Stellaris Dev Diary #132 - Ecumenopolis and Megastructures

[Peko?]

>We can discuss balance for any two comparable affects, regardless of scale. One AP purchase is arguably ideal for this; the cost-benefit analysis is super straightforward, as the cost is identical for all but a few Ascension Perks (one point) and has very clearly defined outcomes.
So it is straightforward for a multiple purchase/ number of separate straightforward purchases.
>Theory aside, it's pretty clear that while some of the affects are exaggerated for the purposes of gameplay, there's no real evidence behind 'larger = better' being more logical in the real world either.
There is actual evidence that larger is better. Having a larger amount of resources, a more advanced scientific base, a larger and better equipped military, a large commander pool to choose the best from, does make you stronger. A heavy tank with powerful armour is "stronger" than a small tank with the same 'technological' level.
>There are many comparatively small countries that have done very well for themselves through strong, centralized institutions, such as pre-Empire Britain, Japan or Venice. The large empire costs on Unity and Science are pretty clearly supposed to represent the very real costs of decentralizing your institutions.
We are not speaking about life levels or freedom ratings, no, we are speaking about "power" of a civilisation. And a difference between a small country/large country on a planet scale (on which, a political doctrine or a superior military tactic can help a small nation defeat a larger one, and a technological renessance- to grow more powerful economically)- is incomparable to a difference between a 1 planet empire, and an empire spanning 1000 planets. The quantity also increases in quality with the rise of quantity, as the civilisation uses it's resources and pools to upgrade and advance, for example. Basically, if we take two nations (regardless, planetery of space ones), with same quality and leaders,same conditions, but different quantity of land/planets, the bigger one wins. Yes, a bigger one can have mediocre leadership and a smaller one will have a genious, yes, a bigger one can have a period of stagnation, and a smaller one has a scientific upheaval, yes, there can be a miracle, like a comet hitting the home world/ a meteor falls on a capital, but the larger is the size difference- the more miracles and bad leaders you need to have a small empire>big empire result.
And, you know, a sucessfull empire grows, like an organism. So, a small empire that is sucessfull, would in most cases annex planets'lands and get new resources. And it will stop being a small empire.
>As an example, if you had 15 scientists in one building, aware of each others' research and capable of bouncing ideas off of each other, or the same 15 scientist spread out among 15 different planets, who do you think would have more success in their research?
If we have more worlds and pops- we have more scientists, no? And who said, that they should be spread out? And who said, we cant support effective comms?
Here: you can have a nation that has 100 people, and can spawn 1 mediocre scientist and can support with ALL OF its money only the most primitive lab. Or, you can have a nation with a population of 1345^863, that has a chance of a new genious being born each day- 99%, and even a 0,0000001 of the nations economy can support interstellar-size superlabs.
>While I'd like for this to be more clearly represented in-game, and perhaps some flexibility for Empires with highly developed core worlds and terrible outer planets, I think the penalties are pretty clearly founded in both realism and better game balance.
They are not founded. A small empire can have the same ineffective methods as a large empire. It is not immune, actually, the whole "big corrupt country trope" is far from reality, and there is a larger % of corruption in small states, as they have to be much more effective to develop with their meager resources and tech, which, in turn, leads to degradation and corruption.
>The argument that not all game styles don't need to be balanced against each other is not a good one for reasons you have already talked about: the expected way for you to make your experience more or less difficult is to adjust the game settings,
Yes, but, a large empire is a sucessfull empire- the empire, that manages to expand. The game is about some level of expansionism, after all. And what you say- we should just make expansionism irrelevant, so that some person who was unable to expand (or didn't want to play OP for some rp reasons)- would be equal to a person who is sucessfull and plays OP
>not to play tall or wide. Those decisions should be cost-neutral (so the playstyles are balanced), as they're not the design levers used to govern the difficulty of your experience.
The tall-wide dychotomy is not real. And even the game's debuffs for large empires stop making this dychotomy real midgame. I manage to both fully upgrade all stuff AND get maximum new stuff, and still have the resources in their maximum cap. And such a system represents a realistic imperial quality increases quantity and quantity increases quality "singularity".
>Also, you know, you should be able to play how you like without feeling like you're shooting yourself in the foot.
So we should just shooy in the foot all the players, by adding xtra unrealistic debuffs on large empire, and make them even more unrealistic by not adding them to the small empires, supporting the "small-efficient" trope?
>Ecumenopolis are also supposed to be representing a cultural movement (thus they're a Unity outcome), not just an outcome of industrial output. Arguably, I'd expect strong pressures on migration (A New Life Awaits On The Off World Colonies!)
>pressures on migration
We can produce pops without migrating from other empires. We can even produce pops on the same planet where the ecumenopolis is built, without pops coming from other planets of our Empire.
>off world colonies
>a colony that is heavily urbanized, and is basically like a part of the metropoly
> rather than perpetual urban sprawl. Most Empires could be expected to want to retain at least some of each world's natural environment, either for nostalgia, religious purposes, or research purposes. I think the conclusion that they are inevitable is wrong-footed and shallow.
For "research purposes" it's enough to have some bioorganisms stuffed in biolabs. We don't need forests to study biology of trees. Not all religions are about nature worship. Actually, IRL, only a few (including the modern trend of "atheistic nature worship") are such. Nostalgia? If we talk about feelings, how about the fact, that the species/nation can embrace its technofuture, and actually hate the nature of old? It's as possible as the nostalgia thing, if not more. And I can bring a dosen of other examples (just as you could bring yours). And all of these scenarios have a right to live, so, why should we define the game by one scenario, instead of allowing the players/AI to choose how to play and what to play?

