Looting and population.

[Poliorketes]

This last days I'd read some topics about how looted regions would recover faster.

The looting would have a direct effect in the region: to make the population to flee for hundreds. Yes, you destroy some infrastructure, kill some peasants, steal some gold, etc... but the real effect would be to frighten the peasant and cause them to flee the region in panic.

Probably this is non possible to make right now, but the idea would be to make the population to emigrate more easily, and with more consequences.

A region is looted: the population would flee in panic and go to the neighbour regions. The looted region would be depopulated and economically destroyed, but when the war ended all the peasants would come back for hundreds and in no time the region would be in a reasonable state again.

Another interesting thing would be to make possible for regions to be overpopulated, and to have consequences if they are. A poor populated region could be favoured if some hundreds of refugees comes from a looted neighbour region (or not, as they could have other gods, and other culture). But an already overpopulated region could become overcrowded, and this would affect production, moral, etc... even cause riots, and rebellions if things get out of control.

...

Another thing, when a region is starving, they would be a very high probability for the region to rebel, the peasant would take arms and the region would go rogue (or try, at least). Is so strange to see how a region population die until the last man, but totally loyal to the lord who let them die.

[Penchant]

...

Another thing, when a region is starving, they would be a very high probability for the region to rebel, the peasant would take arms and the region would go rogue (or try, at least). Is so strange to see how a region population die until the last man, but totally loyal to the lord who let them die.

I don't where you have seen this but it is the opposite of how I usually is. Generally the region revolts which is what causes such low pop regions because they continue to starve until there is around a thousand or less peasants. It has just recently been softened so that you keep the region a bit longer to be able to save it but revolting quicker just causes more death.

[Poliorketes]

I don't where you have seen this but it is the opposite of how I usually is. Generally the region revolts which is what causes such low pop regions because they continue to starve until there is around a thousand or less peasants. It has just recently been softened so that you keep the region a bit longer to be able to save it but revolting quicker just causes more death.

I did say a starved region would revolt quicker, not than the revolt would 'save' lives or resolve the hunger...  :) Probably would be first riots, then revolts and finally massive emigrations... if they have a non-starved neighbour to go.

[Penchant]

I did say a starved region would revolt quicker, not than the revolt would 'save' lives or resolve the hunger...  :) Probably would be first riots, then revolts and finally massive emigrations... if they have a non-starved neighbour to go.

A day after it revolted it probably wouldn't all that much to emigrate and anyways regions that are nonstarving only do anything if they are in crap conditions too as otherwise there is no room for them to emigrate. Also decimating a region every time a region starves for a day is no good as quick revolts combined with the riots would cause that and it sucks waiting for ever to have a decent region again which is basically why you made this thread IMO.

[Poliorketes]

A day after it revolted it probably wouldn't all that much to emigrate and anyways regions that are nonstarving only do anything if they are in crap conditions too as otherwise there is no room for them to emigrate. Also decimating a region every time a region starves for a day is no good as quick revolts combined with the riots would cause that and it sucks waiting for ever to have a decent region again which is basically why you made this thread IMO.

One thing is quicker, and another in one day!!!... the hunger would hit hard the loyalty of a region... But we are sidetracking.

The thing is the population will be more 'moveable' (faster and/or more numerous migrations), both ways: fleeing when looting or starving, and coming back when things are ok again. And regions wouldn't have a rigid 'top' of population, but an 'optimum'. If you have less population the production is low, but if you have too much, you could have others problems too... maybe hunger, or low control, or would hit morale and/or Loyalty...

A region will recuperate faster from looting or starving, as the population would come back faster and production will be re-established fast. But when things go wrong, the people would left fast too, giving neighbour regions a fast grown in population, it could be good for them, or overpopulate them, with the problems of it.

Maybe the regions could have a 'likeable' code, and people would go to the best, left the worse ones, and flee 'in hundreds' the horrible ones (the ones starving or begin looted).