City building tips

...

1/2
step 1 start with a small village with a palisade and farm land
>more of a family run anarchical communism
>distant family is a clan and a village consists of 2-4 clans
step 2 expand village
>build more houses just out side of the gates
>add a few more clans
>turn those wooden palisade into a stone reinforced dirt mound surrounding the entire village with a wooden gate house or 2
step 3 repeat as necessary until you have reached your desired size or have reached your population cap (size of middle ages parice)
>more people means more complex social and economic development
>eventually you will need to rely almost entirely on money for commerce
>large settlements attract trade by virtue of being population centers so you will half to decide pretty early if you want to have a booming trade city or a happening town where the farmers from the naboring villages spend there coin

2/2
this settlement appears to be on a delta and further more has spread across to the other side instead of pushing inland for more farm land and trees. deforestation is a problem for a city of that size and it needs more wood. most of the cities that have developed the meaner of having a city that stretches across a river has usually been formed by multiple close settlements that grow towards eachothre for economic reasons and eventually merge. however they start as 2 separate settlements close to gather usually by virtue of over expansion. this is most often times seen in capitals that grow too big too fast and people will settle on the other side of the river where land is cheaper. some historical examples are new York, London / Westminster, parice, and if you want a challenge in making a machiavellion merchant republic Venice

Consider the following; cities aren't built for no reason. People originally settled it because it made a good port, or because the geography made it easy to defend from invaders, or because it was an important strategic point which needed to be defended, or because it was nearby to some form of natural resource which could be harvested, etc. Many times for more than one of these reasons.

And also, cities aren't built fully formed. They expand and change constantly. Medieval cities especially will often have several walls within itself that used to be the outer walls but since became obsolete when the city outgrew them. Maybe the city originally was situated only on a single island in an archipelago which then expanded to the other nearby islands and was eventually connected with bridges (maybe ferries were the only way to get between different districts for a while - maybe some districts can still only be reached by ferry).

tl;dr: Cities have a story to tell. If you want yours to feel alive and lived in there needs to be signs that things have happened there and changed through the ages.

more or less what i was saying. make a city by starting with a small settlement and build it from the ground to the sky.

the buildings you build will be replaced by newer ones so start with a few families and let them make new ones and many eventually start having settlers move in

>cities aren't built fully formed
It's not always the case. Sometimes a location plan could survive unchanged until XVIII century. Well, maybe with a couple villages growing bigger outside the walls, but they weren't the city.

city founded by empire (like the roman or chinese one) are often square and on grid, because they are designed from the start. "natural" city that are aggregation of houses growth around little hamlets are generally chaotic except for few old main road. most medieval city are a mix of the two, generally an organised city that outgrow it's wall and start to integrate it's faubourg and little town around it. Paris is a good example of this.

>Until the 1770s London had ONE bridge crossing the tidal Thames
Was one hell of a bridge though

Well, in Europe it's often a "depends" sort of question. Mostly "was it built before Magdeburg law?"
A good example is Carcassonne. The oldest part grew organically so it's a jumbled mess of roads winding around the castle. On the other bank of Aude you have the newer development, that is neatly organised into squares.

Take a look at this: oldmapsonline.org/
This can give some insight on how cities evolved.

who can tell me something, how many people is enough? i keep seeing "go until you have the correct population" but uh, pardon me for not being versed in 1450's population numbers but i don't know how many people made up a large city, or even an army really

...

Armies are easier, as people often recorded how many men their forces and enemies' forces had (though the latter was often exaggerated)

For cities, huge is a couple of hundred thousand - this may help for numbers www222.pair.com/sjohn/blueroom/demog.htm

The world population was relatively stable until the last 100 years or so due to the massive increase of wealth and quality of healthcare that happened at the same time (and is apparently back at being stable again as the average household in the world now has two children).

An ordinary town would have a population in the lower thousands. An ordinarty city would have a population in the tens of thousands. And a large city would have a couple of hundred thousand inhabitants. Paris, for example, had between 2-300.000 people living within in from about 1300AD up to the 1600's and then grew to 400.000 and went from there.

A good rule of thumb when calculating army size is; 10 farmers to feed one blacksmith. 10 blacksmiths to supply one soldier.

So for every 10.000 men living in the kingdom, there's 100 soldiers. It's an oversimplification, but it will keep you from making the numbers look unrealistically big.

It depends where and on the kind of society you want. Italy had multiple cities around or above 100k inhabitants, while the British Isles didn't even have one. For France, Paris was already by far the largest city in 1450 but it was still not quite as extreme as now.

Extremely large cities have a tendency to follow imperial fortunes. Baghdad and Rome both reached a million only briefly, Constantinople never did, and in all cases their populations cratered the moment their empires collapsed.

>10 blacksmiths to supply one soldier.
To supply, or just a general ratio?
Seems a bit low for the latter

Not but it is a "rule of thumb". The numbers can slide around a little bit in either direction.

