Regarding Population and Economic Growth

[General Vikus]

Hey guys,

I'm continuing my first Rome campaign that I've talked about before, and it's now 222 BC. I've noticed that my large cities, including Rome, Syracuse and Carthage, are all about the same size - between 70,000 and 80,000 - and none of them appear to be growing. Rome is particularly worrisome, because according to the population breakdown it's been consistently shrinking for as long as I've been checking, though paradoxically the total population of the city does seem to be slowly rising. I mention Rome in particular because all but one of its buildings are maxed out, and it has the best sanitation / growth building that I can build at this point (latrines.) It's population change is - 0.91%. I'm particularly concerned because some of my smaller towns are now very close in size to my large metropolises; for example, Consentia in southern Italy has 67,000 people to Rome's 75,000.

In Rome, the overcrowding / base growth modifier is as follows:

I: - 6.57%
II: - 7.93%
III: - -11.65%
IV: -13.15%

Since I'm new to the game, I have no frame of reference for whether or not this is normal.

• As far as I can see it, the possibilities are as follows:
• It's another visual glitch, and my cities are growing just as they should.
• At this level of technology, population expansion reaches a point of diminishing returns after about 70,000, and so what's happening now is natural.
• Something about the structures I've built in my cities is holding them back.
• Tax harvesting, which I've been using pretty much non-stop in Latium and Italia as well as other key money-making provinces, has the same negative effect on population growth that a higher empire-wide tax rate would have, and has therefore retarded my growth (though when you mouse over the edict, it doesn't suggest that there is any affect on growth.) I tried testing this out by turning it off in Latium, and there was no difference whatsoever to Rome's growth.

Since I'm new to the mod and haven't played the game in years, I don't know how big of an affect population has on one's economy, but I assume that it determines your subsistence income, which seems to make up the vast majority of the income from large cities but (strangely) none at all for smaller towns.

I'd appreciate it if anyone could shed some light on any of this.

[Garbad]

Basically, don't worry about it. Towns hit a certain size and just stop growing/go into a holding pattern. They won't die out.

[General Vikus]

Basically, don't worry about it. Towns hit a certain size and just stop growing/go into a holding pattern. They won't die out.

Thanks for the reply, that's good to know. If that's the case, is there any point focusing on growth at all? I've been keeping taxes as low as I reasonably can even though I'm at 100 public order pretty much everywhere without even trying because I thought that maintaining growth, or at least breaking even, was important in the long term, but I could certainly be investing a lot more into money - making buildings if taxes were on very high instead of medium.

[Garbad]

Nope. The only thing worth considering is keeping your noble/warrior population high enough in your military centers.

[Dardo21]

Yes, if it drops too much, it'll start growing again, unless there are other factors present, (low PO, low food, war, etc.)

[bomberboy]

Hi, currently playing as Parthia. I can't see the growth bar for Nisa, is there any reason for this? I used to be able to but now I am unable to see it and I cannot gauge how close I am to a population surplus. Any help?

[Sonny WiFiHr]

Green one ? You have glitch. Will reappear next turn