• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Hi all!

As mentioned last week, our plan for today is to go over some changes to automated colony management and pop resettlement. As a reminder, these are still under development, and as such may undergo significant changes and won't be going live for quite some time.

Major goals here were to reduce the micromanagement burden in the mid to late game when individual decisions are less oppressive, and to significantly decrease the need to manually move pops at all. As with the economic changes we were discussing before, a lot of this is still a work in progress to varying degrees.

Automated Colony Management

Some sector management improvements have already been made in the 2.8.1 test branch (you can experiment and leave feedback on it by following the instructions in this thread), but here we’ll be focusing on planetary designations and individual planet automation.

A major pass has been done on automated colony management to improve its effectiveness. After manually setting a colony designation and turning on automated colony management, our intent is for the colony to develop into something you would reasonably expect if you were building it on your own. It should build districts, clear deposits as necessary, and upgrade buildings when there is a need for it.

Planet automation will upgrade capital buildings whenever possible (gotta unlock those building slots!), and will otherwise generally try to build or upgrade from its list if there are less than 3 open jobs. We’ve erred a bit on the side of caution, so it is currently extremely opposed to running deficits. It may require manual intervention if, for example, your energy credits per month are negative, but we figured it was better to leave those sorts of risky economic decisions in the player’s hands.

Code:
automate_foundry_hive_planet = {
    available = {
        has_designation = col_foundry
        owner = { has_authority = auth_hive_mind }
        free_jobs < 3
        has_building_construction = no
    }

    prio_districts = {
        district_industrial
    }

    buildings = {
        1 = {
            building = building_hive_capital
        }

        2 = {
            building = building_spawning_pool
        }

        3 = {
            building = building_clone_vats
        }

        4 = {
            building = building_hive_node
            available = {
                owner = {
                    hive_node_upkeep_affordable = yes
                }
                num_buildings = { type = building_hive_node value = 0 }
            }
        }

        5 = {
            building = building_foundry_1
            available = {
                owner = {
                    foundry_1_upkeep_affordable = yes
                }
            }
        }

        6 = {
            building = building_galactic_memorial_1
            available = {
                owner = {
                    has_valid_civic = civic_hive_memorialist
                }
                NOR = {
                    has_building = building_galactic_memorial_1
                    has_building = building_galactic_memorial_2
                    has_building = building_galactic_memorial_3
                }
            }
        }

        7 = {
            building = building_betharian_power_plant
        }

        8 = {
            building = building_mote_harvesters
        }

        9 = {
            building = building_crystal_mines
        }

        10 = {
            building = building_gas_extractors
        }

        11 = {
            building = building_chemical_plant
            available = {
                num_buildings = { type = building_chemical_plant value = 0 }
            }
        }

        12 = {
            building = building_hive_node
            available = {
                owner = {
                    hive_node_upkeep_affordable = yes
                }
                num_buildings = { type = building_hive_node value < 2 }
            }
        }

    }
}

This script will attempt to build a forge world for a hive empire. If there are less than 3 free jobs and there is nothing currently in the build queue, it will check to see if there is anything that it can build. Planetary automation has a tendency to favor districts over buildings, but will construct buildings if there are 1.5 times as many districts already built than there are buildings. (This ratio is able to be set in 00_defines.txt as COLONY_AUTOMATION_DISTRICT_PREFERENCE.) When selecting a building, it will move down the list until it finds something that it is capable of building and meets the scripted restrictions. The building’s upkeep is always taken into consideration. The scripted “_affordable” checks are to estimate whether you can afford the jobs it creates as well.

Blockers are fairly low priority for planetary automation, and will only be cleared if they are blocking a district slot that it actively wants to construct, or if there are no free district slots remaining. (Thus it will eventually clear all those random blockers once the rest of the planet is finished.) You can, of course, intervene and clear those Sprawling Slums or sleepy Lithoids earlier.

Buildings (other than the capital) will be upgraded if there are no other things that it wants to build right now, it can upgrade without causing resource deficits, and there are pops available that would want to work there. (Either because they’re unemployed or they prefer it to their current jobs.)

The scripts will attempt to handle various issues that may crop up on a planet such as low amenities, high crime, or failure to build buildings dedicated to extra-dimensional beings that love you and just want to be loved in return. These are tucked away in 00_crisis_exceptions.txt.

Code:
automate_amenity_management = {
    available = {
        free_amenities <= -5
        owner = {
            NOR = {
                has_authority = auth_machine_intelligence
                has_authority = auth_hive_mind
            }
        }
        OR = {
            NOT = { uses_district_set = city_world }
            free_district_slots = 0
            has_resource = { type = exotic_gases amount < 75 }
        }
    }

    crisis = yes

    buildings = {
        holo = {
            building = building_holo_theatres
            available = {
                owner = {
                    is_spiritualist = no
                    is_megacorp = no
                }
            }
        }

        temple = {
            building = building_temple
            available = {
                owner = {
                    is_spiritualist = yes
                    is_megacorp = no
                }
            }
        }

        commerce = {
            building = building_commercial_zone
            available = {
                owner = {
                    is_megacorp = yes
                }
            }
        }
    }
}

This "exception" will intervene if a planet’s amenities are -5 or below, and it’s either not an ecumenopolis or if it is an ecumenopolis, it’s either totally full or you’re running low on exotic gases. Based on your ethics and authority, it’ll pick one of the amenity buildings to add to the queue.

A few jobs, buildings, and planet designations have gotten a bit of a touch-up during this pass. Notable examples of designations include the Urban World, which now has a Trade Value bonus, and the Colony, which is now intended to satisfy the needs of a newly colonized world rather than provide pop growth bonuses.

1605094446038.png
1605094456491.png

Urban and Colony Designations

The old Colony bonus was changed because it was a bit problematic - growth bonuses made it somewhat stronger than many other more specialized bonuses. We’d greatly prefer if you could flag that newly settled Mining World as such right away and immediately turn on automation, rather than it being optimal to manually develop the world until it reached 5 pops and no longer qualified for Colony.

Due to its inherent terror of deficits, the automation scripts tend to be a little bit more conservative than players may be, but I’ve personally enjoyed the dramatically reduced mental burden my mid to late game colonies require. It’s also convenient that several designations (such as Forge, Factory, Tech, and Urban) will build out colonies that qualify for the Arcology Project decision. In our dev multiplayer games, I've been making a point of using colony automation as much as possible in order to give everyone else a chance get a feel for what it's doing. (Except my capital. I'll admit that I do manually build that so I can take care of sudden shifts in priority.)

If you're using planetary automation but it doesn't seem to be doing anything, the three most common things to check are:
  • Is the colony in a Sector?
    • Colonies have to be in a (non-Frontier) Sector in order to use either sector or planetary automation.
  • Am I running an energy deficit?
    • Most districts and buildings have energy upkeep. While it's possible for the district or building to theoretically produce enough energy to overcome that and help work off the current deficit, the automation scripts are as light as possible and without deeper analysis can't assume that pops moving into those jobs wouldn't worsen the shortage. Manual intervention is necessary to dig out of an energy crunch.
  • Do I have resources in the automation pool for it to use?
    • There's a notification for this, but if the pool is running low it might not be able to afford whatever it is it wants to build. Remember, you can hold Ctrl to change the units moved from hundreds to thousands.
      1605096055953.png

      Save mouse-clicks, use Ctrl.

Resettlement

Manual resettlement and the mitigation of unemployment is a huge burden in mid to late game Stellaris. It is generally our belief that manual resettlement should be an extremely rare occurrence, not something done expected to be done as part of the core game loop. When you must, it should be a simple process, but it should be an unusual act.

One quality of life change we’ve made is to filter Unemployed pops up to the top, and highlighted them. The pops underneath are then sorted from lowest stratum to highest.

1605096681033.png

You're unlikely to see this specific scenario unless you intentionally create unemployment problems by turning off jobs in every pop strata.

We've also adjusted resettlement costs, and added an Influence cost to many pop types. These influence costs are nominal for worker tier pops, but get fairly expensive when you're forcing Rulers to move.

1605097705361.png
1605096840037.png

Slave Resettlement and Worker/Drone/Bio-Trophy Resettlement

1605097458581.png
1605097513050.png

Specialist Resettlement and Ruler Resettlement


Slaves and unintelligent robots can still be moved without expending Influence, and certain civics permit you to waive these Influence costs.

1605096949504.png
1605097021942.png
1605097088504.png

Hey wait, what's that about colony abandonment?

Despite their best efforts the Servitors still haven't found a good way to get their Bio-Trophies to shift their consciousness to a different planet using OTA updates, so you still have to pay for them.

Manually resettling the last pop off a colony you own carries an additional influence surcharge in our dev builds. There will very likely be an exception made for Doomed planets and Holy Worlds that are risking initiating a war with a Fallen Empire. A planetary decision to abandon a recently conquered planet is under consideration, though it'll likely use displacement purging to do so. (With the diplomatic penalties associated with it.)

1605097811856.png

But we just finished building it!

With Federations, we introduced a galactic resolution in the Greater Good line that provided limited automated resettlement called Greater Than Ourselves. As noted by some, that was partially intended as a means to allow Egalitarian leaning empires a way of handling resettlement without forcing it on their pops. There have been many requests to make that core game functionality, but we’ve been somewhat wary of doing so without some restrictions.

We've come up with a way for every empire to have easier access to a similar effect. The following new Starbase Building will handle it, unlocked by the Hyperlane Breach Points tech. (The Hyperlane Registrar has moved to Interstellar Economics.)

1605098298007.png

They like to move it.

1605098342337.png

The tooltip effect is a bit of a mouthful.

The Transit Hub will operate as a limited variant of Greater Than Ourselves, moving unemployed low strata pops between planets that are in systems with Transit Hubs. (This will allow movement within a system as well, for example if you have a bunch of habitats in a single system.) We're investigating ways to expand the scope of pops it's willing to move - the original Worker limitation was put into place because while a Worker could promote themselves to fill any free job, a Slave or Specialist might find themselves restricted from the free job on the new planet. We're currently experimenting with a more robust variant - if it works out without performance concerns, the Transit Hub will prioritize high strata unemployment and then move down the ranks.

Building out the Transit network does function best when you have a developed starbase above most of your colonies since it will only move pops between nodes on the network.

Tangentially related, we've also cut demotion time in half across the board, and made some changes to give each Authority type a unique bonus.

1605098685353.png

Yes, Shared Burdens pops demote pretty much instantly.

We have some other experimental changes going on that have significant effects on the number of unemployed pops in the late game, but we're not ready to talk about them quite yet.

The empire type that perhaps faced the most obnoxious burden of frequent manual resettlement were Terravores, the Lithoid Devouring Swarms. When devouring planets, they occasionally created pops on the consumption world. As a quality of life improvement, when they’ve finished the planet off we now resettle them back to the capital. (Since gestalts can also use the Transit Hub, I highly recommend that Terravores build one in their main system to send those drones someplace where they can be of use.)

Oh, and we also clear that pesky red habitability planet marker from completely consumed planets that was unnecessarily cluttering your map.

1605094492379.png

HP/MP restored! ...But you're still hungry.

As a reminder, we have an ongoing feedback thread related to AI improvements we have in beta on the stellaris_test branch. We'd love to get more people on it and telling us what they think about them. (Please note that 2.8.1 is an optional beta patch. You have to manually opt in to access it. Go to your Steam library, right click on Stellaris -> Properties -> betas tab -> select "stellaris_test" branch.)

Next week we plan on going through some more of the remaining economic balance changes. See you then!
 
Yes. It makes perfect sense.

The primary determinant of growth for any population is it's starting population modified by its specific environment (planet). As long as the environment (planet) can support the species it will grow rapidly, while a population of the same species in an unforgiving environment (different planet) will decline.

Having 10 sets of population (10 planets), could mean that each population given positive environmental factors would grow rapidly. While having 100 pops on one or two planets (with limited housing, etc) would in fact be growing slower.

The missing factor in Stellaris is the starting population. Population growth is linear independent of the number of pops of that species on the planet. This is what makes no sense.

Separately, we could add migration, but Stellaris migtation figures are all wrong and makes no sense.

Take North America as an example. Population grew exponentially between 1600 and 1900, with the primary determinant being migration (which was limited by shipping).

For me, growth rate would make sense as ....

R = pops/x * e ^ ((availability of housing, hab, jobs, amenities) + (policies, decisions)).

This would necessarily be calculated on a per planet and species basis, with each species growing independently.

Migration/resettlement has to be an entirely separate system. Whether its movement of pops (my preference) or an additive factor.
If you are comparing 10 planets to 1 planet, then all other factors must be equal (the only variable changing should be the number of planets).
Identical total housing/overcrowding, jobs/unemployment, crime/amenities/habitability/population size.
Identical situations with the only difference being one population is fragmented, the other consolidated.

