Bigger settlements and warfare?

[Homocommando]

Last time I checked each village had a few people, maybe like 20 in driik? And there wasn't really warfare. But come on, people fought each other and built cities thousands of years before the game's settings. I think it would be cool if there was a few bigger cities scattered over the world, and if there was an option of skirmishes happening without player's involvement, but allowing player to join as a mercenary, or perhaps as a hero?

[Bert Preast]

The game is set in early iron-age Finland, where most people lived a hunter-gatherer lifestyle.  For cities and armies, you need large scale agriculture.  Of course there would be conflicts, but largely raids for food or women that would be unlikely to involve outsiders.  Feuds between villages would be a nice dynamic, but I think a lot of work for Sami and I would sooner see him spend the time expanding the survival aspects on which the game is based. 

I would like to see one or two towns in the game though, on or around the river estuaries in the south-west.  These would represent trading posts where people from around the Baltic would bring metal tools to trade for furs and amber - which I think is what the Driik villages are supposed to represent.  Foreign traders should set up bases there, as having them wandering the wilderness on the off chance of finding a trapper who has a use for an expensive sword or piece of metal armour seems a tad ridiculous.

[Homocommando]

The game is set in early iron-age Finland, where most people lived a hunter-gatherer lifestyle.  For cities and armies, you need large scale agriculture.  Of course there would be conflicts, but largely raids for food or women that would be unlikely to involve outsiders.  Feuds between villages would be a nice dynamic, but I think a lot of work for Sami and I would sooner see him spend the time expanding the survival aspects on which the game is based. 

I would like to see one or two towns in the game though, on or around the river estuaries in the south-west.  These would represent trading posts where people from around the Baltic would bring metal tools to trade for furs and amber - which I think is what the Driik villages are supposed to represent.  Foreign traders should set up bases there, as having them wandering the wilderness on the off chance of finding a trapper who has a use for an expensive sword or piece of metal armour seems a tad ridiculous.

Early iron age is very late in the history of human civilizations. You can't convince me by that time there wasn't a single city in Finland with a couple hundred inhabitants. Honestly idk why would you go on explaining how people lived as hunter gatherers, not in cities, but then you basically agree with me? 

[Plotinus]

The iron age was different in Finnland than in the mainland of Europe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Finland#Iron_Age

There is no commonly accepted evidence of early state formations in Finland, and the presumably Iron Age origins of urbanization are contested.

Or if you look at the history of Helsinki, the capital and largest city:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helsinki

Permanent settlements did not appear until the beginning of the 1st millennium AD, during the Iron Age, when the area was inhabited by the Tavastians. They used the area for fishing and hunting, but due to the lack of archaeological finds it is difficult to say how extensive their settlements were. Pollen analysis has shown that there were agricultural settlements in the area in the 10th century, and surviving historical records from the 14th century describe Tavastian settlements in the area.

It seems that in the time period in which our game takes place, even Helsinki was just some agricultural settlements.

Turku, the oldest founded city on Wikipedia's list was founded two centuries after our game takes place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_and_towns_in_Finland

[Bert Preast]

Early iron age is very late in the history of human civilizations. You can't convince me by that time there wasn't a single city in Finland with a couple hundred inhabitants. Honestly idk why would you go on explaining how people lived as hunter gatherers, not in cities, but then you basically agree with me?

I didn't agree with you at all 

I want a couple of trading posts and occasional raiders, as was historical, not cities with armies and heroes!  But yeah, read the links that Plotinus gave, Finland was...  different.  Still is, in many ways 

[Fineland]

and if there was an option of skirmishes happening without player's involvement, but allowing player to join as a mercenary, or perhaps as a hero?

You do get raids from Njerpez camps to friendly npc settlements outside of the players POV. This can even cause for settlements to become depopulated and desolate.
But aside from that, as what the other replies mention Iron age Finland doesnt really have the population density or enough large scale agriculture to support the towns and cities you are hoping for.

[JP_Finn]

There were few towns, mostly on western and southern coasts, few inland too.
I’m not sure how well SDL2 can handle larger populations, as already now crafting in villages gets lot of activity spam from animal noises to doors, and people going on their daily activities.

I think the current village sizes are ok.
As the devs prefer single suggestion posts for ease of response; yes/no/maybe/later: here’s separated idea from this conversation War and hunting parties

[Homocommando]

The iron age was different in Finnland than in the mainland of Europe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Finland#Iron_Age

There is no commonly accepted evidence of early state formations in Finland, and the presumably Iron Age origins of urbanization are contested.

Or if you look at the history of Helsinki, the capital and largest city:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helsinki

Permanent settlements did not appear until the beginning of the 1st millennium AD, during the Iron Age, when the area was inhabited by the Tavastians. They used the area for fishing and hunting, but due to the lack of archaeological finds it is difficult to say how extensive their settlements were. Pollen analysis has shown that there were agricultural settlements in the area in the 10th century, and surviving historical records from the 14th century describe Tavastian settlements in the area.

It seems that in the time period in which our game takes place, even Helsinki was just some agricultural settlements.

Turku, the oldest founded city on Wikipedia's list was founded two centuries after our game takes place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_and_towns_in_Finland

I am aware of that. I stand by what I said though. Think about all the things of which proof we found in the last decade. Earlier many people would say "there is no proof of that".
There is a site in western siberia, around the same latitude as southern finland, where we found a fortified settlement that was build 8000 years ago.
But not a single small city in finland in the early iron age? I think that's ridiculous.

