This was in my region report from this turn:
"Beziers: The population is growing 186 people through new births and immigrations. 267 people are leaving the region for the open lands nearby."
My region is less than half full. Yes, there are regions around with lower populations, but are peasants really going to go, "Hmm, I'm currently living in this region that's only 45% full, but I really want to go live in that region that's only 28% full. There's much more space there."
Quote from: Velax on August 17, 2011, 07:39:02 AM
This was in my region report from this turn:
"Beziers: The population is growing 186 people through new births and immigrations. 267 people are leaving the region for the open lands nearby."
My region is less than half full. Yes, there are regions around with lower populations, but are peasants really going to go, "Hmm, I'm currently living in this region that's only 45% full, but I really want to go live in that region that's only 28% full. There's much more space there."
If you just got a free 100 acre farm, but are now offered a free 200 acre farm in the next region, wouldn't you consider it a worthwhile investment to pack up again?
Quote from: Chénier on August 17, 2011, 07:41:03 AM
If you just got a free 100 acre farm, but are now offered a free 200 acre farm in the next region, wouldn't you consider it a worthwhile investment to pack up again?
If the region is only 45% populated, I don't think the farm size matters. A farmer can only cover so much land ... I'd say population should be at least 60-80% before people consider moving.
What types are those regions? I can imagine townfolk will have different incentives to emigrate than farmers ...
Quote from: Shizzle on August 17, 2011, 12:01:02 PM
If the region is only 45% populated, I don't think the farm size matters. A farmer can only cover so much land ... I'd say population should be at least 60-80% before people consider moving.
What types are those regions? I can imagine townfolk will have different incentives to emigrate than farmers ...
I think the code also looks at things like tax rates
After the migration, your region is less than half full.
If you check the math, though, before the migration, it was just over half full.
...and how does that in any way address my point? So the peasants say, "Hmm, I'm currently living in this region that's only 51% full, but I really want to go live in that region that's only 28% full. There's much more space there."
It took months for my population to reach the level it's at now, and just because there are other !@#$ty regions surrounding mine, I have to watch my population drop back into the crapper again? Or wait weeks/months/whatever for every other region around me to reach 50% population before my people stop leaving me for reasons completely out of my control?
Quote from: Velax on August 17, 2011, 04:29:30 PM
...and how does that in any way address my point? So the peasants say, "Hmm, I'm currently living in this region that's only 51% full, but I really want to go live in that region that's only 28% full. There's much more space there."
It took months for my population to reach the level it's at now, and just because there are other !@#$ty regions surrounding mine, I have to watch my population drop back into the crapper again? Or wait weeks/months/whatever for every other region around me to reach 50% population before my people stop leaving me for reasons completely out of my control?
It took months with the old code, but you've probably noticed that the pop growth is a lot faster now. So even if thousands leave, it might still go faster than with the old code?
Quote from: Kain on August 17, 2011, 04:50:05 PM
It took months with the old code, but you've probably noticed that the pop growth is a lot faster now. So even if thousands leave, it might still go faster than with the old code?
How can it go faster? Pop increase hasn't changed. The idea was, afaik, that regions with really low population would attract immigrants to increase pop rate... So if you're the 'source region' your population will increase slower than it did before.
By the way, how SMA is it to have peasants simply move away whenever they wish? Aren't they bound to the land they live on? (at least some - if not most- of them?
Quote from: Shizzle on August 17, 2011, 04:59:58 PM
How can it go faster? Pop increase hasn't changed. The idea was, afaik, that regions with really low population would attract immigrants to increase pop rate... So if you're the 'source region' your population will increase slower than it did before.
Maybe you're right. When it was introduced, all I saw was that damaged regions which used to increase by 40 pop per day, now increased by 300-400.
Of course, maybe the birth numbers never increased/death numbers decreased and all of that increase came from somewhere else.
That would make sense.
Quote from: Shizzle on August 17, 2011, 12:01:02 PM
If the region is only 45% populated, I don't think the farm size matters. A farmer can only cover so much land ... I'd say population should be at least 60-80% before people consider moving.
What types are those regions? I can imagine townfolk will have different incentives to emigrate than farmers ...
Of course it does. Do you want your descendants to share 100 acres, or 200 acres? So what if you can't farm it all, you'll likely be thinking of your descendants. Besides, more lands just means more grazing grounds for a bigger herd, so while you might not be able to plant all of those farmlands, that doesn't mean you can't fully exploit them.
Quote from: Shizzle on August 17, 2011, 04:59:58 PM
How can it go faster? Pop increase hasn't changed. The idea was, afaik, that regions with really low population would attract immigrants to increase pop rate... So if you're the 'source region' your population will increase slower than it did before.
By the way, how SMA is it to have peasants simply move away whenever they wish? Aren't they bound to the land they live on? (at least some - if not most- of them?
Apparently we have a lot of freemen, rather than peasants.
Quote from: Chénier on August 17, 2011, 07:53:59 PM
Of course it does. Do you want your descendants to share 100 acres, or 200 acres? So what if you can't farm it all, you'll likely be thinking of your descendants. Besides, more lands just means more grazing grounds for a bigger herd, so while you might not be able to plant all of those farmlands, that doesn't mean you can't fully exploit them.
Well no. Firstly, the land is owned by the Lord, or the Crown. Secondly, the more land you'd have at your disposal, the more taxes you'd have to pay. It's not like today where you can buy a lot of land for your later kids.
Now you could say that some farmers did own their land. But I think the amount of Freeman is severely limited. So limited, in fact, that the advies walking the BM universe probably take up all those sport already.
