What do you think about population?

Should population be a thing?

  • Yes

    Votes: 126 76.4%
  • No

    Votes: 24 14.5%
  • Have no idea

    Votes: 15 9.1%

  • Total voters
    165

Users who are viewing this thread

So which is it. Mongols invaded and sacked many cities causing refugees to come and create Moscow or did Moscow already exist, get destroyed and people came BACK and repopulated?

Either one = you either being wrong, or using an example that does not even apply.

I don't recall saying anything about Moscow's creation. I'm not sure if English is your second language, but both those sentences you quoted say the same thing, only phrased differently.

Name a time when Vikings/Brits were REFUGEES going into other lands. "a person who flees to a foreign country or power to escape danger or persecution".

Asked and answered: Anglo-Varangians: the reason they showed up in the 11th century was due to the Norman takeover of England and obviously being on the losing side, they chose to go elsewhere. The Kievan Rus as well, as per my first example. But since you've decided to split hairs there, another example: some of the 13th and 14th century gallowglass were Scots-Norse who lost out in the wars between themselves and the Scottish lords for control of western Scotland and subsequently fled from their western coastal holdings to serve Irish lords instead.

So it's like covering both at once!

And no, using the Cumans as an example of Hungary being like Rome is not correct because the man that granted the Cumans SANCTUARY (Not citizenship thus wrong example anyway) LED THE CUMANS FIRST, to take HUNGARY. Clearly does not apply to Rome because ROME existed, and took over others, granting THEM what we are talking about. It does not apply.

I explicitly did not use it as a example of citizenship. Read the words I write before you reply to them.
 
People have been saying "modders will fix it" for every bad mechanic for literal years, with not a single modder saying they would be willing to make all these changes. The thing is that modders do what they do for fun, and fixing bugs and adding basic mechanics is not fun. I'm a modder and I don't want to touch bannerlord with a barge pole, to be honest.

Because at this stage of development making a total overhaul mod or changing core mechanics is pointless. There are much more fundamental issues that need to be sorted out first. How are you going to have a population mechanic when soldiers are suiciding off the wall in sieges and looters and bandits respawn out of thin air?
 
Oh, my! Is that really you? We knew in a mobile game a couple of years ago, I lived in the friary at that time. It's good to see you, hope you are ok
Hmm. I very rarely play games on mobile, especially the complex ones with anyone else. But had played couple of them for a short time. What game it was?
 
Hmm. I very rarely play games on mobile, especially the complex ones with anyone else. But had played couple of them for a short time. What game it was?
Can't remember the name, it was something on the lines of Rise of Kingdoms. I was your second in command in a guild you found, and we managed to stay in the top ten for a while
 
After reading a bit... No, I don't think the Devs could pull of such a feature, I agree with the people who can't really see that happening
What would be interesting though: once a faction reached casualties of a number dependent on the prosperity of their remaining fiefs, it's extremely likely to accept peace and a truce because the population potential is kind of depleted and needs to rest and replenish for the duration of a truce.
That needs polishing without end but ultimately it's one way to prevent the AI from throwing 10.000 dead men at you in a single war. I used that setting in the war Attrition mod a lot to shorten wars by making casualties way more impactful
 
I don't recall saying anything about Moscow's creation. I'm not sure if English is your second language, but both those sentences you quoted say the same thing, only phrased differently.

Its clear who the person that needs lessons in English is here...

a little known settlement named Moscow that no one has ever heard of since.

Your argument could go either way with your wording. You either believed that Moscow was not known before, or not known after. Yet both are incorrect because Moscow was a major settlement before, and after the Mongol invasions.

Asked and answered: Anglo-Varangians: the reason they showed up in the 11th century was due to the Norman takeover of England and obviously being on the losing side, they chose to go elsewhere.

Again, you are attempting to ignore the argument. Refguees are not mercinaries going elsewhere for employment. Where is the POPULATION fleeing into another nation from the political body of their former home.

Now quick, go look for some notation somewhere from a single persons diary of them fleeing a kingdom and settling elsewhere as proof of a population movement...at this point its clear you are just arguing to argue and will not actually come up with anything to defend your stance.

I explicitly did not use it as a example of citizenship. Read the words I write before you reply to them.

And I DID explicitly use citizenship as the example as one of the two you are arguing AGAINST. Thanks for PROVING my point. You are not arguing against the points made...you are not even providing an example of allowing them to settle in their city.

3..next to no other European power allowed the places they conquered to come settle in their city and even grant many of them citizen status.

If you are not arguing against what I said, stop replying to me and pretending you are.:roll:
 
Your argument could go either way with your wording. You either believed that Moscow was not known before, or not known after. Yet both are incorrect because Moscow was a major settlement before, and after the Mongol invasions.
That's just a bit of subtle humor. It reads perfectly fine to a native speaker.

I, for one, am glad that Moscow remained in relative obscurity and didn't go on to become a major geopolitical superpower in the 20th century or anything crazy like that. I mean, can you imagine?!
 
