Population growth formula?

[Mercurius]

That is generally what I do (have done) however, in this case, I want to know what a semi-realistic number is since it is important in this specific case. I should clarify, the exact/specific/accurate "correct" number is not itself important, I just don't want the number of my choosing to be insanely off from what a formula might estimate (me saying a million when 10,000 is closer to the outcome of a formula, etc).

More specifically, I want to work out the starting (beginning) numbers so that they create my currently desired population, and so I have an idea of when such a thing needed to start (how long ago I should say) -- but this was just a long way of saying, "I need a population growth formula" hehe.

Again, weem, you can't really go wrong if you give a good context for why the city went from (A) to (B) population in (C) many years. A settlement of 200 people could, after 1,000 years, be extinct for 950 years, or it could still have a couple hundred people, or it could have turned into the Boswash Megalopolis of 55 million.

Of course if you are talking pre-industrial, it would be difficult to justify a city over a million people; AFAIK, our world only saw three pre-industrial cities of around that population, Beijing, Rome, and Constantinople/Byzantium/Istanbul. In Medieval Europe, over a hundred thousand was quite large.

But again, the main point: You can't go wrong in assigning a population figure, but you can go wrong in not matching it with a suitable context of climate, industry, migrations, etc. In other words, a settlement of 200 deep in the heart of an arid desert away from trade lines will never get that large. If it was located at a rich oasis on a major trade route, it could increase to a few thousand. And so on. I think this approach is key to attaining verisimilitude in campaign settings.

 

[Vorput]

Off topic: It always amazes me which threads get the most posts.

I'm continually amazed by the knowledge and willingness to help on these boards.

 

[malraux]

Off topic: It always amazes me which threads get the most posts.

I'm continually amazed by the knowledge and willingness to help on these boards.

Nerdy math models combined with gamers? Its about showing off as much as being helpful.

 

[Janx]

Eh, no. Even in our modern world where we have major medical support humans don't generally breed at age 80, or even 60. Human males are fertile later into life, but the risk to the child increases after age 40 or so, as does the risk to the mother.

They also don't live to 100, which is the base number I used. The point was to use a simple range, to demonstrate the formula. Then you plug in more realistic values.