However 100 farmers > 10 artisans > 1 full time soldier is a good place to start. Note: full time soldier. Not militia, not town guards, not feudal levies, etc. but full time pros.

I half agree. I just don't see how that adds up though. Sure those 10 smiths also supply the regular plebs with all sorts of necessities, but doen't that seem like an over abundance?

10% of the population are smiths? Is that a thing or am I just daft?

The actually important thing in any place is the people.
As characters stay around a place for longer time they get different needs and they meet different people and then they keep meeting those people.
Sure places and buildings are important in some sense, but characters are the life of the city and city without life is just dungeon made by a necromancer.

>I half agree. I just don't see how that adds up though. Sure those 10 smiths also supply the regular plebs with all sorts of necessities, but doen't that seem like an over abundance?

ARTISANS, not just smiths. Butcher, baker, candlestick maker. Cooper, wheelwright, harness maker. Miller, brewer, fuller. Artisans.

Farmer doesn't refer to "just" farmers either. Fisherman, trapper, herder, drover, shepherd, woodsman, charcoal burner, etc.

>Is that a thing or am I just daft?

Not daft. Just autistically fixated on one word instead of taking the time to think.

Haha, this is the internet. If you fail to specify it's not my fault.

So what is the correct ratio for smiths to population? What is the ratio of full time soldiers to population?

Just assume I'm new here and throw out some numbers if you care.

>Haha, this is the internet. If you fail to specify it's not my fault.

I'm not , you autistic fuckwit.

>So what is the correct ratio for smiths to population?

Who knows.

>What is the ratio of full time soldiers to population?

Already told you, fuckwit. 100 > 10 > 1

>Just assume I'm new here and throw out some numbers if you care.

No, not new. An annoying douchebag, but not new. Fuckwit.

To be fair Paris had a bunch of bridges.. but they were smaller than London bridge, and you still make a good point about OP's map. Those bridges look huge.

and Paris had about 1million people at the time (around 1500?)

What do you think of www222.pair.com/sjohn/blueroom/demog.htm

you okay?

Nah he ain't. Hes loopy and in denial.

Maybe it's better to look at it in a more abstract sense.

You've got suppliers, who provide raw food, lumber, ore, leather and other basic materials. They enable the survival of the group.
You've got craftsmen, who refine and fashion useful items from these basic materials. They make the process of surviving more efficient.
Then you've got what I'd call the bourgeoisie. These are professions that do not assist with or facilitate survival but are possible because their survival is enabled by suppliers and craftsmen. Scholars, merchants, bankers, performers and yes, professional soldiers, all fall into this category.

I'd personally say that five suppliers enable one craftsmen and five craftsmen enable one bourgeois, with probably one in four of the bourgeoisie being a professional military man. The other three of the four probably perform a function related to religion, education, entertainment or economics.

Note that I am using bourgeoisie in a technical fashion and I'm not trying to make a political statement.

Not only are Paris' bridges smaller, the Seine isn't tidal at that point. The jpg the OP shared shows a tiny city with nine large bridges spanning various points across a tidal river and harbor.

And then there's the three breakwaters/moles. In order to support grain shipments, it took Rome decades to build two moles at Ostia and that was with the entire empire footing the bill.

How does Podunk depicted in the jpg afford all those bridges, moles, walls, etc.?

Looks good and I'm familiar with some of the sources listed.

Check out 's link. You may want to adjust your numbers.

Honestly? The numbers were constantly changing with every year that passed. For example, we live in a time where the bourgeoisie outnumber the suppliers and the craftsmen (not combined, mind you).

It's very hard to say what the exact numbers are for any one period. Even everything you've read there is a game designer's guess based on a handful of consulted books and a tax list from 13th century Paris.

More than I've got, I admit but I wouldn't put too much stock in that list. Especially considering that most settings have magic and depending on how magic works, that has the potential to screw up everything listed there.

Why do you think the surname Smith is so common around the world?

Well it's the best/only reference posted so far.

Magical use is defined by the Master, meaning if it's screwed up it's by definition already.

Ay no hate,but 2 out of 285 of my FB friends have the last name Smith.

So by reference of that less than 1% of the population would be "Smiths"

Sure, some might be Goldsmiths, some Blacksmiths, etc, but I feel like that HAS to be some frame of reference.

>inb4 you have no friends

>Honestly?

Yes.

>For example, we live in a time where the bourgeoisie outnumber the suppliers and the craftsmen (not combined, mind you).

So magic equates industrialization?

>It's very hard to say what the exact numbers are for any one period. Even everything you've read there is a game designer's guess based on a handful of consulted books and a tax list from 13th century Paris.

A designer's guess based on actual records, while you admit your guess...

>More than I've got

... was basically pulled out of your ass.

Guess which one I'll go with.

>Especially considering that most settings have magic and depending on how magic works, that has the potential to screw up everything listed there.

So again, magic equates industrialization?

I fucking knew the guy having a hack at me was full of shit. I like /tg.

