Infrastracture, orbital habitats and overcrowding

[Mel Vixen]

Isnt there some other way to work that out? Has anyone a idea?

t the moment, each freighter/colony ship takes into account the planned moves of every other freighter/colony ship before deciding what to do

'

You mean that literally? Shouldnt that be limited more somehow? Maybe play with Supply and demand lists?

Just as suggestion: Instead of checking every freigher you could just check sums. Every so often (say each 30 day inc.) you get the supply and demand list of your colonies (Which you use for planning out the next 30 days). Colony (A) has -500 "precious metals" (thus it demands some), (B) offers 500. Company X has a number of freighters. The first freighter sees the demand of metals on (A) and looks up the offering Colonies. Since (B) offers you subtract 20 Metals from the Colonies pool and add that to (A)'s pool - this way you get -480 pM on (A) and +480 on (B). You do that sequential for every freighter. You stop when either pool reaches 0 and you repeat the process until your time runs out.

This approach has some problems for one that the speed of the freighters isnt accounted for. I would imagine it favors slow but bulky freighters.     

[Nathan_]

Isnt there some other way to work that out? Has anyone a idea?

not without ripping the guts of the current engine out. In terms of colony ships, and commercial freighters hauling infrastructure(both of which have a real effect beyond wealth on a colony), colonies don't know whether or not there will be sufficient infrastructure 6 months down the line, and freighters could get into a situation where they'd deliver infrastructure to a planet that didn't need it. so even with the new models that we've thrown out this would still generate the quasi-race condition/state issue here.

[PTTG]

My ideal overcrowding equation would be something like this:

10([Planet's surface area relative to earth]/[Planet colony Cost +1])=[Billions of people planet can support].

[ollobrains]

My ideal overcrowding equation would be something like this:

10([Planet's surface area relative to earth]/[Planet colony Cost +1])=[Billions of people planet can support].

reasonable equation with other modifiers as required

[swarm_sadist]

I'd guess it's because future tech means we can fit far more people on earth and other habitable planets at minimum cost. I mean, even now earth isn't at a space premium. Our problems right now are things like pollution and a lack of resources. If those weren't a concern we could physically fit many billions more on the planet than we have now, even with our conventional cities. Add in future tech, and any population size you're likely to have in aurora is unlikely to be a problem physically. Now, on a planet with an unbreathable atmosphere, that is 100 degrees and you have to be physically sheltered from the environment, you are going to need infrastructure to keep people safe and if there are too many people for the confined space...

The problem with that is modern technology only allows our current population because of hydrocarbons (IE Finite resource). Once that resource runs out you lose that support system. If a trans-newtonian population used technology based on trans-newtonian elements, then they will be consuming those elements over time. This would just create even more logistical problems as the elements start getting farther away.

Also, you realise you can just simulate this yourself? If you must have it, decide to RP that you become overcrowded at X population and you make your own motivation to expand. Not everyone wants to be humans, btw. A mechanic like this would just cause arguments about how high is too high, and would screw with you when you're playing a hivemind race that might need far less space.

It wouldn't be based on the size of the species, it's based on stuff like the land space required for food and agriculture, how much wood or stone you can find to make houses with, and how much petrol to run the electricity. This could be tied to the wealth per species, with a country like the PRC in the Cold War Campaign requiring very little space per person (not as many creature comforts as western nations->not as much land dedicated to cash crops). Increasing your economy would reduce the carrying capacity of all worlds in question. I personally would not support this method, but I'm sure Steve could think of a race trait or something to simulate this.

Would this satisfy your complaint?

[Person012345]

It wouldn't be based on the size of the species, it's based on stuff like the land space required for food and agriculture, how much wood or stone you can find to make houses with, and how much petrol to run the electricity. This could be tied to the wealth per species, with a country like the PRC in the Cold War Campaign requiring very little space per person (not as many creature comforts as western nations->not as much land dedicated to cash crops). Increasing your economy would reduce the carrying capacity of all worlds in question. I personally would not support this method, but I'm sure Steve could think of a race trait or something to simulate this.

Would this satisfy your complaint?

All of those things are tied to species size, but I didn't actually say size of the species (if by size you mean their physical size). A smaller animal would typically need less food, smaller housing etc. Although quite right it isn't necessary, you could also want to RP a race that live in extremely close proximity and behave somewhat like an ant colony. It's all about how you want to imagine it, and making an arbitrary "this is the point at which you become overcrowded" restricts that.

Would your suggestion satisfy my complaint? Well, not really. If it was going to be implemented I would prefer it to be implemented without that, based on the original formula. Adding in those sorts of exceptions just complicates things and wouldn't actually alleviate my problem. I am of the stance that such a mechanic should not be added at all, so attempting to add it with some sort of appeasement isn't going to satisfy anyone. From my point of view, either add it as you want it or don't. If it's a popular idea there's no need to add in something to make it appeal to me because it never will.

