Pop growth and limiting it

This is for, what the discord lovingly calls, 'top hat beaver' content and ideas. Mechanics that will be used to flesh out the game over the absolute necessary mechanics of the core concepts. Eventually, as the development of the SOTE project continues, things in this forum may move to the 'Core Concepts' forums as things are completed and what were once future ideas become pressing and more important to develop
Post Reply
Spacemarine658
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2017 8:56 pm

Pop growth and limiting it

Post by Spacemarine658 » Sat Jul 01, 2017 10:27 pm

One thing I loved about Victoria 2 was how dynamic it's pop system could be if played right (sometimes it acted up but mostly it was a decent representation) one thing I think that could be interesting it the population growth rate, while individual pops in the game will be tracked I was wondering how birth rates and such would be handled because early on even though your growth percentage will be high (ie if you have 10 people and they pair and say at least 4 children are made that's a 40% increase in your pop) the numbers will grow slowly and vice versa for larger empires so I was wondering how the pops will be tracked? Will there be a check every year and based on factors does certain pop have a chance of dying (ie old age or dieases etc) or will it be more of the pop grows less or negative kinda like Vic 2 where individual pops don't die but rather groups do or less pops are born? I personally would love to see individual pops with histories and such but I feel like that might take a lot of processing power?

User avatar
soy de river beaver
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 9:49 pm
Location: Argentina

Re: Pop growth and limiting it

Post by soy de river beaver » Sun Jul 02, 2017 1:58 am

to people not aware of victoria's 2 pop system. i will do a resume:
for each location, they had diferent categories wich went into diferent classes, wich then separate due to culture and religion then the stats such as ''income'' ''life quality'' and ''literacy'' were averaged together. example:
marsella--->12.000 farmer(poor)/occitan/catholic = gets everyday needs/57% literacy/85$ in savings.
it was pretty damn good

if you had 50.000 poor people, they will change profesion, but they will be professions for poors, such as labourers, farmers, soldiers, craftmen, etc. if they had enough money to BUY all of their life needs, their everyday needs, and their luxury needs, then they would save money, and at some point they would promote. then the middle class of maybe 25.000 people would also do the same, but would instead be either clerks, oficers, artisans, etc.
its important to notice they had to buy stuff to fullfill such needs, so if the prices for such ''good'' were high, or you didnt produce enough of it to feed the internal market, they had to deal to import it. if your tarrifs were high, it would cost them more when buying from abroad.
also, to change class they had many things to take in consideration, too many to write down.

there was also migration, happening due to factors i dont understand, it probrably happens when the pop is in danger of losing money or downgrading due to either high taxation, high prices wahtever.
could also have to do with not being able to enforce a proffession, such as artisans and capitalist wich are specific and have limitations from the goverment.
could also be something else, since there is also internal migration, i dont understand it, somehow people decide to live somewhere else, maybe due to better jobs for middle classes or going to the country side as an aristocrat when you are rich.

but i think there is even more to this, since they even tracked 2 populations: adult male population (the one always showing and the one wich really matters) and total population (including women and children) wich is hidden, so i think they had a whole system for population growth behind it.

victoria 2 is really the best paradox game, matched only by meiou and taxes 2.0

Demiansky
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2017 4:03 pm

Re: Pop growth and limiting it

Post by Demiansky » Sun Jul 02, 2017 2:12 pm

My actual graduate thesis revolved around the reproductive endocrinology and fecundity of organisms in relation to their environment, so this is something I have a lot of knowledge of. The actual derminants of population growth rate is something most people overlook. How many individuals capable of reproducing in a population is actually somewhat of a peripheral factor. Victoria II took place during the Victorian age, when pretty much all growth factor considerations were blown up and populations grew at the base natural fertility rate with no negative modifiers. Growth pretty much just takes the number of people you have and then multiplies bonuses into it. With this model, you end up with exponential growth, just like in real life during the Industrialization of the world. But this simplistic model is not what we want, because we're working with an earlier time frame.

Both humans and other organisms for most of history have been subject to resource constraints, and this is the principle determinant of population growth. It's also the model I used in M&T. People who are on the verge of starving don't reproduce. Women don't ovulate, men produce low quality sperm, and even if women do get pregnant they tend to miscarry or the babies either die or grow up to be severely maimed due to malnutrition (and then they don't go on to reproduce, either). These frailties and effects continue to a lesser degree as you gradually move up the resource curve. Even in modern fertility treatments, men and women are encouraged to consume a diversity of different nutrients--- most of all protein--- in order to help with the development of robust gametes. As you can imagine, most pre-industrial populations did NOT ever have all of the things they needed all at once, and the more deprived you were of good and consistent nutrition, the fewer offspring you produced. Even populations that were well off most of the time often had spurts of "hungry years," and during those windows there was a dramatic reduction in births. In an evolutionary perspective, it doesn't make for a 23 year old woman to be producing gametes to get pregnant when its highly likely that the baby will die anyway, so resource constraint is a biological indicator for anatomical changes which inhibit reproductive faculties.