>The world population was relatively stable until the last 100 years or so due to the massive increase of wealth and quality of healthcare that happened at the same time (and is apparently back at being stable again as the average household in the world now has two children).

Dunno about that, you're probably somewhat right. Urban population did absolutely NOT remain stable though.

Hey, Slappy? I AM the guy having a hack at you.

I'm...

... you pathetic autistic fuckwit.

No, magic doesn't equate industrialization. Magic equates magic and we have no way of knowing how magic of any sort could impact the development of civilization, all we can do is speculate.

Demographies have absolutely changed throughout the years. But the total population was pretty consistent.

Ask yourself two questions: what is the biggest problem in this city, and what do people THINK is the biggest problem in this city? The two are never, ever the same.

Konigsberg had 7 bridges, but they were smaller than either OP's bridges or London's bridge

Paris actually didn't reach a million before the revolution.

The population of smiths was nowhere near 10%. That's the full urban population of crusades-era Europe.

And they didn't cross a tidal river and harbor.

something interesting: city of antwerp during the early renaissance when it was the wealthiest trading port in europe
still it had no bridge, mostly due to the whole "tidal river and harbor" thing

not the whole 3 houses on the other side of the river thing?

What's all the fuss about bridges and tides?

Moving water wears down bridges, and they need repairs, which costs money - amount depends on how big the bridge is, and how much the water moves.

>What's all the fuss about bridges and tides?
It's difficult to build a bridge in big bodies of water that moves so much, and you don't want to block a harbour by putting a big fuckoff bridge there.

And in some cases there's a significant industry in ferrying - at one point London in its 1-bridge period had something like 60'000 rivermen, which also provided a pool for the naval reserve, which defeated a proposal for a second bridge

also there needs to be a significant incentive to build a bridge

in the case of antwerp the areas directly across the river were relatively poor and the river itself, while still wide at that point quickly narrows down upstream and loses its tidal characteristics so a bridge in an upstream city like ghent was significantly cheaper

and like the other user said: there was thriving ferry industry which fulfilled the need to cross the river

a major trading port does not need to have a bridge, nor does it as many people assume need to be located directly at the estuary of a river. If a river can be sailed its often significantly better to have the major port several miles inland

On the subject of bridges: Stockholm has had a couple since at least the 1500's, though until the 19th century they were only intended to complement the ferry industry. The location wasn't really chosen because it made a good trading port, though, despite Birka being close by, but rather because it made a good defensive position against enemies, especially the Danes.

Forget the fantasy cities and go for real examples. Carthage harbor's; Paris megadungeon of catacombs, sewers and mines; the hydraulic engineering of Troy;the Sogdian Rock; real cities have impressive features than fiction hardly can come up with on their own.
--/--
Please do not go straight away to luxury products, like gold, exporting magic itens, gems etc.

There is fun in other things people needed more in their daily lifes. Like say, collecting molten red sulphur leaking from volcanic vents. The locals call it "earthen blood" and worship the blue flames it produces at night. The nearby turquoise lake is actually sulphuric acid, and the town defenses channel it into a moat.
--/--
The cityographer program is quite useful, the free version generates up to 5000 people-big towns:
cityographer.com/
--/--
Huge walls, both in thickness or highness, don't make for better defenses. Multiple walls are better, but if they are of the same height the inner ones are useless once the enemy conquers the outer wall. Even fantasy metropolises can't ask for better conventional defenses than Carthage and Constantinople triple wall systems.
--/--
It's harder to do, but try to use uneven terrain to set a city in. A hill or three, some odd rock outcropping, a marshy area etc. It affects the layout as make it more unique.

Bump because of interest

Ask yourself "How do people get around town?" Picture the city you live in. Picture where the grocery and clothing stores and doctors are.

Now remove cars, buses and trains. You walk or ride an animal. How long would it take you to get to the things you need. Could you wake up, go get the things you need and get home in time to make use of them? What if there's no refrigerators? Where do people get water? Where does the waste go?

Practicalities will make your city much more consistent and plausible.

Don't worry too much about "realistic". Dragons and magic tend to fuck with realism.

I like your sulphur example.

Many towns and cities also were next to, or on opposite banks of a river. A town or city should always be at the crosssection of a road or two, and if possible some trade up and down the river. It helps promote the idea that cities are often economic centers and places to tax.

That is a really cool website, thanks for sharing. Time to lose a few hours browsing.

Seconday, but whatever.

If there are different races, especially with different bodies, try to underline that.

Does the halfing ghetto have actually half-sized buildings (possibly difficult for guards to navigate)? Do the dwarves live in half-subterrenean homes (quite nicely cut but still half-subterreanean)? How can the centaurs fit in, if they do enter the city on a regular basis, do they even go into the inns and shops?

Of course, this probably works (to an extent) even for cultural differences.

>Does the halfing ghetto have actually half-sized buildings (possibly difficult for guards to navigate

This is how I build kobold warrens. It's perfectly easy for someone under 4 feet tall to run around in, but good luck if you're human sized.