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: Steve Walmsley
« on: April 11, 2011, 01:34:22 PM »

Quote from: Brian on April 10, 2011, 02:00:59 PM
One thing to think about with  faster growing population is that the percentage of the population generating wealth goes up with larger populations.  A small population has most of its people working in the agriculture and factories with only a small percentage working in the service sector.  A large population however has about 75% working in the service sector, and that is what generates money to spend.  A population of 400 million is about the cutoff for getting the 75% service sector.  A 100 million population has a service sector of 56% roughly.  Depending on how your population is split up this can have a big effect on your income and what you can actually spend it on

Brian

Wealth generation is based on the entire population. It isn't restricted to a particular sector.

Steve
Posted by: Brian Neumann
« on: April 10, 2011, 02:00:59 PM »

One thing to think about with  faster growing population is that the percentage of the population generating wealth goes up with larger populations.  A small population has most of its people working in the agriculture and factories with only a small percentage working in the service sector.  A large population however has about 75% working in the service sector, and that is what generates money to spend.  A population of 400 million is about the cutoff for getting the 75% service sector.  A 100 million population has a service sector of 56% roughly.  Depending on how your population is split up this can have a big effect on your income and what you can actually spend it on

Brian
Posted by: Rastaman
« on: April 10, 2011, 12:36:14 PM »

Quote from: Rastaman on April 09, 2011, 04:12:51 PM
The fastest population growth is achieved when you equalize the population over all colonies. Right?


Correct. For example, if you have 5 billion people and seed 3 worlds with 25 million each, after 50 years you have 10% less total population than seeding each with 250 million and 22% less than when seeding each with 1250 million. Time in cold sleep not considered.

If you have 10 colonies with 500 million each the advantage is 48%.

So a constant stream of colony ships to equalize the populations nets the largest growth. And likely a more lively empire, and more work.
Posted by: Shadow
« on: April 10, 2011, 11:02:02 AM »

Probably. After all, planetary population is always represented in millions.
Posted by: Father Tim
« on: April 10, 2011, 10:11:08 AM »

Quote from: Steve Walmsley on April 10, 2011, 05:41:26 AM
Colony Growth Rate = 20 / (CurrentPop ^ (1 / 3))

This is capped at 10% before modifications for planetary and sector governors. It is also affected by radiation.

Steve

That's current pop in millions, right?
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: April 10, 2011, 05:44:16 AM »

The growth rate of Earth's population has been declining since peaking in 1963 at 2.20% per annum. In 2009, the estimated annual growth rate was 1.1%

Steve
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: April 10, 2011, 05:41:26 AM »

Quote from: Foolcow on April 08, 2011, 04:19:08 PM
As long as lack of infrastructure is not an issue, the population growth percentage seems to be solely a function of current population.  Does anybody know what it is exactly?

Colony Growth Rate = 20 / (CurrentPop ^ (1 / 3))

This is capped at 10% before modifications for planetary and sector governors. It is also affected by radiation.

Steve
Posted by: Sheb
« on: April 10, 2011, 03:37:56 AM »

Yup, and it is a bit higher than what you get on Aurora for a many billions world. I guess Steve is an idealist, and think that TN tech will dramatically raise people's standard of living, especially in the develloping world, meaning they make less babies.
Posted by: Thiosk
« on: April 09, 2011, 05:01:12 PM »

Quote from: Sheb on April 09, 2011, 01:29:30 PM
Well, current growth rate is about 1,3%.

Interesting!  I had to look up the value, and it sure is. 1.3% is still a lot of babies
Posted by: Rastaman
« on: April 09, 2011, 04:12:51 PM »

The fastest population growth is achieved when you equalize the population over all colonies. Right?
Posted by: Ziusudra
« on: April 09, 2011, 01:36:36 PM »

Quote from: Father Tim on April 09, 2011, 09:06:35 AM
It was posted in the Mechanics forum, but that was four or five years ago.  It's a simple logarithmic scale from a max of 10% (under a million) down to 2% (more than ten million, or is it more than 25 million?)

Based on my 5 colonies, I'd say the 10% is less than 10 million and the 2% is at 1 billion. Two colonies at 10% are 2.13m and 7.18m, no bonuses. Earth with 1033.53m would be 1.97% without the governor bonus. No sector bonuses.
Posted by: Sheb
« on: April 09, 2011, 01:29:30 PM »

Well, current growth rate is about 1,3%.
Posted by: Thiosk
« on: April 09, 2011, 01:22:30 PM »

Seems kinda strange.  Here we're at 7 billion and folks are just making tons of babies as fast as they can, at least in the developing world.
Posted by: Tarran
« on: April 09, 2011, 01:18:05 PM »

Ah yes, I had forgotten about them.

It's .96% at earth and 2.03% at mercury without them. Still doesn't fit the formula Tim posted.
Posted by: Erik L
« on: April 09, 2011, 01:02:56 PM »

Quote from: Tarran on April 09, 2011, 12:57:25 PM
Actually, it doesn't seem to be that simple. I have a growth rate of 1.1% at 9 billion on earth, and a growth rate of 2.24% at 950 million on mercury.

Any population growth modifiers on governors?