And the award for least readable post of the year goes to...

 

[Retry]

On the contrary: it is possible to be pretty much absolutely certain that at the beginning of the universe, it was a bunch of unbound protons and electrons, which then became hydrogen, which then became the fuel mass of a gravitational confinement fusion reactor.

Fair enough.

 

[Kakotheres]

>We can discuss balance for any two comparable affects, regardless of scale. One AP purchase is arguably ideal for this; the cost-benefit analysis is super straightforward, as the cost is identical for all but a few Ascension Perks (one point) and has very clearly defined outcomes.
So it is straightforward for a multiple purchase/ number of separate straightforward purchases.

This post is a mess. I'm not exactly sure what it is you're saying here; I think we're agreeing?

There is actual evidence that larger is better. Having a larger amount of resources, a more advanced scientific base, a larger and better equipped military, a large commander pool to choose the best from, does make you stronger. A heavy tank with powerful armour is "stronger" than a small tank with the same 'technological' level.

Again, this isn't always true. One of the largest and richest countries in the world is Russia, and this has been the case historically, but they've waxed and waned out of 'Great Power' and 'Superpower' status over the years due to their internal politics and the inherent difficulty of administrating it's territory. England, and later the United Kingdom, are comparatively small in resources and population, but due to it's strong institutions and administration, did really well for itself.

I'm not sure why you're comparing a tank to an empire either, but even your example isn't always true. A heavier tank is going to require more resources to make and more fuel to run.

We are not speaking about life levels or freedom ratings, no, we are speaking about "power" of a civilisation. And a difference between a small country/large country on a planet scale (on which, a political doctrine or a superior military tactic can help a small nation defeat a larger one, and a technological renessance- to grow more powerful economically)- is incomparable to a difference between a 1 planet empire, and an empire spanning 1000 planets. The quantity also increases in quality with the rise of quantity, as the civilisation uses it's resources and pools to upgrade and advance, for example. Basically, if we take two nations (regardless, planetery of space ones), with same quality and leaders,same conditions, but different quantity of land/planets, the bigger one wins. Yes, a bigger one can have mediocre leadership and a smaller one will have a genious, yes, a bigger one can have a period of stagnation, and a smaller one has a scientific upheaval, yes, there can be a miracle, like a comet hitting the home world/ a meteor falls on a capital, but the larger is the size difference- the more miracles and bad leaders you need to have a small empire>big empire result.
And, you know, a sucessfull empire grows, like an organism. So, a small empire that is sucessfull, would in most cases annex planets'lands and get new resources. And it will stop being a small empire.

