|
I'm considering a house rule that says for a city without walls - 50 people per square live in the city and 200 outside of it in the same hex. For cities with walls, the population is 100 per square versus 150 outside of the city. I think this gets to a more 'realistic' settlement where people have more space.
Otherwise, it's hard to reconcile the fact that the average population density in fledgling town (9,000 per square mile) has a higher population density that many modern US cities with have significantly more advanced infrastructures:
Here are some examples:
- Los Angeles (7,877 per square) *
- Seattle (6,717 per square mile)
- Pittsburgh (6,019 per square mile)
- Washington, D.C (9,776.4/sq mile)
- Atlanta (4,019 per square mile)
- Dallas (3,687 per square mile)
- Denver (3,898 per square mile)
- Phoenix (2,937 per square mile)
* many areas directly around LA exceed this
Even if you ignore sanitation, water & food supply, etc -- people in rural communities typically don't choose to build on top of each other.
They may flee to the safety of the city walls in times of danger. However, unless the city's on a gem mine or an important strategic point - it's hard to see why people why the independent settlers would choose to live somewhere where they need to spend their time huddled behind walls. Either the hex is safe enough to support a settlement, or it's not.
In any case, here are some contemporary population density numbers for some modern Europen cities that seem more likely comparisons for River Kingdoms cities
-Venice (1,690 per square mile)
-Siena (1,186 per square mile)
-Cordoba (671 per square mile)
-Heidelburg (3,466 per square mile)
-Mykonos (229 per square mile)
-Prague (6,522 per square mile)
-Salzburg (5,826 per square mile)
-Liechtenstein (Vaduz) (764 per square mile)
-Bruges (~2,0000 per square mile)
I then treat the population of the whole hex as the 'city' population with much more of the population being distributed over a wider area.
I'm trying to figure out population of 'farm' hexs -- I imagine it's considerable (probably a high hundreds to a few thousand per hex). Any thoughts here?
Why are you using contemporary population densities? They aren't appropriate.
There was a thread a while back [need to find it] that talked about population densities. (Anyone?)
As it turns out, medieval cities were much more densely populated than modern cities, even considering modern infrastructure.
That's all I got for now... :D
Creative Director
|
You'll note that I deliberately built the kingdom rules so that actual population numbers have no real impact on the rules of the game.
Which means you can set the population of your hexes or nations or cities at whatever figure you are comfortable with; it has no more an effect on the rules of the game than a character's hair color.
Why are you using contemporary population densities? They aren't appropriate.
There was a thread a while back [need to find it] that talked about population densities. (Anyone?)
As it turns out, medieval cities were much more densely populated than modern cities, even considering modern infrastructure.
That's all I got for now... :D
This, density in many medieval cities seems to have been more like 30,000 per square mile!
An gaming centric article on the subject, but Golarion isn't Earth, so I'm happy with where it is, and have my own explanations for the differences.
I agree that the +250 population per block is a bit wonky.
I'm also going to houserule it at 25 or 50 inhabitants per block (and hex).
Filling all 36 blocks would make it a 1800 population if you get 50 inhabitants for every block.
The worst example of population bloat is probably the first month of building.
Castle+free house = 1250 inhabitants in one month! Now that is growth!
12 months of housebuilding (just one-block buildings) = 3000 inhabitants. The Stolen lands must be REALLY attractive to settle!
Your idea with population growth if you put up walls is interesting, might just steal that one :)
Just remember that you are going to have to raise an army from your populace eventually and if it's too low then you are going to get whupped on the battlefield.
|
|
First, I should say - I think the rules are great! James - I didn't mean to criticize the system. The rules asre fun to play with and don't detract from the emphasis of the game. I'm just trying to figure out how the settlement develops so I can describe it better.
I think saying a town attracts 250 residents per square sounds right. The group has chosen Erastil for their patron deity and we're just trying to figure out how this works out.
We're hand waving the population boom - but hinting their are people in southern Brevory who are looking for greener pastures either due to the unrest and as part of cult of Erastil.