Again, you are attempting to ignore the argument. Refguees are not mercinaries going elsewhere for employment. Where is the POPULATION fleeing into another nation from the political body of their former home.

Now quick, go look for some notation somewhere from a single persons diary of them fleeing a kingdom and settling elsewhere as proof of a population movement...at this point its clear you are just arguing to argue and will not actually come up with anything to defend your stance.

Asked and answered again: Norse-Scots in the 13th century.
 
In the migration period there isn't even a clear distinction between refugee and mercenary. For the Romans / Byzantines they were one and the same up from the 200s AD until the crusades. When a militarised society like the Celts or Sarmatians is running away from something it's inevitable that someone might think of hiring them as soldiers. In the game, I think something like this should definitely exist where "dead" factions still live on as bands of mercenaries.
 
That's just a bit of subtle humor. It reads perfectly fine to a native speaker.

A native speaker of what? Not English. People that speak English do not form arguments that could be the opposite of what is being said especially if BOTH do not prove intent.

Asked and answered again: Norse-Scots in the 13th century.

It was proven incorrect the first time it was said. Repeating it shows ignorance. Its clear you are arguing only to argue since you cannot provide anything that actually applies. You gave 3 examples, all not applicable and you even admitted yourself that you are not using context.I accept your concession since you do not have any new "refutes".
 
I think the difference between slaves / displaced tribes / refugees (i should not have used that word.. my bad) etc varies depending on era and nation type.

In ancients times, most conquered peoples were either killed or enslaved. Those who fled before defeat, would migrate as a nomad army / tribe. These could invade or ask politely passage or land. To have a situation of "peoples" migrating without soldiers ,would have been rare. "Refugees" such a modern term.

In BL, I suspect ? populations should join remaining armies WHEN / BEFORE ? a settlement is conquered .. But this depends on the attitude of the Conqueror ! Some new rulers try to sway populations to the new Ruling class, while others, would just murder them. Once a Faction gains a reputation as "murderers", populations will flee before their armies.
.
 
Last edited:
If population became a thing and manpower becomes a scarce resource like IRL then maybe sending your serfs to die without shields would suddenly make a lot less sense
 
If population became a thing and manpower becomes a scarce resource like IRL then maybe sending your serfs to die without shields would suddenly make a lot less sense

exactly. Kill off your peasants and suddenly your farms aren't as productive. You might be like Carthage and only employ foreign mercenaries to fight your battles, to save your own population ? Although that didn't go well for them. Early Rome did the opposite, only using their own citizen troops, which could be wiped out through inept generalship. Maybe a balanced approach ?

Early in Romes history, they only allowed the wealthy in their army (hoplites & knights) as they didn't trust the commoners but after the disaster at Allia, they were forced to reorganise their army and allow the poor in to massively boost numbers. BL should allow different military organisation types, maybe by passing laws ?

General - " I advocate the poor should be allowed to join the army as front line troops, funded by the state"
Aristocracy - " NO! train the thieves to use a sword and soon they will use it against US!!"
General - "but the enemies we face these days are LARGE, like 50,000 Celtic tribes not local city states."
Aristocracy - " ..and you expect the state to pay for all this ? this will mean increased TAXES ! ..there will be RIOTS!!"
General - " We have no choice.. unfortunately."
Aristocracy - " NO! NO! ..NO! .. " (a Large 100,000 Celtic army taps on Rome's door )
Aristocracy - " .. OK! .. ok .. good argument."

.
 
You never replied to the example I gave of the Norse-Scots.

Why do I need to refute yet ANOTHER incorrect example? So you can give a 4th one that does not apply? The vikings were INVADING England, being driven OUT does not make them REFUGEES. ? why are you bothering? You clearly do not know what the word means, you have failed to use it correctly 3 times now and all while providing other example you yourself admitted was not even in context of what you were claiming to refute (citizenship). Time to move on.
 
Why do I need to refute yet ANOTHER incorrect example? So you can give a 4th one that does not apply? The vikings were INVADING England, being driven OUT does not make them REFUGEES.

The Norse-Scots had been living in Scotland (not England, hence the use of "Scots") since the 9th century. When they were defeated in the Hebrides, in the 13th century, they fled to Ireland. They were refugees, fleeing from turmoil in their home country (i.e. where they were born).

You've refuted nothing in the course of demonstrating that you have some bizarre axe to grind here. Especially taking into account the original context of the post that started all this, which was about Bannerlord factions, and how the (fictional) continent of Calradia should be overrun with recruitable Sturgians and Battanians.

? why are you bothering? You clearly do not know what the word means, you have failed to use it correctly 3 times now and all while providing other example you yourself admitted was not even in context of what you were claiming to refute (citizenship). Time to move on.

There is nothing in the definition of refugee that precludes serving as a soldier or requires that one be indigenous. Ironically, your arguments are a great example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.
"Anglo-Varangians don't count as refugees because they were employed as soldiers!" (why were they no longer employed as such in England?)
"Norse-Scots don't count because their ancestors were Vikings!" (how many centuries do you have to live in a place before it counts as your home?)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom