Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: Borealis4x
« on: May 21, 2020, 02:42:55 PM »

Quote from: Jorgen_CAB on May 17, 2020, 09:11:53 AM
Quote from: BasileusMaximos on May 17, 2020, 01:07:24 AM
I'd add in technology that expands the natural lives of your guys as well. Biology needs more useful tech imo.

The problem with this is that it does not have to lead to higher population growth at all except some spike in total population. Population growth is a very complex issue in real life.

It should probably stay as a limiting factor to be one encouraging factor to spread out your population in many small places.

Ok, but I dont know what that has to do with having tech that increases the lifespan of leaders to make biology better.

You could add a bunch if healthcare techs, like one to keep leaders from developing health issues, or another to booster the base characteristics of leaders with gene therapy. Mabye even the ability to make clones for your army.
Posted by: consiefe
« on: May 17, 2020, 06:20:18 PM »

Quote from: SpikeTheHobbitMage on May 17, 2020, 05:16:39 PM
Quote from: consiefe on May 17, 2020, 11:21:16 AM
Quote from: SpikeTheHobbitMage on May 17, 2020, 11:15:32 AM
Quote from: consiefe on May 17, 2020, 10:53:48 AM
While we are at it, it would also be nice to block pop growth for orbital habitats instead of shipping people out every time they get crowded. Maybe a special law restricting children? Also do you know what would happen if we move one habitat to elsewhere? Does pops come with us or they stay and sufficate? I suspect second option.
I disagree with extra limits on habitat population growth.  It should be handled exactly the same as planet population limits.  Habitats don't take any people with them when moved, which I consider a bug.

Yeah, fair enough. But what should be the strategy stabilizing them then? Adding more habitats, shipping out people consistently? Because of their size, their movement is not so practical and they have the special case which they don't respect upper limit when growing. Maybe just before pop cap is reached, growth can go down to zero?
Growth rate already reduces towards zero as the population approaches the body cap.  Habitats count towards that cap.  That they don't respect the reduced growth rate is a bug which has already been reported.

Then it's a good thing. :)
Posted by: SpikeTheHobbitMage
« on: May 17, 2020, 05:16:39 PM »

Quote from: consiefe on May 17, 2020, 11:21:16 AM
Quote from: SpikeTheHobbitMage on May 17, 2020, 11:15:32 AM
Quote from: consiefe on May 17, 2020, 10:53:48 AM
While we are at it, it would also be nice to block pop growth for orbital habitats instead of shipping people out every time they get crowded. Maybe a special law restricting children? Also do you know what would happen if we move one habitat to elsewhere? Does pops come with us or they stay and sufficate? I suspect second option.
I disagree with extra limits on habitat population growth.  It should be handled exactly the same as planet population limits.  Habitats don't take any people with them when moved, which I consider a bug.

Yeah, fair enough. But what should be the strategy stabilizing them then? Adding more habitats, shipping out people consistently? Because of their size, their movement is not so practical and they have the special case which they don't respect upper limit when growing. Maybe just before pop cap is reached, growth can go down to zero?
Growth rate already reduces towards zero as the population approaches the body cap.  Habitats count towards that cap.  That they don't respect the reduced growth rate is a bug which has already been reported.
Posted by: Father Tim
« on: May 17, 2020, 04:45:20 PM »

Quote from: consiefe on May 17, 2020, 11:21:16 AM
Yeah, fair enough. But what should be the strategy stabilizing them then? Adding more habitats, shipping out people consistently? Because of their size, their movement is not so practical and they have the special case which they don't respect upper limit when growing. Maybe just before pop cap is reached, growth can go down to zero?


Ignore it, and let the population stabilize itself when it goes over infrastructure limits.
Posted by: consiefe
« on: May 17, 2020, 11:21:16 AM »

Quote from: SpikeTheHobbitMage on May 17, 2020, 11:15:32 AM
Quote from: consiefe on May 17, 2020, 10:53:48 AM
While we are at it, it would also be nice to block pop growth for orbital habitats instead of shipping people out every time they get crowded. Maybe a special law restricting children? Also do you know what would happen if we move one habitat to elsewhere? Does pops come with us or they stay and sufficate? I suspect second option.
I disagree with extra limits on habitat population growth.  It should be handled exactly the same as planet population limits.  Habitats don't take any people with them when moved, which I consider a bug.

Yeah, fair enough. But what should be the strategy stabilizing them then? Adding more habitats, shipping out people consistently? Because of their size, their movement is not so practical and they have the special case which they don't respect upper limit when growing. Maybe just before pop cap is reached, growth can go down to zero?
Posted by: SpikeTheHobbitMage
« on: May 17, 2020, 11:15:32 AM »

Quote from: consiefe on May 17, 2020, 10:53:48 AM
While we are at it, it would also be nice to block pop growth for orbital habitats instead of shipping people out every time they get crowded. Maybe a special law restricting children? Also do you know what would happen if we move one habitat to elsewhere? Does pops come with us or they stay and sufficate? I suspect second option.
I disagree with extra limits on habitat population growth.  It should be handled exactly the same as planet population limits.  Habitats don't take any people with them when moved, which I consider a bug.
Posted by: consiefe
« on: May 17, 2020, 10:53:48 AM »

While we are at it, it would also be nice to block pop growth for orbital habitats instead of shipping people out every time they get crowded. Maybe a special law restricting children? Also do you know what would happen if we move one habitat to elsewhere? Does pops come with us or they stay and sufficate? I suspect second option.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: May 17, 2020, 09:11:53 AM »

Quote from: BasileusMaximos on May 17, 2020, 01:07:24 AM
I'd add in technology that expands the natural lives of your guys as well. Biology needs more useful tech imo.

The problem with this is that it does not have to lead to higher population growth at all except some spike in total population. Population growth is a very complex issue in real life.

It should probably stay as a limiting factor to be one encouraging factor to spread out your population in many small places.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: May 17, 2020, 09:08:14 AM »

Quote from: liveware on May 16, 2020, 09:20:48 PM
Quote from: Jorgen_CAB on May 06, 2020, 05:56:34 PM
Population control should probably be more like political willpower to increase it or something. But to be honest I don't think we should go that way at all and have it work as it does for game balance reasons. Population is an important rather limiting factor on total expansion in the game.

That is essentially the current system, where some administrators have a population growth bonus.

Yes... you are correct and that is probably a decently good mechanic to use as it is. Make sure that large colonies have good administrators that provide a high population growth bonus.
Posted by: Borealis4x
« on: May 17, 2020, 01:07:24 AM »

I'd add in technology that expands the natural lives of your guys as well. Biology needs more useful tech imo.
Posted by: vorpal+5
« on: May 16, 2020, 10:50:35 PM »

Then if you don't have more population, you could have more automation. Fully automated production facility e.g.

Well I guess you can name a construction unit "Self-replicating 3D Printer" ;-)
Posted by: liveware
« on: May 16, 2020, 09:20:48 PM »

Quote from: Jorgen_CAB on May 06, 2020, 05:56:34 PM
Population control should probably be more like political willpower to increase it or something. But to be honest I don't think we should go that way at all and have it work as it does for game balance reasons. Population is an important rather limiting factor on total expansion in the game.

That is essentially the current system, where some administrators have a population growth bonus.
Posted by: Father Tim
« on: May 07, 2020, 07:13:42 AM »

Quote from: TMaekler on May 06, 2020, 11:34:34 AM
When starting conventional it is almost impossible to build as many installations to keep up with the population growth rate.

Good; it shouldn't be possible.  If conventional tech could efficiently exploit a planet, what would be the point in TN?

Quote from: TMaekler on May 06, 2020, 11:34:34 AM
Though starting TN it feels quite ok. Maybe Steve can add some kind of technology line which increases general population growth - and when you start TN that line is already researched up to the 25.000 RP tech (or whatever level makes sense, but basically the actual reproduction rate as of 1.9.5). When starting conventional you have to begin with the 1.000 RP tech which is like 1/10th of the actual growth rate.

I wouldn't want him to.  'Conventional' should be, say, 10% as good as high-tech.


Quote from: TMaekler on May 06, 2020, 11:34:34 AM
Your experience with growth rate the same?

I'm not sure I'd notice if pop growth double across the board, or halved.  It's always been comfortably in the 'enough' range for me.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: May 06, 2020, 05:56:34 PM »

Quote from: Noriad on May 06, 2020, 03:30:04 PM
New technologies may be one possible way to invest in population growth. Health infrastructure like hospitals may be another.

Although health and child mortality actually have had a declining population growth rate in our world... the numbers just take a few generations to show up... it will initially make population grow... usually older people that don't die young for example. But higher health and longer life and less child mortality make humans have less babies.  :)

Population control should probably be more like political willpower to increase it or something. But to be honest I don't think we should go that way at all and have it work as it does for game balance reasons. Population is an important rather limiting factor on total expansion in the game.

Posted by: Noriad
« on: May 06, 2020, 03:30:04 PM »

New technologies may be one possible way to invest in population growth. Health infrastructure like hospitals may be another.