Vagrant-Poet thanks for the link - I'm always interested in things like that.
London in 1300 had a population of 80,000 in an area of 448 acres(0.7 of a square mile
That's over 114,000 people per square mile
Really, the term city is a misnomer for what you build in kingmaker. They're really villages.
So, I think it's inappropriate to use medieval cities for population density figures. And thus, I share the point of view of the OP -- populations seem really high.
Ken
Not at all, villages and towns are assumed to pop up in your kingdom and be the source of population and near the various farmlands, keep in mind the system is an abstraction.
Each little square on the grid isn't one house or one castle, its a neighbourhood or three of houses, or a castle with a small baribican and a number of houses around it. Building and inn doesn't mean there might night be a small tavern or inn already, it means that a district is popping up which has a street full of inns, or is well known for its safe taverns and good beer, etc. A house is not a home, its many. And of course by that logic more people actually live in house neighbourhoods, but really is worth having that variation, as opposed to a nice simple average. Roughly 50 families a neighbourhood isn't too bad.
You'll note that I deliberately built the kingdom rules so that actual population numbers have no real impact on the rules of the game.
Which means you can set the population of your hexes or nations or cities at whatever figure you are comfortable with
A great decision, BTW.
Otherwise, it's hard to reconcile the fact that the average population density in fledgling town (9,000 per square mile) has a higher population density that many modern US cities with have significantly more advanced infrastructures:
...
Er, that "advanced infrastructure" is the point. Without cars, buses, and trains you have to live within walking distance of where you work.
And indeed most people will live 'over the shop'
Something else to note is the vast majority of people have big families with lots of kids and/or old people, so often our vision of "how many people" is kinda slanted towards "how many able bodied men," which is a pretty small percentage of actual overall people alive.
I think India population densities would be a more accurate measurement. Sure, the cities wont be covering nearly as large an area, but their densities will be similar. Looking at wikipedia's map, they have 2000/KM^2 as their highest color. That is ~5000/mile^2. There are territories with 9000/KM. These are more accurate to what you would see in a medieval city than modern cities are. People built inward and up instead of out, up until cars were invented. Travel times were too important, as were things like clean water sources.
That being said, I haven't looked at how the rules work for cities growing or for the setting in general (just ordered the books, hope to start soon). Low population in the area would obviously lower the densities.
It will be interesting to see what size Pitax is..that should give us a better handle on what sort of population sizes are in the developers minds.
Restov, I note, has a population of just over 18000..thats only 2 city districts by the book
|
|
Something else to note is the vast majority of people have big families with lots of kids and/or old people, so often our vision of "how many people" is kinda slanted towards "how many able bodied men," which is a pretty small percentage of actual overall people alive.
I think this is what I was missing -- if I start thinking of 6-10 people per dwelling instead of 2-4 then the numbers start to work as we're laying out houses.
The players are really into this and one of them is drawing maps. I'll share them at the end of the campaign if anyone is interested.
The problem we ran into was there was space in the town that it didn't make sense to have people living in. None of this space has any game use -- but makes the city feel more real than laying out a 1 mile by 1 mile grid in hilly terrain.
The compromise we're making is that 'commons' space can be laid out that doesn't count toward squares and doesn't provide benefits but will get walled (and adds to the cost of building the wall)
Examples of this space:
* A pasture within in the city wall
* A green by the park / town hall / temple square
* The hill immediately around the castle
* A main street bouvelard that's about 50 feet wide (from the main gate to the commons (yes not historically accurate - but part of the city planning)
* wasted space due to steep hills
* space by city walls were building is prohibited
By not forcing people into these spaces, the density issue sort of resolves itself.
Thanks!
Why would you use population densities in India for a newly settled area? Villages in India have been around for thousands of years, they're not new.
Why not use population densities in newly settled areas of the American West in say, 1830? That seems far more appropriate to me.