Venice basically ran the banking of the entire Med for a while with a comparatively tiny population and army (although their navy was pretty good). It's not just about having the biggest numbers; non-Hive Mind activity is inherently inefficient and larger administrations tend towards gross inefficiency compared to smaller ones. What use is having 10 trillion pops and breeding one genius a day if they can't be put towards what they are effective in? Administration costs are real.

In addition, there's costs to propagating new advances and institutions, which means larger empires will be less efficient at that then smaller ones.

You're thinking too much about raw resources and military potential and not enough about the actual issues of the state you are running.

I don't disagree that Stellaris has issues with soft-power projection as a game, but Megacorp is very clearly making big steps to fix that, with the Galactic Market and the Megacorps themselves.

If we have more worlds and pops- we have more scientists, no? And who said, that they should be spread out? And who said, we cant support effective comms?
Here: you can have a nation that has 100 people, and can spawn 1 mediocre scientist and can support with ALL OF its money only the most primitive lab. Or, you can have a nation with a population of 1345^863, that has a chance of a new genious being born each day- 99%, and even a 0,0000001 of the nations economy can support interstellar-size superlabs.

Because nations can only support a percentage of their population in research compared to raw resource output (food, iron etc.). I think you're seriously underestimating the raw costs of empire.

Yes, but, a large empire is a sucessfull empire- the empire, that manages to expand. The game is about some level of expansionism, after all. And what you say- we should just make expansionism irrelevant, so that some person who was unable to expand (or didn't want to play OP for some rp reasons)- would be equal to a person who is sucessfull and plays OP

The point I'm trying to make is that expansionism is not the only way to be successful and nor should it be. If there's an Empire that's taken half the galaxy but has so many pops that it can't feed them and you're the only person selling food, you have all the power, regardless of the comparative military strength.

Economic power is a real thing and has needed better representation than 'can churn out a fleet very quickly' for a while.

The tall-wide dychotomy is not real. And even the game's debuffs for large empires stop making this dychotomy real midgame. I manage to both fully upgrade all stuff AND get maximum new stuff, and still have the resources in their maximum cap. And such a system represents a realistic imperial quality increases quantity and quantity increases quality "singularity".

This is nonsense. Small empires are inherently better at research and especially Unity production. Agrarian Idyll/Inward Perfectionist is amazing at churning out Unity and tends toward small empires. Your 'fully upgraded' is not the same as everyone's 'fully upgraded'. The AI is also pretty terrible at empire management atm.

We can produce pops without migrating from other empires. We can even produce pops on the same planet where the ecumenopolis is built, without pops coming from other planets of our Empire.

I was suggesting the migration away from the homeworld is more likely than Ecumenopolis, not immigration towards the homeworld. I apologise; clearly I was not clear.

For "research purposes" it's enough to have some bioorganisms stuffed in biolabs. We don't need forests to study biology of trees. Not all religions are about nature worship. Actually, IRL, only a few (including the modern trend of "atheistic nature worship") are such. Nostalgia? If we talk about feelings, how about the fact, that the species/nation can embrace its technofuture, and actually hate the nature of old? It's as possible as the nostalgia thing, if not more. And I can bring a dosen of other examples (just as you could bring yours). And all of these scenarios have a right to live, so, why should we define the game by one scenario, instead of allowing the players/AI to choose how to play and what to play?

It's definitely not enough to just stuff a sample into a biolap. Scientists estimate that 150-200 species of plant, insect, bird and mammal become extinct every 24 hours[1]. That's from our current level of industrialization. While the majority of these species are not fundamentally useful to us as a species, there are several advantages to having an existing baseline ecosystem to compare to; you know the chemical types and biology will be similar to what we have, for sample purposes. This has a lot of implications for medicine: the smallpox vaccine was invented because cowpox jumped the species barrier and cows had already formed antibodies.

I'm not saying don't pave over the jungles, but it is going to have an effect on the research of the empire and definitely the culture.

So it makes perfect sense to be behind an Ascension Point. The player is then choosing how to play. Their empire is happy to pave over their worlds.

In a general sense, I think you severely underestimate the complexities of administration, empire management and research. While they are complicated issues and don't always make good gameplay, more than lip-service should be paid to those issues in a game about management.

 

[Lanrete]

This post is a mess. I'm not exactly sure what it is you're saying here; I think we're agreeing?
Again, this isn't always true. One of the largest and richest countries in the world is Russia, and this has been the case historically, but they've waxed and waned out of 'Great Power' and 'Superpower' status over the years due to their internal politics and the inherent difficulty of administrating it's territory. England, and later the United Kingdom, are comparatively small in resources and population, but due to it's strong institutions and administration, did really well for itself.
I'm not sure why you're comparing a tank to an empire either, but even your example isn't always true. A heavier tank is going to require more resources to make and more fuel to run.
Venice basically ran the banking of the entire Med for a while with a comparatively tiny population and army (although their navy was pretty good). It's not just about having the biggest numbers; non-Hive Mind activity is inherently inefficient and larger administrations tend towards gross inefficiency compared to smaller ones. What use is having 10 trillion pops and breeding one genius a day if they can't be put towards what they are effective in? Administration costs are real.
In addition, there's costs to propagating new advances and institutions, which means larger empires will be less efficient at that then smaller ones.
You're thinking too much about raw resources and military potential and not enough about the actual issues of the state you are running.
I don't disagree that Stellaris has issues with soft-power projection as a game, but Megacorp is very clearly making big steps to fix that, with the Galactic Market and the Megacorps themselves.
Because nations can only support a percentage of their population in research compared to raw resource output (food, iron etc.). I think you're seriously underestimating the raw costs of empire.
The point I'm trying to make is that expansionism is not the only way to be successful and nor should it be. If there's an Empire that's taken half the galaxy but has so many pops that it can't feed them and you're the only person selling food, you have all the power, regardless of the comparative military strength.
Economic power is a real thing and has needed better representation than 'can churn out a fleet very quickly' for a while.
This is nonsense. Small empires are inherently better at research and especially Unity production. Agrarian Idyll/Inward Perfectionist is amazing at churning out Unity and tends toward small empires. Your 'fully upgraded' is not the same as everyone's 'fully upgraded'. The AI is also pretty terrible at empire management atm.
I was suggesting the migration away from the homeworld is more likely than Ecumenopolis, not immigration towards the homeworld. I apologise; clearly I was not clear.
It's definitely not enough to just stuff a sample into a biolap. Scientists estimate that 150-200 species of plant, insect, bird and mammal become extinct every 24 hours[1]. That's from our current level of industrialization. While the majority of these species are not fundamentally useful to us as a species, there are several advantages to having an existing baseline ecosystem to compare to; you know the chemical types and biology will be similar to what we have, for sample purposes. This has a lot of implications for medicine: the smallpox vaccine was invented because cowpox jumped the species barrier and cows had already formed antibodies.
I'm not saying don't pave over the jungles, but it is going to have an effect on the research of the empire and definitely the culture.
So it makes perfect sense to be behind an Ascension Point. The player is then choosing how to play. Their empire is happy to pave over their worlds.
In a general sense, I think you severely underestimate the complexities of administration, empire management and research. While they are complicated issues and don't always make good gameplay, more than lip-service should be paid to those issues in a game about management.

>This post is a mess. I'm not exactly sure what it is you're saying here;
I'm saying that quantity=power.
>Again, this isn't always true. One of the largest and richest countries in the world is Russia, and this has been the case historically, but they've waxed and waned out of 'Great Power' and 'Superpower' status over the years due to their internal politics and the inherent difficulty of administrating it's territory. England, and later the United Kingdom, are comparatively small in resources and population, but due to it's strong institutions and administration, did really well for itself.
Russia waxed and waned with...loosing land and population. Large Russian Empire= all the world respects it, and the West doesn't dare to bully it/ befriends the Russians. A bit smaller Soviet Union= half the world respects it, the other half (well, actually, it was less than a 5-th, but let's not deepen into this topic) respects the USA. A much smaller Russian Federation= everyone is away, worshipping the US of A.
Now, the United Kingdom is not a "small" country. It was the 2-nd/3d biggest empire in the world, and the imperial legacy is still not fully dismantled (google up the Commonwealth and the resource stash/political points the UK has from it's imperial era). Now, tell me, did Germany or Russia dare to come to the capital island of the British Empire with a single warship and a bunch of threats? No. Now, the much smaller UK got bullied by Bismark, and an even smaller UK, later, got a single soviet ukrainian aboard a nuclear rocket cruiser coming to London and telling it how he will nuke it, if the britts don't yield. The conflicts with Iceland. The British Empire of old wouldn't be bullied by Iceland.
>I'm not sure why you're comparing a tank to an empire either,
Because the "the bigger-the better" principle works here too. More population, land, resources= more armour, hull strength, more shells, larger caliber.
>but even your example isn't always true. A heavier tank is going to require more resources to make and more fuel to run.
Yes, but it will be also able to last longer and conquer more resource-rich lands.
>Venice basically ran the banking of the entire Med for a while with a comparatively tiny population and army (although their navy was pretty good). It's not just about having the biggest numbers;
So, where is Venice now? Economic power is temporal. Now, resources and land- this is something that will last. Also, the niche of "banking power" is a limited one, and Venice was NOT a superpower of it's time, unlike smth like the HRE. If Venice had the resources of the HRE- Venice would be much more powerful. Just like China is more powerful than the super rich Swiss.
>non-Hive Mind activity is inherently inefficient and larger administrations tend towards gross inefficiency compared to smaller ones. What use is having 10 trillion pops and breeding one genius a day if they can't be put towards what they are effective in? Administration costs are real.
Nope, larger administrations are not necessarily inefficient. It's just a trope, that says that A would be inefficient, because it's bigger than B. By the same logic, if we would be cave men- we would say, that having a country of 1,6 billion is logistically impossible. But China does exist. And the more pops you have- the more administrative crew you can hire, the more robust the country becomes- to a point, where it can ignore any inefficiency. Also, the administrative system can be upgraded, you know?
>In addition, there's costs to propagating new advances and institutions, which means larger empires will be less efficient at that then smaller ones.
Nope. A larger empire=more resource and taxes. And taxations from a higher population would compensate any "costs to propagating". Also, the said costs do not have to be higher than in a small empire. You can have telescreens or TV's installed by the population itself. And having a propaganda channel that is watched by 10 million costs the same as having 500 million watch it.
>You're thinking too much about raw resources and military potential and not enough about the actual issues of the state you are running.
But the resources, land, population, and military ARE the blood and flesh of a state. The state can be efficient, or not, but without lands and pops, it would not exist. The state can be super efficient, but if it's a midget state, some corrupt supernation woul be much more powerfull and rich.
>Because nations can only support a percentage of their population in research compared to raw resource output (food, iron etc.). I think you're seriously underestimating the raw costs of empire.
The more pops you have= the bigger resouce/food output you have (as long as you have enough lands/planets to farm resources from).
>The point I'm trying to make is that expansionism is not the only way to be successful and nor should it be.
It is the only way to success in the long rung. Without propagation and expansionism, a country, an idea, or a species, wouldn't EXIST. The existence of something starts with (self )propagation, if it doesn't propagate for at least a minimum- it doesn't come into existence. And without a large amout of propagation, this smth will die out/get assimilated/get killed off, eventually. And if it is so powerful that it doesn't require propagation to survive for billions of years, why should it propagate and become even more powerful? If you are not some "anti-power" movement, why not? And if you are- to exist is to have power, so, anti-powerists= suicidals, at their core. And we talk about stuff that is more efficient at survival, not dying out.
>If there's an Empire that's taken half the galaxy but has so many pops that it can't feed them and you're the only person selling food, you have all the power, regardless of the comparative military strength.
The empire will just invade you and take all the food.
>Economic power is a real thing and has needed better representation than 'can churn out a fleet very quickly' for a while.
Economic power doesn't exist in a long run, as long as it isn't converted into resources/armies/territories. America purchased (ok, the russians basically gifted it, but it's not the point) Alaska. America has Alaska now. Venice didn't buy Alaska. Venice doesn't own Alaska now.
>This is nonsense. Small empires are inherently better at research and especially Unity production. Agrarian Idyll/Inward Perfectionist is amazing at churning out Unity and tends toward small empires. Your 'fully upgraded' is not the same as everyone's 'fully upgraded'. The AI is also pretty terrible at empire management atm.
Ehm, you didn't get my point, did you? I was speaking about the fact that they ARE more efficient at tech in the game (just as you said), but it is unrealistic if we compare it to real life logic. Also, the efficiency gets negated, at the moment the large empire starst building lots of labs, that both compensate the science debuffs and generate XTRA science. A large empire can have >10 000 science generation. A 1 planet small empire can have, what? 100? 200?
>I was suggesting the migration away from the homeworld is more likely than Ecumenopolis, not immigration towards the homeworld. I apologise; clearly I was not clear.
And why it is more likely? Do all species have a "love to travel" trait? No? No.
>It's definitely not enough to just stuff a sample into a biolap. Scientists estimate that 150-200 species of plant, insect, bird and mammal become extinct every 24 hours[1].
And all those plants, insects, birds and mammals are not required for the survival and wellbeing of Man. If the die out without having an impact. Plus all the usefull biostuff is already in the farms/ in the air-generator parks in the big cities/used for experiments in biolabs/ oops, this part was somehow deleted/
>there are several advantages to having an existing baseline ecosystem to compare to; you know the chemical types and biology will be similar to what we have, for sample purposes.
But we can generate air, water, food, without an ecosystem. And to learn that a human can't live without oxygen- you don't require to test trees, no, test the human himself. The answers to "what we need" are in the bodies, not the surroundings. You don't learn about human oxygen usage from a piece of bark, you learn about it from human bloodcells structure.
>This has a lot of implications for medicine: the smallpox vaccine was invented because cowpox jumped the species barrier and cows had already formed antibodies.
Yes, but if there was no nature around- would there be a smallpox to start with, if there was no species to jump from? And in modern times, they can invent via gene testing, not by using cows.
>I'm not saying don't pave over the jungles, but it is going to have an effect on the research of the empire and definitely the culture.
Yes, there can be some effect on the research, but it would be minimal (like, literally, a molecule of science compared to a planet of science), and would be negated really fast, if you pave with at least a little number of xtra labs and scientists. Also, at some point, you just stop requering the jungle- the genome is decoded, you can create new gene-stuff from scratch, or, for example, your species commited mass suicide and turn into none-biological synths.
>So it makes perfect sense to be behind an Ascension Point. The player is then choosing how to play. Their empire is happy to pave over their worlds.
The "choose" part is fine, but the thing is: the number of ascension points is limited. So, somehow, I sacrifice my gene-engineered RP'd immortality, or my megastructures, or my colossus, only to unlock a planet-city. It is already hard to get all the "good" stuff, without sacrificing smth before this future update. BTW, to have a choice, there doesn't have to be an AP lock. You can just build/not build a planet-city, without the whole "to choose or not to choose the AP" xtra decision.
>In a general sense, I think you severely underestimate the complexities of administration, empire management and research. While they are complicated issues and don't always make good gameplay, more than lip-service should be paid to those issues in a game about management.
Well, there are issues, but not always the ones you mention, and not always in the way you mention. A small is not always efficient. A large is not always corrupt. Larger size does not lead to corruption by itself, and a smaller size doesn't lead to effectiveness by itself.