[Theokrat]

The problem with that is modern technology only allows our current population because of hydrocarbons (IE Finite resource). Once that resource runs out you lose that support system. If a trans-newtonian population used technology based on trans-newtonian elements, then they will be consuming those elements over time. This would just create even more logistical problems as the elements start getting farther away.

But all of this is included in the game as an element distinct from overcrowding. You can solve all these logistical problems with mining outposts, mass drivers and freighters - and still get overcrowded problems. And you could equally have a colony that is completely devoid of any resources (either domestically, or imported) with a completely satisfied postulation because there is sufficient infrastructure. So we can not really pretend that the resources that we explicitly manage are the cause for overcrowding issue.
 

[swarm_sadist]

All of those things are tied to species size, but I didn't actually say size of the species (if by size you mean their physical size). A smaller animal would typically need less food, smaller housing etc. Although quite right it isn't necessary, you could also want to RP a race that live in extremely close proximity and behave somewhat like an ant colony. It's all about how you want to imagine it, and making an arbitrary "this is the point at which you become overcrowded" restricts that.

Would your suggestion satisfy my complaint? Well, not really. If it was going to be implemented I would prefer it to be implemented without that, based on the original formula. Adding in those sorts of exceptions just complicates things and wouldn't actually alleviate my problem. I am of the stance that such a mechanic should not be added at all, so attempting to add it with some sort of appeasement isn't going to satisfy anyone. From my point of view, either add it as you want it or don't. If it's a popular idea there's no need to add in something to make it appeal to me because it never will.

Yes smaller creatures need less food. You must also remember that each being requires 1) a space for their community, apart from the rest. 2) distance from enemies, or those they may think are enemies.

1) While you may think that a creature can just be an ant, all creatures have a certain amount of space required, with more personal space being required for smarter creatures. Ants are more like human being in the sense of nationalism, but extremely stupid and able to be fit into a denser area together. An intelligent, free thinking alien settler will, no matter how small they are, require an area able to house their own community. Human communities are about 150 people, with smarter beings able to have slightly larger communities. While a small species could easily get by with an acre of land no problem, I bring up number 2.

2) Paranoia is common in all species, especially intelligent ones. If you aren't prepared for your neighbour to invade you, they might take you by surprise. Therefor, most species will prefer to live rural, unless the convenience of urban life outweighs the risks. Modern urban life is made possible because of easy access to non-subsistent jobs (paid jobs), and crime prevention (police). If a community of people get thrown into a sea of unknown communities (or even known), unrest and crime are sure to follow. Remember that a criminal who is anonymous will have little risk in committing crime in an area.

Modern day society is already overcrowded in this way as well, although not evenly over the world. A future society based on TNT (trans-newtonian tech) means that an enemy is a ten minute commute away at all times. While a conventional start would have a high population, TNT would quickly create overcrowding and crime issues, requiring expansion. While your right in saying there's no need for arbitrary overcrowding points, there needs to be overcrowding. It can be done incrementally over time, with higher populations requiring more policing, more luxury and more power. Eventually you would reach a point that you would need population control measures to prevent future unrest. Which leads to point three.

3) All exponential growth is finite, because of the risk of doubling. A population will grow faster than people might think, with a 1% growth rate resulting in your population doubling every 69-72 years (depending on how accurate you want to be). Remembering the chess board experiment in school, a population would eventually explode to the point of the long integer overloading. Using a bigger integer would only deal this problem for another couple of doubling cycles, thus a hard limit must be made. Eventually you'd reach a point where the population will be rising too fast for your colony ships to move them. Your only choice then would be to cull the planet, which should incite revolt and unrest as well.

So I've made two points based on creature size and how it's irrelevant, and one from a gameplay perspective.

Does this "Appease" you?

EDIT NINJA POST BY THEOKRAT!!!
Yes, I know. Resource shortfall is one of the primary reasons of crowding that is understood and quantifiable at both the small and large scale by todays science. What I was trying to say was that just because technology is more advanced in the future, does not mean we will be able to support massive populations. No matter how advanced the social engineering becomes, it all comes down to resources.

[jseah]

I for one "export" my population to offworld colonies in order to split up my population base for the increased growth rate. 

While exponential growth always beats linear, the time it takes to do so is relevant too.  70 years doubling time at 1% is stupidly long compared to most campaigns, even the longest running campaigns shouldn't hit more than three or four doublings. 

And plainly, your construction and mining capacity doubles faster than your population does. 


RE finite resources:
TN elements, apart from Sorium, don't really go anywhere.  Wouldn't it be feasible to just recycle it?

[Person012345]

Yes smaller creatures need less food. You must also remember that each being requires 1) a space for their community, apart from the rest. 2) distance from enemies, or those they may think are enemies.

1) While you may think that a creature can just be an ant, all creatures have a certain amount of space required, with more personal space being required for smarter creatures. Ants are more like human being in the sense of nationalism, but extremely stupid and able to be fit into a denser area together. An intelligent, free thinking alien settler will, no matter how small they are, require an area able to house their own community. Human communities are about 150 people, with smarter beings able to have slightly larger communities. While a small species could easily get by with an acre of land no problem, I bring up number 2.