Ken
Alright, I can't find data for the mid west that easily, so lets use colonial Boston in 1700s. A map of boston shows that in 1775 its size to be ~1 mile by 1.5, including a large ammount of green space covering ~1/2 mile^2. Annother website says that Boston has 7000 people in 1700. That puts its population density over 4500 people/mile, 75 years before the map was made. Presumably the population and city both grew in that time, and its twice what I said based off of looking at India.
Right, and how many people lived in Boston 5 years after it was settled?
Ken
Yes but the settlers flooding in aren't crossing an ocean to get there.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Here is a paragraph about San Felipe De Austin, the capital of Stephen F. Austin's original colony in colonial Texas. It was founded in 1821.
"By 1828 the community comprised a population of about 200, three general stores, two taverns, a hotel, a blacksmith shop, and some forty or fifty log cabins. Ten of the inhabitants were Hispanic, and the rest were of American or European origin; males outnumbered females ten to one."
These people didn't have to cross an ocean. To me, their circumstances seem quite similar to Stolen Lands settlers.
Source:
http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/SS/hls10.htmlKen
Then change the population numbers in a way that makes you happy! Problem = solved!
Here is a paragraph about San Felipe De Austin, the capital of Stephen F. Austin's original colony in colonial Texas. It was founded in 1821.
"By 1828 the community comprised a population of about 200, three general stores, two taverns, a hotel, a blacksmith shop, and some forty or fifty log cabins. Ten of the inhabitants were Hispanic, and the rest were of American or European origin; males outnumbered females ten to one."
These people didn't have to cross an ocean. To me, their circumstances seem quite similar to Stolen Lands settlers.
Source:
http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/SS/hls10.htmlKen
Yes but most of the men there were single Brevoy I suspect would be sending family groups to join the colonisation effort.
But +1 to what Jason said, it's your game run it your way.
This is why I try not to use real world examples to rationalize a fantasy game.
The point is, population density isn't much of a problem. The Kingmaker adventure is going to play out over years of game time, there are dozens of ways, historical or otherwise, to justify whatever size population density you want.
Want the population to rise? Gold strike, or Brevoy decides to empty it's prisons at you, or it decides to recreate the Trail of Tears, or refugees from a war/volcano/kaiju attack start streaming in...
Want it to drop like a rock? Potato famine, or zombie apocalypse, or make one of the events in the adventure path more devastating...
I thought a block was a two by two section filled in, not one an individual square.
Here is a paragraph about San Felipe De Austin, the capital of Stephen F. Austin's original colony in colonial Texas. It was founded in 1821.
"By 1828 the community comprised a population of about 200, three general stores, two taverns, a hotel, a blacksmith shop, and some forty or fifty log cabins. Ten of the inhabitants were Hispanic, and the rest were of American or European origin; males outnumbered females ten to one."
These people didn't have to cross an ocean. To me, their circumstances seem quite similar to Stolen Lands settlers.
Source:
http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/SS/hls10.htmlKen
I brought up Boston as an example of colonial population density, not population. Towns and cities are built with people close to eachother. People will build fairly close together when they can, since it is much easier to defend, especially when they have open space arround them. People want to be close to communal resources. They wont want to walk long distances to things like wells.
Over 100 people live on my block, which is ~.12 x.06 miles. 2 blocks would be .0144 miles^2 and have at least 200 people. 200 x .0144 ~= 13,500 people/mile^2. There is roughly as much green space as housing on the block, and the houses are 2 stories. The area covers over 50 houses, 2 general stores, 2 taverns, and an old manufacturing building. Just because the population is small does not mean the population density is small. You have spots of very high population density mixed with spots of very low. People build in ideal location, expanding to the available space and creating suburbs is a modern thing in the US, and it is not happening in many other countries. This is because we have the infrastructure to support commuters and energy is cheap.
Ah, now I see why the population would be so crazy. Here I was quartering it the whole time.
I think I'll stick with the city population equaling 250 per/4blocks. Having grand fun so far. There's so much to roleplay out each month I'm constantly picking something different for the PC's to act out.