安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文(繁体中文)
日本語(日语)
한국어(韩语)
ไทย(泰语)
български(保加利亚语)
Čeština(捷克语)
Dansk(丹麦语)
Deutsch(德语)
English(英语)
Español-España(西班牙语 - 西班牙)
Español - Latinoamérica(西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲)
Ελληνικά(希腊语)
Français(法语)
Italiano(意大利语)
Bahasa Indonesia(印度尼西亚语)
Magyar(匈牙利语)
Nederlands(荷兰语)
Norsk(挪威语)
Polski(波兰语)
Português(葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙)
Português-Brasil(葡萄牙语 - 巴西)
Română(罗马尼亚语)
Русский(俄语)
Suomi(芬兰语)
Svenska(瑞典语)
Türkçe(土耳其语)
Tiếng Việt(越南语)
Українська(乌克兰语)
报告翻译问题
This is arguably still less harsh than reality was for China
@Morgi, that’s not part of this mod?
Do you think this assumption is relevant still based on the premise that arable land might be recalculated?
I don't know the function, but i believe the birth rate function on subsistence should be logarithmic and clamped to some target to prevent overgrowth based on an in-game model of available land. At the moment it's just flat increase to percentage from arable land via modifiers.
Historical remark: Russia have estimated around ~1-2% growth per year from 1814 to 1914 (doubled the pop). With 7% growth the pop will double each decade.
Also In India there are also strange artifacts of always negative growth (f.e Bengal)
I've played recently with Make Brazil Great Again mod which doubles arable land in Brazil and i'm getting huge growth numbers ~15% YoY birth rate in states with about 200-300 arable land and no peasants and ~7% YoY growth in the country from subsistence.
While i don't have particular problem with high growth as it was present in some regions for a short while, this is consistent basically for an entire relevant phase of the game (~1840-1890), i've had Matto Grosso state (~350 arable land in mod iirc) breeding people and promoting them to labor which can migrate later, so the growth never changes.