Author Topic: Village population crashed  (Read 2253 times)

Alumaani

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 554
  • Karma: +25/-13
    • View Profile
Re: Village population crashed
« Reply #15 on: April 08, 2014, 11:38:43 PM »
Ok...nobody entered the estate, it was running at -37 food approximately and read that it was a minor shortage which I have consistently used without crashes in all other villages.  It's a bit annoying as it was my main village for heavy/medium construction and now needs around 2 weeks of repair!

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3129
  • Karma: +105/-55
    • View Profile
Re: Village population crashed
« Reply #16 on: April 08, 2014, 11:55:05 PM »
Ok...nobody entered the estate, it was running at -37 food approximately and read that it was a minor shortage which I have consistently used without crashes in all other villages.  It's a bit annoying as it was my main village for heavy/medium construction and now needs around 2 weeks of repair!


Entered the region, or the settlement? There are so many variables to consider, did you produce a new batch of troops? Did you remove a significant number of troops such that economic security was affected? If the village had fairground then it progressively becomes less productive as population decreases which possibly leads to a more extreme decline. The same would happen for mills and markets once you hit their population requirements.
He who was once known as Blackfyre

Alumaani

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 554
  • Karma: +25/-13
    • View Profile
Re: Village population crashed
« Reply #17 on: April 09, 2014, 03:33:51 PM »
No troops in and no fairground...just 12 heavy inf/medium troops and the monor food shortage.  Its recovering now slowly but I will keep an eye on it and the new message system will also help!

Cynic

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 338
  • Karma: +16/-8
    • View Profile
Re: Village population crashed
« Reply #18 on: April 09, 2014, 06:29:22 PM »
If your farmer population is below the sweet spot (where gaining/losing a farmer gains/loses exactly 1 food production) then declining population will worsen the food situation as there is less surplus generated from the farmers to feed the militia and building workers. At this point the village will go into a worsening downward spiral as worse food situation means a higher starvation rate next day, causing an even worse food shortfall, so the fall in population is even greater each day and it collapses very fast.

If you are above the sweet spot then as the dying farmers produce less than 1 food each, the food situation will marginally improve each day as the productive farmers are no longer required to subsidise the (now dead) unproductive ones. At this point the food deficit will not cause a downward spiral as the starvation improves the food situation, however if the food usage is so high that there is not a surplus when you are at the sweet spot then eventually the village will fall over the edge (the farmers will fall below the optimum point) and the downward spiral will start.

This may be what happened here. Although only 12 militia and no trades would mean that it would require a lot of buildings manned by workers and quite a lot of time in decline to reach the point where the population suddenly crashes, it seems from the graphs that there was a prolonged period of decline and the village may eventually have reached the tipping point.

There may be tolerances in the system that small shortages don't cause declines, but equally over time they may have an effect and also when a village is very small -30 is much more significant than -30 when a village is huge. There also appears to be randomness and variance in the system so there's no way to get a proper accurate number, only a rough estimate.

I'm sure most of the above is nothing new, but if you're trying to get as much as possible out of a village I think it can be helpful to think in terms of optimal surplus - i.e. the largest difference between farmers farming and food produced (which is achieved at the sweet spot where reducing farmers by 1 reduces food by 1 - all farmers up to that point produce a surplus and all farmers after that point produce less than they eat)  - each unit of food in this surplus 'buys' one militia, or one soldier in the region, or one building worker, or one construction worker, or one food to trade, so in order to prevent a crash you need to 'spend' no more than that maximum surplus so that if the population falls to that point then you can rely on there being a surplus (or break-even) remaining so that no further decline happens.

Sorry if the above isn't clear, I'm not good at making things make sense.

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3129
  • Karma: +105/-55
    • View Profile
Re: Village population crashed
« Reply #19 on: April 10, 2014, 01:19:49 AM »
If your farmer population is below the sweet spot (where gaining/losing a farmer gains/loses exactly 1 food production) then declining population will worsen the food situation as there is less surplus generated from the farmers to feed the militia and building workers. At this point the village will go into a worsening downward spiral as worse food situation means a higher starvation rate next day, causing an even worse food shortfall, so the fall in population is even greater each day and it collapses very fast.

If you are above the sweet spot then as the dying farmers produce less than 1 food each, the food situation will marginally improve each day as the productive farmers are no longer required to subsidise the (now dead) unproductive ones. At this point the food deficit will not cause a downward spiral as the starvation improves the food situation, however if the food usage is so high that there is not a surplus when you are at the sweet spot then eventually the village will fall over the edge (the farmers will fall below the optimum point) and the downward spiral will start.

This may be what happened here. Although only 12 militia and no trades would mean that it would require a lot of buildings manned by workers and quite a lot of time in decline to reach the point where the population suddenly crashes, it seems from the graphs that there was a prolonged period of decline and the village may eventually have reached the tipping point.

There may be tolerances in the system that small shortages don't cause declines, but equally over time they may have an effect and also when a village is very small -30 is much more significant than -30 when a village is huge. There also appears to be randomness and variance in the system so there's no way to get a proper accurate number, only a rough estimate.

I'm sure most of the above is nothing new, but if you're trying to get as much as possible out of a village I think it can be helpful to think in terms of optimal surplus - i.e. the largest difference between farmers farming and food produced (which is achieved at the sweet spot where reducing farmers by 1 reduces food by 1 - all farmers up to that point produce a surplus and all farmers after that point produce less than they eat)  - each unit of food in this surplus 'buys' one militia, or one soldier in the region, or one building worker, or one construction worker, or one food to trade, so in order to prevent a crash you need to 'spend' no more than that maximum surplus so that if the population falls to that point then you can rely on there being a surplus (or break-even) remaining so that no further decline happens.

Sorry if the above isn't clear, I'm not good at making things make sense.


Quite true, if each villager dead reduces the food output by more then that dead villager ate, you are in real trouble.
He who was once known as Blackfyre