So controlling population in game needs to harness these concepts. People living on unsettled and opulent land will reproduce like crazy, and have families of 6-9 children. Populations living in near starvation conditions produce little to none. Theoretically, a group of 100 people living in that unspoiled, fertile valley can and would reproduce more than those 500 people living on rocky soil in the middle of a drought. Even in an opulent tile, as populations get bigger and bigger there, new families are forced to live on crappier land, since good land is already taken up. As tiles get more and more crowded, residents there will be forced to decide whether they want to live in these marginal conditions or whether they want to migrate to undeveloped but more verdant tiles nearby. If you have a situation where you have 50 super verdant tiles along a river which is surrounded by vast fields of rocky, unfavorable terrain, then potential migrants will form groups and head off to distant lands. If your geopolitical influence as a society is too small, then that migrant population will form its own autonomous society, but will be of the same "friendly" culture.

User avatar
soy de river beaver
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 9:49 pm
Location: Argentina

Re: Pop growth and limiting it

Post by soy de river beaver » Sun Jul 02, 2017 8:54 pm

i still think the idea of people having needs, and some being more materialistic than others, forcing them to get even more (if they can), while other species that dont want as much, might end up in a diferent way of organizing all together, maybe something similar to what comunists were looking for, or anarchist.

something that could be quite glitchy, but might decrease population from time to time, could be diseases. making minor and major diseases that spread realisticly, through maybe animals, the rivers, the species, and maybe this would also make geographical barriers even more important, since it would make the people safer from it.
maybe if there were many continents, you could make it so diferent species living too far from each other cant stand certain diseases. although this is going too far and could really fuck up everything if both the civilations are well developed, making it unfair to one of them


also, you should take in count child mortality along with fertility.

Demiansky
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2017 4:03 pm

Re: Pop growth and limiting it

Post by Demiansky » Mon Jul 03, 2017 11:01 am

Yeah, I'm not sure to what extent we would go with a "materialistic" needs scenario like Victoria. For a true supply and demand system, you actually need consumption as a benchmark for the extent of supply and demand you are dealing with. The idea is that all goods are functional though, even things like pottery or silk. More of a good in a society would add multipliers to your productivity in various categories, and when producing a good costs more than the benefit, you stop making it (unless you can trade it and get something in return that DOES allow you to meet the threshold of utility).

User avatar
David Buunk
Posts: 78
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2017 4:46 pm
Location: Netherlands

Re: Pop growth and limiting it

Post by David Buunk » Mon Jul 24, 2017 11:58 am

Spacemarine658 wrote:
Sat Jul 01, 2017 10:27 pm
I personally would love to see individual pops with histories and such but I feel like that might take a lot of processing power?
If memory size and processing power keep going up in the same exponential way it does now, this should be possible in twenty years or so.
Demiansky wrote:
Mon Jul 03, 2017 11:01 am
Yeah, I'm not sure to what extent we would go with a "materialistic" needs scenario like Victoria. For a true supply and demand system, you actually need consumption as a benchmark for the extent of supply and demand you are dealing with. The idea is that all goods are functional though, even things like pottery or silk. More of a good in a society would add multipliers to your productivity in various categories, and when producing a good costs more than the benefit, you stop making it (unless you can trade it and get something in return that DOES allow you to meet the threshold of utility).
Yes.
Programming SotE.

User avatar
gutza1
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 1:12 pm

Re: Pop growth and limiting it

Post by gutza1 » Sun Aug 13, 2017 2:24 am

David Buunk wrote:
Mon Jul 24, 2017 11:58 am
If memory size and processing power keep going up in the same exponential way it does now, this should be possible in twenty years or so.
I'm pretty sure that Moore's Law has essentially stopped. Though there's always the possibility that something like photonic computing may come out of the blue and save our asses.

User avatar
David Buunk
Posts: 78
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2017 4:46 pm
Location: Netherlands

Re: Pop growth and limiting it

Post by David Buunk » Sun Aug 13, 2017 12:42 pm

gutza1 wrote:
Sun Aug 13, 2017 2:24 am
I'm pretty sure that Moore's Law has essentially stopped.

It has with regard to the processing power of a single CPU. What I expect is that the number of CPUs per computer will rise dramatically in the near future. Growth of RAM size (and possibly speed) will keep increasing exponentially for a while.
Programming SotE.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest