How big are cities?

[Ekolite]

Just a simple question.

Around how many people would be living in the average FFH city? How about in the Kuriotate Metropolies?

 

[thomas.berubeg]

This is fairly on in the Age of rebirth, of course.

 

[Spectral-Fremen]

I like to think of every 1 City number as a couple of thousand people.

 

[WarKirby]

I like to think of every 1 City number as a couple of thousand people.

This scale can't work. It makes no sense in either extreme of tiny villages or massive metropolises (metropoli? )

I like to think of each population point, as representing an accelerating amount of people. The first pop is 20-50 people. A settler party essentially.

The second would be maybe another 100 people. Another 200 for the third.

By the time you get into populations of 20 or so, each point must represent at least 5000 people, and increasing rapidly. So on and so forth

 

[Lone Wolf]

I like to think of each population point, as representing an accelerating amount of people.

Me too, although I don't really have a definitive scale in mind here.

 

[Xin]

I think it grows exponently with biger pop points.

 

[Ace Royale]

Actually, if you go mouse over the city's name in the city screen, then it shows the amount of population as well as the turn it was founded.

WBed, on Marathon Speed
Pop 1 = 1000
Pop 2 = 6000
Pop 3 = 21000
Pop 4 = 48000
Pop 5 = 90000
Pop 6 = 150000

 

[Lone Wolf]

Actually, if you go mouse over the city's name in the city screen, then it shows the amount of population as well as the turn it was founded.

I think that they are a bit too high for Erebus.

 

[cyther]

I would divide those numbers by about 50 to get it close enough. But cities that are also between population points would be somewhere between the two populations.

 

[Kyzarc Fotjage]

I'd go more toward 1/10 those numbers, 1/50 seems like it's to few. A size one city probably wouldn't have 20 people.

 

[Chip56]

I think that every point between 1 and 5 repesents 200 people.
between 5-10: 500
between 10-20: 1000
between 20-30: 5000
over 30: 10000 per population point

 

[xxHammerxx]

I would tend to think that compared to humans ... elves are fewer in number considerably, and orcs are quite higher in number ... compared to population points.

Elves are merely more efficient at working the land studying, due to their longer lives, dont need the population. And orcs ... warrens.

As to the Human tribes, I would like to think that each level of town is almost proportionate to a level of population. At least for the Bannor. having sprawling suburbs set in their lawful feudal system, with many many peasants.

for instance a size 15 city I would say Elf = 5,000/ Human = 20,000/ Orc = 50,000

If we include lizards then Lizard would be around 15,000 I would imagine, with the Cualli having an additional 5,000 slaves or so.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Make that 7-8K lizards + 10-20K slaves.
History shows that societies with slaves had much more slaves than free men.

It is my belief that a 30+ pop city should have arround 150 - 200K people. And a 50-60 pop city would even have over half a milion people.

Smaller cities (1-5) would be under 2'000 - 2'500 and your average 25 pop city would be somwhere in the 35-50K range.

 

[xxHammerxx]

Only the Cualli used slaves, but I meant Slaves living in the city, as the "upperclass slaves" ... the slaves toiling the field and mining in the slave pits would of course be of vastly greater number.

Anyone else think that population is partially based upon race? Or would gameplay tell you that Elves and Lanun are the most populous?

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Actualy any upper class citesen is likely to have 50 or more slaves toiling for him.
Cooks, dancers, food testers ect.

And since any nation has the ability to adopt slavery...

 

[xxHammerxx]

yea, I do not deny that. Any slavery nation has the potential to have many more slaves than its citizenry, although not every such nation has a large majority of the slaves actually living in the city. Even with 50 slaves to an upperclassmen, this is assuming there is enough inequity in the nation, because there is a certain point where having too many slaves is a bad thing.

I would still bet on the larger proportionate number of slaves to only be found out in the countryside on farm tiles and mine tiles.

 

[frekk]

History shows that societies with slaves had much more slaves than free men.

Only sometimes. It depends on how and why slaves were being used. For instance, during the middle part of the Hanoverian period, Britain had slavery, but out of the whole population of Britain itself, maybe only 1 or 2 percent were slaves (they were mainly used as domestics, but hired domestics of British origin were more popular).

Outside of Britain itself, there were other slaves - indentured slaves in the colonies, slaves working on overseas plantations, and slaves being transported as part of the slave trade. But the numbers here are not very signifigant either, measured against the total sum of workers who were being paid a wage.

It just sort of depends on whether slavery is a big part of the economy or not. In ancient Greece or the Southern States of the US, the economies were agrarian-based and slavery was an ideal method to compel labour for that sort of work. But in Britain, industrialization meant it was cheaper just to pay factory workers less than the cost of living. The large urban centres meant it was easy (and free) to find replacements. Slaves would have to be purchased, fed, and then they'd have to be housed, meaning that land would have to be acquired. Which would be very expensive in a place like London, but quite cheap for a cotton farmer in Tennesee!