move to some other building. Theater means the speed is static, other buildings not necessarily. What to do...
D) There is another idea - move assimilation speed to forts! Now, that's nice as it represents state (and thus primary culture) heavy presence in territory, and is both scalable, and costly! What's not to like here... Well, maybe AI fort building logic, which is not ideal so to say, and the fact large provinces with manu cities would be resistant. Though that is maybe a benefit as these usually represent old and sophisticated culture usually more resistant to cultural change. I like it even more...
E) It's actually doable to assimilate countryside for player, as you can move assimilated slaves from cities to counyryside and vice versa. It'd be long and costly process. As it should be. And it teminds me of some ancient actions, most famously by assyrians, which is a bonus.
So, i just wanted to write down these musings. It's all theoretical and i haven't though on how should actual numbers look like.
*1 now, religion is something else, as it suffers heavily from abrahamic lens. Many of Imp religions should simply not be exclusive or cause unrest... But that is a thread in itself
*2 On a side note, i actually like pop growth model. On Imp scale it simulates two things well - cities being less robust demographically, and land much below carrying capacity having higher growth, counterintuitively, as more people should produce more new people? No, less people mean more cushion for inevitable bad lean year and famine that would wipe out gains. So in the ends it averages out nicely.
I like Imperator pops, and the cultural mechanics quite a bit *1. Still, it does not stop me from thinking how i could tweak it more to my liking (which means, more realistic without sacrificing gameplay or ai efficiency).
So:
1) Generally, rural areas did not assimilate readily. Even Romans with much better incentives to assimilate - aka get to know latin, and behave like a proper Roman (career, acceptance in upper class, or even understanding Roman legal system) - did not spread into countryside much (Gallia being basically Gallic even after 4 centuries. Btw, 3-4 centuries of direct foreign rule is what it usually takes for region to switch to new majority).
And you can easily understand that the incentives do not apply in village much, indeed there are factors working against it (many times rural assimilation worked in the opposite direction)
2) Cities, now these are different. Here we have people who can readily switch their acquitances, have opportinities if they assimilate, etc. Now, that does not always work, but the difference is huge.
How does it translate into Imperator? Well, not well. Countryside actually assimilates faster without theaters... *2
I was thinking, how i could change it, and:
A) Remove basic assimilation speed. Change to either zero, or very minimal (like, one pop per 80 years).
B) Leave policy affecting this. While it's not very realistic, it's nice from gameplay perspective.
C) Now, onto new assimilation model. I wanted to have some player control, but limited to cities. I have two ideas here, either leave it to the theater, or move to some other building. Theater means the speed is static, other buildings not necessarily. What to do...
D) There is another idea - move assimilation speed to forts! Now, that's nice as it represents state (and thus primary culture) heavy presence in territory, and is both scalable, and costly! What's not to like here... Well, maybe AI fort building logic, which is not ideal so to say, and the fact large provinces with manu cities would be resistant. Though that is maybe a benefit as these usually represent old and sophisticated culture usually more resistant to cultural change. I like it even more...
E) It's actually doable to assimilate countryside for player, as you can move assimilated slaves from cities to counyryside and vice versa. It'd be long and costly process. As it should be. And it teminds me of some ancient actions, most famously by assyrians, which is a bonus.
So, i just wanted to write down these musings. It's all theoretical and i haven't though on how should actual numbers look like.
*1 now, religion is something else, as it suffers heavily from abrahamic lens. Many of Imp religions should simply not be exclusive or cause unrest... But that is a thread in itself
*2 On a side note, i actually like pop growth model. On Imp scale it simulates two things well - cities being less robust demographically, and land much below carrying capacity having higher growth, counterintuitively, as more people should produce more new people? No, less people mean more cushion for inevitable bad lean year and famine that would wipe out gains. So in the ends it averages out nicely.
- 1
- 1
- 1