 

[Lanrete]

I refer to oxygen generators as oxygen generators because that is the correct terminology for them. We're not speaking of different terminologies, you just insist on using the wrong one.

There is no "absolute truth" in defining terminology, you know? A word used between people is subjective thing, formed out of a consensual reality (and a word by itself lives just in the mind of a person). Just because in ''your world'' the regenerator means X - doesn't mean it is so in my world.

 

[Kakotheres]

Russia waxed and waned with...loosing land and population. Large Russian Empire= all the world respects it, and the West doesn't dare to bully it/ befriends the Russians. A bit smaller Soviet Union= half the world respects it, the other half (well, actually, it was less than a 5-th, but let's not deepen into this topic) respects the USA. A much smaller Russian Federation= everyone is away, worshipping the US of A.

You're aware that the USSR had more land and more population than the Russian Empire that proceeded it? About half of Eastern Europe was federated under what was effectively Russian hegemony.

Imperial Russia's effective power compared to the other European nations fluctuated wildly, specifically because it's population was poor, under educated and their economy was powered by agriculture and serfdom. Disease, corruption and dramatic weather caused disproportionately higher damage to it then other, more efficiently administrated countries. This is despite the fact it was the third largest country in the world in terms of population (behind Qing China, another excellent example of the same issues in administrating large populations and India) and the third largest Empire ever in terms of landmass.

The same is true, to a lesser extent, of the USSR. By the time it de-federated, it wasn't far from collapse anyway, due to not being able or willing to produce, among other things, enough luxury goods for it's citizens compared to it's main competitors.

Raw resource output is not and should not be the only predictor of power, and reality repeatedly supports this.

Now, the United Kingdom is not a "small" country. It was the 2-nd/3d biggest empire in the world, and the imperial legacy is still not fully dismantled (google up the Commonwealth and the resource stash/political points the UK has from it's imperial era). Now, tell me, did Germany or Russia dare to come to the capital island of the British Empire with a single warship and a bunch of threats? No. Now, the much smaller UK got bullied by Bismark, and an even smaller UK, later, got a single soviet ukrainian aboard a nuclear rocket cruiser coming to London and telling it how he will nuke it, if the britts don't yield. The conflicts with Iceland. The British Empire of old wouldn't be bullied by Iceland.

The British Empire came about despite Britain, and England especially, being at war on and off with their much larger (in both landmass and population) neighbor, France for literally hundreds of years.

And then, despite being the largest Empire the world has ever seen, it collapsed. Surely, following your logic here, it should have pushed it's hegemony over all the other, weaker countries?

I live in a Commonwealth country, by the by.

So, where is Venice now? Economic power is temporal. Now, resources and land- this is something that will last. Also, the niche of "banking power" is a limited one, and Venice was NOT a superpower of it's time, unlike smth like the HRE. If Venice had the resources of the HRE- Venice would be much more powerful. Just like China is more powerful than the super rich Swiss.

Nope, larger administrations are not necessarily inefficient. It's just a trope, that says that A would be inefficient, because it's bigger than B. By the same logic, if we would be cave men- we would say, that having a country of 1,6 billion is logistically impossible. But China does exist. And the more pops you have- the more administrative crew you can hire, the more robust the country becomes- to a point, where it can ignore any inefficiency. Also, the administrative system can be upgraded, you know?

As per your British Empire example above, all power is temporal. Stellaris empires don't collapse unless you grossly mismanage them, but it's still reasonable that post-expansion things are more difficult to administrate. Historically, larger administrations have been more inefficient, though. China's a strong example; administrating such a population dense area has always been a nightmare, and what we recognize as China's predecessor states repeatedly and often collapsed due to those difficulties.

Hell, half of Chinese classical literature is about the Warring States period, which takes place after the local government has collapsed and several states are trying to make a successor.

It's also amusing you bring up the HRE, which pretty much always was less effective than it should've been if you look at raw landmass and population specifically because it's institutions were not suited to efficient administration.

Nope. A larger empire=more resource and taxes. And taxations from a higher population would compensate any "costs to propagating". Also, the said costs do not have to be higher than in a small empire. You can have telescreens or TV's installed by the population itself. And having a propaganda channel that is watched by 10 million costs the same as having 500 million watch it.

It's worth noting that current Western cultural and technological changes are driven almost entirely by non-State actors, with heavy incentives to propagate as quickly as possible and they still can't manage simultaneous releases of content and technology across state lines.

