Total Land Area Data

[^ban^]

60 peasents per square widget...

[Tom]

Yeah, I was thinking about using some other unit, but travel distances are also given in miles.

We're not aiming for extreme realism, but the numbers should make some kind of sense. The distances etc. are all picked so they make some kind of sense with the travel times, etc.

[fodder]

you could have empty regions that produce nothing, have 0 pop, can't be TO'ed.. just places to fight and travel.

then a town would really be a town as opposed to a town with a huge swath of empty lands around it abstracted into 1 region.. if you attack a walled regions, then you'll be climbing walls.. as opposed to just skirting around in the empty lands around it.

[Vellos]

Or, far more easily, we redefine the area units so that the population density numbers make more sense.

Yes, you could (though the variance would remain a bit small).

But the issue, as Tom noted, is:

Yeah, I was thinking about using some other unit, but travel distances are also given in miles.

We're not aiming for extreme realism, but the numbers should make some kind of sense. The distances etc. are all picked so they make some kind of sense with the travel times, etc.

And you'll end up with badlands having a population density similar to the more fertile parts of France.

The problem isn't that the numbers are off; the problem is that the range of numbers are off. Again, this isn't a huge issue for gameplay reasons; I only originally noted it to offer some thoughts about how to RP your realms, and continued it because Tom seemed to have some interest in having population density be a meaningful statistic related to real Medieval population density.

But, yeah, changing the land area would seem to necessitate changing travel distances. And, in this case, we're mostly talking about shrinking land area, which would mean reducing travel distances. Maybe we're fine with that, but I know at least a few players who have commented on Dwilight's vast expanse as a major reason they enjoy it.

[Tom]

Well, for a part we could simply accept that BM is not the earth, and things work differently. :-)

[Vellos]

Yes, we absolutely can. Again, I didn't start out by saying that the current system was necessarily bad. I was just analyzing what it was, not making a normative judgment concerning it.

You then, I thought (maybe I misread you) asked if anyone had suggestions on population density:

Neither do I. :-)

If someone wants to do some research and then suggest what the numbers should look like - I'll be happy to change them.

You said "should," which I assumed meant "should [if they were to be more realistic]." Again, maybe I misinterpreted.

Personally, I like having a more urban population than the Middle Ages actually had: urbanization begets longer-distance trade. Population dynamics like the real middle ages would make long-distance trade (especially in food) far less frequent.

[Tom]

Personally, I like having a more urban population than the Middle Ages actually had: urbanization begets longer-distance trade. Population dynamics like the real middle ages would make long-distance trade (especially in food) far less frequent.

We do. In fact, before the change, we were almost at modern-world urbanization rates (50% population living in cities). We are now down from that, but still far from the middle ages, I think.

[Bedwyr]

But, yeah, changing the land area would seem to necessitate changing travel distances. And, in this case, we're mostly talking about shrinking land area, which would mean reducing travel distances. Maybe we're fine with that, but I know at least a few players who have commented on Dwilight's vast expanse as a major reason they enjoy it.

Not if you handwave it as "square miles of inhabitable land".  Then you don't have to change anything except the display number for area.