I didn't agree with you at all 

"I would like to see one or two towns in the game though"

and if there was an option of skirmishes happening without player's involvement, but allowing player to join as a mercenary, or perhaps as a hero?

You do get raids from Njerpez camps to friendly npc settlements outside of the players POV. This can even cause for settlements to become depopulated and desolate.
But aside from that, as what the other replies mention Iron age Finland doesnt really have the population density or enough large scale agriculture to support the towns and cities you are hoping for.

I was talking about just two - a few small cities. Nothing large. Perhaps one for most cultures.

[Sami]

Permanent settlements did not appear until the beginning of the 1st millennium AD, during the Iron Age, when the area was inhabited by the Tavastians. They used the area for fishing and hunting, but due to the lack of archaeological finds it is difficult to say how extensive their settlements were. Pollen analysis has shown that there were agricultural settlements in the area in the 10th century, and surviving historical records from the 14th century describe Tavastian settlements in the area.

It seems that in the time period in which our game takes place, even Helsinki was just some agricultural settlements.
Turku, the oldest founded city on Wikipedia's list was founded two centuries after our game takes place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_and_towns_in_Finland

I am aware of that. I stand by what I said though. Think about all the things of which proof we found in the last decade. Earlier many people would say "there is no proof of that".
There is a site in western siberia, around the same latitude as southern finland, where we found a fortified settlement that was build 8000 years ago.
But not a single small city in finland in the early iron age? I think that's ridiculous.

Naturally, considering history a science it has to be open for new factual discoveries to replace the old theories, but the game world is based on the current knowledge of the history, and the settlements modelled in accordance with that. A village was/is most often just a few houses. Game encyclopedia "VILLAGES" entry explains this to some extent.
There are actually quite many things that were invented and established elsewhere in the world even thousands of years before the game era but didn't quite exist in this remote northern location.
But out of curiosity, what would you consider a historically relevant population for that "small city" that would fit in the era?

[Homocommando]

Naturally, considering history a science it has to be open for new factual discoveries to replace the old theories, but the game world is based on the current knowledge of the history, and the settlements modelled in accordance with that.

That's not exactly right. There are some not exactly historically accurate things in the game, there are some things based on educated guesses.

Also an unproven theory that makes sense is often more popular among scientists than believing only in the things we have undeniable proof of.

There are actually quite many things that were invented and established elsewhere in the world even thousands of years before the game era but didn't quite exist 

That's true, but just because it existed somewhere else isn't my only reason.

Even in the game, we have fortified settlements, we have agriculture, we have trade, we have food surpluses, we have raiding parties... That's pretty much everything that's needed for bigger settlements to grow.

As someone else already said here, trade didn't happen with random traders wandering in random areas of finland, hoping to trade with a random hunter. For both sides it is the most convenient if the trade happens mostly in one or a few places, and if that happens someone would want to take control of those places probably, there would be a need to guard them, perhaps to provide places for traders to stay for a few days, etc.

But out of curiosity, what would you consider a historically relevant population for that "small city" that would fit in the era?

As for history - I don't know, somewhere in the hundreds.   
As for the game - I think it should be something that's notably bigger than a village, big enough to have a different feeling to it, and worth to travel across the map for.

[JP_Finn]

Are you thinking of 2x1, 2x2, or even larger wilderness map tiles for the size?
Populate each 1x1 with “current density” of people, and give villagers/townsfolk knowledge of people in other (1x1) parts of the larger town?

[Bert Preast]

The game does occasionally generate two conjoined villages, over two wilderness tiles.  I expect the AI treats them as two separate villages, but that doesn't really make a difference because if you attack one you are close enough to aggro the villagers in the other as well.  I didn't think to try, but I suppose stealing would have the same effect.

In my mind an UnReal World town would be a new "town centre" terrain tile, where you would find larger buildings with lots of foreign traders and maybe a chief with his retinue of guards to keep the peace.  These last would be well armed and armoured, and not trade any of their kit so that sneaky buggers can't trade their weapons away then attack them 

Adjacent to the town centre would be some Driik villages, and any criminal activity in them would bring the wrath of the guards.  I envisage only one or two towns, in the south-west.  Perhaps at the river estuaries north and east of Driik lands?

[Homocommando]

Are you thinking of 2x1, 2x2, or even larger wilderness map tiles for the size?
Populate each 1x1 with “current density” of people, and give villagers/townsfolk knowledge of people in other (1x1) parts of the larger town?

Not necessarily. When I said bigger I meant more inhabitants. I think it should rather have a higher density of population.

[Lopo772]

There is no evidence in iron-age Finland of any formation of villages at all much larger than the ones represented in game. There is evidence of hillforts, which may have acted as some sort of occasional trade hubs, but the archaeology has so far overwhelmingly disproved that any examined sites would've been characterised by a population beyond even a hundred people. If that. No excavated sites, or much less any written evidence, indicates a definite city-type place anywhere in Finland before gradual Swedish immigration and conquest around the start of the 1st millenium. It is not impossible that there could have been something like a city, but highly unlikely considering that absolutely no evidence of such a structure has been discovered. In short, it simply seems like the pre-christian finnish population was highly mobile and not interested in forming many long-lasting and large settlements. Agriculture, a typical example of a factor producing settled life, was in Finland also highly mobile, as the traditional forms of agriculture demanded a frankly huge amount of forest, which was left more or less unusable for growing plants after a few years. And, as others have already pointed out, finnish lifestyle was also largely marked by hunter-gatherer activities which also do not enable dense settlements or a settled lifestyle.

With all that said, trade posts and hillforts could absolutely be added.