State-driven change is even more difficult. Look at anti-smoking campaigns, which would be a prime example of a state-driven cultural change. Even within the borders of the country, and even using the mass communications methods you've described, it took literal decades for the desired levels of cultural change (people smoking significantly less), to be reached.

Stellaris doesn't show this time cost; every Tradition applies instantly, and to your whole empire. Instead it increases the cost of adoption. Recouping those costs through 'more resources and taxes' is exactly what wide empires do already, but it makes sense for tall ones to have lower costs.

>I was suggesting the migration away from the homeworld is more likely than Ecumenopolis, not immigration towards the homeworld. I apologise; clearly I was not clear.
And why it is more likely? Do all species have a "love to travel" trait? No? No.

No, of course not. And if you think your species is less likely to migrate away then pave over their planet to make a Ecumenopolis, then pick that perk. This is how you're supposed to roleplay! It's working as intended.

The "choose" part is fine, but the thing is: the number of ascension points is limited. So, somehow, I sacrifice my gene-engineered RP'd immortality, or my megastructures, or my colossus, only to unlock a planet-city. It is already hard to get all the "good" stuff, without sacrificing smth before this future update.

This is a different argument than what you started with:

BTW, the game actually nerfed the "size=strength" thing to an unrealistic level, like the fact that the more planets you have= the less science you produce. While realistically, a larger empire can have more money for science and a larger population can spawn more high-level scientists or even genius-level.
Balance can be used so that one branch of ascension or one ethic won't feel underpowered, or, for the players to deside who is the better player. But removing the ability to become stronger as the game progresses (limiting ecumenopoli and making the limit the same for any empire=limiting the ability of a large empire to build more battleships than a small empire) is not balancing.

"a bunch of disconnected megalopoli"-nope, if two cities on a geoidal planet grow forever, at some point, they will meet.

Which suggests that not only are the costs for having larger empire unrealistic (which has consumed most of our conversation, admittedly), but the Ecumenopoli are inevitable given sufficient development and thus should not be locked behind an Ascension Perk.

I think, overall, the Ascension Perks are supposed to represent the cultural path your empire takes as it expands through the stars.They're not supposed to be a collectathon. If you think that your species of Hatdudes would build megacities that merge into an Ecumenopolis, then take that perk.

It does feel pretty terrible to have to skip other options you want to take and honestly I think I probably won't take Ecumenopoli often because of that. My personal opinion is that the Ascension Paths should be unshackled from Ascension Perks somehow, as they're warping the economy of them, but I can't see a satisfying way to do that.

This post is long enough, so I've cut out all the arguments I thought were redundant or just not worth continuing (like the tank thing). If you want me to address a specific point, please feel free to point it out and I will.

 

[Retry]

There is no "absolute truth" in defining terminology, you know? A word used between people is subjective thing, formed out of a consensual reality (and a word by itself lives just in the mind of a person). Just because in ''your world'' the regenerator means X - doesn't mean it is so in my world.

Well, the rest of the world calls machines that create oxygen gas byproducts for breathing "generators", so I think I'll have to go with them. No offense intended to your world, whatever that is.

 

[Mr. Capiatlist]

Let's avoid the real life politics and the off topic diatribes, please.

 

[Kayden_II]

Just to be clear ...
These 4 new megastructures are a part of the "MegaCorp"-DLC or "Utopia" aka the actual megastructure-DLC ?

 

[Commodus]

Just to be clear ...
These 4 new megastructures are a part of the "MegaCorp"-DLC or "Utopia" aka the actual megastructure-DLC ?

The new ones are part of Megacorp, the old ones are part of Utopia. If you have both DLCs, you have all of them, it's pretty simple.

 

[IceAdrian]

About version 2.2.1. Here are some bugs about the mechanical. When it Completes to technology that increases the speed of robot construction, it will not take effect. （

 

[Kougar]

Ecumenopolis is perfect habitability, much like gaia/habitat.

Except for when the unfinished terraforming event spawns on them and begins applying permanent negative modifiers, anyhow.

 

[TheDungen]

Except for when the unfinished terraforming event spawns on them and begins applying permanent negative modifiers, anyhow.

I got the addictive plant spores on one of mine.