2) Paranoia is common in all species, especially intelligent ones. If you aren't prepared for your neighbour to invade you, they might take you by surprise. Therefor, most species will prefer to live rural, unless the convenience of urban life outweighs the risks. Modern urban life is made possible because of easy access to non-subsistent jobs (paid jobs), and crime prevention (police). If a community of people get thrown into a sea of unknown communities (or even known), unrest and crime are sure to follow. Remember that a criminal who is anonymous will have little risk in committing crime in an area.

Modern day society is already overcrowded in this way as well, although not evenly over the world. A future society based on TNT (trans-newtonian tech) means that an enemy is a ten minute commute away at all times. While a conventional start would have a high population, TNT would quickly create overcrowding and crime issues, requiring expansion. While your right in saying there's no need for arbitrary overcrowding points, there needs to be overcrowding. It can be done incrementally over time, with higher populations requiring more policing, more luxury and more power. Eventually you would reach a point that you would need population control measures to prevent future unrest. Which leads to point three.

3) All exponential growth is finite, because of the risk of doubling. A population will grow faster than people might think, with a 1% growth rate resulting in your population doubling every 69-72 years (depending on how accurate you want to be). Remembering the chess board experiment in school, a population would eventually explode to the point of the long integer overloading. Using a bigger integer would only deal this problem for another couple of doubling cycles, thus a hard limit must be made. Eventually you'd reach a point where the population will be rising too fast for your colony ships to move them. Your only choice then would be to cull the planet, which should incite revolt and unrest as well.

So I've made two points based on creature size and how it's irrelevant, and one from a gameplay perspective.

Does this "Appease" you?

Of course not. You're making all sorts of assumptions about the species that I am playing. If you're going to do that you might as well just assume that they need exactly as much space as humans and be done with it. And my objection still stands in that regard, I want the game dictating my species behaviour as little as possible.

As for the gameplay reason, has that ever been a problem thus far? Has anyone ever had a game run long enough to develop that problem? I mean, lets say you start with 100 billion population (assuming you can do that much), how long would that actually take before it broke something ingame?

[Rabid_Cog]

What you want is some kind of mechanic that does reward players for expanding, but does not interfere with rp.  One way to do this is wealth.

People make stuff, and that is where wealth comes from.  Up to two people can put a computer together, but more than that just get in each other's way.  So have the wealth produced by a population not be just a linear function of the number of people, make it have diminishing returns.  That way sticking 500 mil people on each of 3 planets is much more profitable than just sticking 1. 5 bil on a single planet.

A the other end of the equation, you can also have each planet (dependent on size) have some or other 'maximum' population.  Not a hard cap, but rather a point past which wealth gain drops significantly and the service industry worker requirement goes up.  This would simulate the more effort necessary just to keep everyone living comfortably.  To avoid interfering with rp, this should not be overly restrictive.  A homeworld should easily be able to hold in the area of 4-8 billion in people, and a moon can hold around of one billion.

Possibly the most rp-interfering option would be to control populations using the growth rate.  If you provide your planets with all the little trade goodies they need, they grow more.  If you don't, they grow less or possibly even drop in population (at high population levels).  This would have the dual benefit of putting more emphasis on the trade goods, which at the moment do nothing but generate wealth when transported.

[UnLimiTeD]

Wealth is already part of the argument; Civilian ships trade between planets, and you tax them.
That's a clear wealth advantage.
I think it be nice to have a mechanic that limits population growth, maybe calculate a limit based on the planet size, and adjustable modifiers of research speed, wealth production, and industrial output.
Thus, a race that is stupid/less interested in material wealth/less handy and thus used to a lower standard (or just smaller) would also grow a bit faster and have a higher population limit.
Should be optional, of course.
The limit wouldn't be a hard cap, but either increase effects of unrest and decrease wealth production, or just require infrastructure if above, which simulates pumping more resources into supporting the civilization, and might as well result in unrest if not met.

[swarm_sadist]

I just started a test map to see if I could overload the game in a relatively small time frame. 100,000,000,000 people to start crashes my computer, so I had to start at one million and SM 100 billion onto the planet. Between 100-1000 billion people, the growth rate only declined by half. While I did not reach a point of explosion yet, my wealth has reached several trillion dollars, and my EM and thermal signature are about 2.6 million. A ship can detect me from 2.6 billion kilometers without any sensors. (A standard EM and Thermal signature per capita, one of those assumptions you so hate). All in all, my wealth screen is a mass of numbers and I'm guessing every ship would lag because there's a giant sensor contact everyone must look at. Barely 100 years in.

Constants:
0 systems
0 jump points
Year 1 start (To avoid math to calculate time)
No enemies/AI
No ships
15000 conventional industries
100 planetary sensors to look out for danger during experiment (which for some reason overload when you select see passive; 25000 strength)
normal human start (100% wealth)
Governor has +30% growth
Current growth is +0.24% (+0.31%)

I need a life.