[PvK]

B0rsuk said:
1) [nomadic] people existed. It seems silly to rule out nomadic peoples in early era, at least. And even if you assume a strictly stationary society of late era, there are still
- bandits, outlaws (depopulated areas would be better for a hideout)
- gypsies
- bards
- beggars
- various homeless people.

Yes. Bandits and outlaws are already directly represented as independent units and events. Beggars, indigents and refugees aren't liable to increase your tax income. In fact, population from which a medieval overlord extracted wealth and resources was generally limited to peasants and tradesmen. I don't see gaining much or any tax wealth from wandering minstrels and gypsies, and besides, they will keep moving on.

By the way, it wasn't ALL about settlements in medieval ages, at least not in Poland. Owning land meant power - true. Land can't really burn down like a windmill or workshop may. Everyone wanted to own land, but if you couldn't you could still work as a worker on somebody's land. And they wouldn't pay you for sitting idle, so you'd have to move on once the harvest is over. Hopefully someone else would have other crops, or other work to do.

Unlike peasants, townsfolk were technically free to move around. Artisans and guilds in particular would sense an opportunity in being the sole supplier of a small population. No or little competition etc.

Act now! Be the only blacksmith in Deebsdale, where 97% of the population was exterminated by magic last year in the Ascension Wars - now's your chance!

No, you do have some good points, but there are also good counterpoints. What you suggest would I think happen, eventually, though not I think very quickly, in most cases.

2) Even if we assume people don't move at all, there would be more room for everyone who's left. More resources, food, space. So there should be a population boom, just like there typically is after a war. Speaking in ecology terms, there's environment capacity. It works primarily for animals, because humans are able to work around since the Neolithic Revolution (transition from hunters/gatherers to agriculture/livestock ). But humans would still benefit.

Yes, but again, only eventually, not right away, and it depends on details that aren't explicitly included in Dom 3 game data. I don't think the game even tracks a base population capacity for each province, and the map generator intentionally gives great variety when it sets initial population levels (though this is based on terrain and other values).

Overall, it looks like you're looking for an excuse to justify current mediocrity of growth scale.

Well I'm offering counterpoints to your suggestions mainly just saying what I see as so - what comes to mind when I read your suggestions, and not merely to be argumentative. I do find it interesting that values don't quickly regenerate. I like Dominions' contrast to other games in that war is mostly destructive and some disasters are nearly impossible to repair.

I think it's too late to change it now. But it would be sweet if population growth was sort-of inversely proportional to current population size. So a depopulated province should grow much faster provided there's a growth scale. This would both make growth scale more useful and the game more realistic. Win-Win.

Hmm. I'm not sure that's exactly the mechanic I'd choose, but I'd welcome more detailed population modeling including growth scale effects, or even just more random events including occasional re-migrations from over-populated to under-populated regions.