Quote from: Shizzle on August 17, 2011, 10:43:30 PM
Well no. Firstly, the land is owned by the Lord, or the Crown. Secondly, the more land you'd have at your disposal, the more taxes you'd have to pay. It's not like today where you can buy a lot of land for your later kids.
Now you could say that some farmers did own their land. But I think the amount of Freeman is severely limited. So limited, in fact, that the advies walking the BM universe probably take up all those sport already.
They didn't have real estate taxes as we do now... Taxes were on production, like a fourteenth of your crop's harvest, for example. Ownership is a fuzzy concept, but you nonetheless had the right to work on that patch of land, and that patch of land was what your children would work on. Full ownership rights in this regard is unimportant.
That's a big reason for the European migrations. Just too many people for too little farming lands.
But 'too little farming lands' is irrelevant here, if only 45% of the spots are taken.
Quote from: Shizzle on August 17, 2011, 10:52:20 PM
But 'too little farming lands' is irrelevant here, if only 45% of the spots are taken.
Bigger is always better.
Quote from: Shizzle on August 17, 2011, 04:59:58 PM
How can it go faster? Pop increase hasn't changed. The idea was, afaik, that regions with really low population would attract immigrants to increase pop rate... So if you're the 'source region' your population will increase slower than it did before.
It goes faster because of how population growth is determined as a function of existing population. Let's assume we have a city with a max pop of 60K, current pop of 40K next to a rural with a max pop of 8K, current pop of 300. Those 300 only produce a couple of new people a day, and the rate of increase is slow, and the region would fill up in months that way. City adds hundreds, maybe even a thousand to its pop every day, fills up in a few weeks, and then all those people potentially making new people don't actually provide any increase. With the immigration code, the city effectively continues producing new people for the depopulated rural. City takes a little longer to hit max pop, but the rural goes up a
lot faster.
Quote from: Bedwyr on August 17, 2011, 11:46:48 PM
It goes faster because of how population growth is determined as a function of existing population. Let's assume we have a city with a max pop of 60K, current pop of 40K next to a rural with a max pop of 8K, current pop of 300. Those 300 only produce a couple of new people a day, and the rate of increase is slow, and the region would fill up in months that way. City adds hundreds, maybe even a thousand to its pop every day, fills up in a few weeks, and then all those people potentially making new people don't actually provide any increase. With the immigration code, the city effectively continues producing new people for the depopulated rural. City takes a little longer to hit max pop, but the rural goes up a lot faster.
Cool, then I wasn't just imagining things then.
Quote from: Bedwyr on August 17, 2011, 11:46:48 PM
It goes faster because of how population growth is determined as a function of existing population. Let's assume we have a city with a max pop of 60K, current pop of 40K next to a rural with a max pop of 8K, current pop of 300. Those 300 only produce a couple of new people a day, and the rate of increase is slow, and the region would fill up in months that way. City adds hundreds, maybe even a thousand to its pop every day, fills up in a few weeks, and then all those people potentially making new people don't actually provide any increase. With the immigration code, the city effectively continues producing new people for the depopulated rural. City takes a little longer to hit max pop, but the rural goes up a lot faster.
Just as rurals will help newly acquired cities get that initial population count they need for that significant growth. A large newly-acquired city surrounded by established rurals will hit max mop much quicker this way than it used to as well.
Quote from: Chénier on August 18, 2011, 02:56:05 AM
Just as rurals will help newly acquired cities get that initial population count they need for that significant growth. A large newly-acquired city surrounded by established rurals will hit max mop much quicker this way than it used to as well.
Indeed, it works either way. Essentially, populations will recover much, much faster as long as there are at least some populated regions nearby.
Quote from: Bedwyr on August 17, 2011, 11:46:48 PM
It goes faster because of how population growth is determined as a function of existing population. Let's assume we have a city with a max pop of 60K, current pop of 40K next to a rural with a max pop of 8K, current pop of 300. Those 300 only produce a couple of new people a day, and the rate of increase is slow, and the region would fill up in months that way. City adds hundreds, maybe even a thousand to its pop every day, fills up in a few weeks, and then all those people potentially making new people don't actually provide any increase. With the immigration code, the city effectively continues producing new people for the depopulated rural. City takes a little longer to hit max pop, but the rural goes up a lot faster.
Of course, I should've thought of that :)
Quote from: Chénier on August 17, 2011, 10:48:12 PM
They didn't have real estate taxes as we do now... Taxes were on production, like a fourteenth of your crop's harvest, for example. Ownership is a fuzzy concept, but you nonetheless had the right to work on that patch of land, and that patch of land was what your children would work on. Full ownership rights in this regard is unimportant.
That's a big reason for the European migrations. Just too many people for too little farming lands.
That isn't quite true, some examples of Land Tax are Taille, Tallage and Carucage. Danegeld was also calculated based on land units, and used to pay off the Vikings. One of the main differences with many tax systems in Medieval time was they weren't exactly regular, and were levied when the King believed he had the power or the support to do so.
Quote from: De-Legro on August 22, 2011, 07:31:01 AM
That isn't quite true, some examples of Land Tax are Taille, Tallage and Carucage. Danegeld was also calculated based on land units, and used to pay off the Vikings. One of the main differences with many tax systems in Medieval time was they weren't exactly regular, and were levied when the King believed he had the power or the support to do so.
I guess it depends on where you were.
Quote from: Chénier on August 22, 2011, 08:35:00 AM
I guess it depends on where you were.
Purely production based taxes were very common in the very early part of the era. Didn't take long for the powerful to realise that it was too variable to produce a reliable income.