In real life situations fragmenting a population below a certain size kills the species, due to a variety of reasons. Smaller populations suffer from inbreeding depression, are more vulnerable to the normal stochastic variability of life (disease/disaster) and smaller populations are more likely to just die out completely when exposed to a period of decline from any cause rather than being able to recover after the threat has passed, leading to a species going extinct when the populations become fragmented as each pocket fades away over time.

I don't think that should happen in Stellaris, but it is worth factoring in that smaller populations are more at risk and less stable than larger populations. Having the same number of individuals split into many smaller individual populations from a conservation biology perspective would make the species more at risk of extinction than having those individuals inhabiting a single contiguous territory.

That's why we experiment and build things like "wildlife corridors" in real life:
Because it's actually worse for a species to be fragmented into 10 plots of land rather than one contiguous larger one. Cutting a forest into 10 smaller forests obviously does not make all the forest creatures grow 10x as fast, to grow faster a population needs a larger overall forest (higher total population/housing/jobs/food).

In Stellaris terms:
Global population growth
-50% growth for new colonies combined with hazardous new colony events (earthquakes, asteroids, strange factories, titanic beasts) and lower habitability would reduce overall empire growth until the isolated population grew and stabilized, events are managed, and the planets terraformed. More planets will eventually result in better average conditions (housing, jobs) and extra growth, but only after the planets have developed past the early stage.

Current population growth
Fragmenting a population always increases total growth. Firstly with free pops spawned on colonization then with the fixed base growth each planet/habitat provides. The negative modifiers mentioned above only reduce how much the total growth increases, but total growth always increases. This does not make sense from a realistic standpoint, and mechanically gives a strong incentive to endless and mindless expansion (habitat spam to create new sources of pops and manual resettlement to ensure all planets keep pumping out pops endlessly).


All growth models will have a variety of gameplay issues. I don't know what system the developers will end up using but anything makes more sense than the current system. I just hope it doesn't incentivize mindless expansion but a more careful, considered approach. I really like building habitats, they're cool, but I don't want to churn them out forever until every planet has a station around it and my computer melts. I like fighting wars, but I don't want all games to unerringly drift towards a state where I am forced to manage every single planet in the game with the only external threat being my own boredom. Growth changes could fix those issues... or make it much, much worse.
 
  • 5
  • 2
Reactions:
In real life situations fragmenting a population below a certain size kills the species, due to a variety of reasons. Smaller populations suffer from inbreeding depression, are more vulnerable to the normal stochastic variability of life (disease/disaster) and smaller populations are more likely to just die out completely when exposed to a period of decline from any cause rather than being able to recover after the threat has passed, leading to a species going extinct when the populations become fragmented as each pocket fades away over time.

I don't think that should happen in Stellaris, but it is worth factoring in that smaller populations are more at risk and less stable than larger populations. Having the same number of individuals split into many smaller individual populations from a conservation biology perspective would make the species more at risk of extinction than having those individuals inhabiting a single contiguous territory.

Agree with all the above. I moved the discussion on pop growth to a new thread.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. I know egalitarians can resettle, but my point was that they're stuck having to pay Influence for it. After the changes moving pops around without spending Influence will require you to be Authoritarian, Xenophobic, or having Corveé System (which Egalitarians aren't allowed to take).

And Democracy (which you get locked into as a Fanatic Egalitarian) is still the least appealing government because you lack agendas, the mandates are random and underwhelming, you can randomly lose your best scientist to an election, and the proposed shorter demotion times aren't particularly inspiring because if you know what you're doing you rarely have pops waiting for demotion anyway.

I understand making mandates better takes time and effort and you currently have higher priorities (and rightfully so), but I do have one suggestion for making Democracy better that should be implementable in a matter of minutes. Change the government type bonus from faster demotion to a faction influence gain bonus. You can make it +25% at first (in line with what you'd get from the Parliamentary System civic) and then adjust as needed. This would be a much more useful bonus even if it only kicks in after 10 years and it would be highly thematically appropriate for a democratic government to focus more on satisfying faction demands and being rewarded for doing so successfully.


1.) I don't think Egalitarians being such having to pay influence for resettling really matters AT ALL, because simply put the demands of Egalitarian faction means that there is ALMOST NEVER a time wherein an Egalitarian Empire would want to be manually resettling. More specifically, this is because the costs of displeasing one of your largest factions [as the egalitarian faction will most likely be in an egalitarian empire] will be too great, especially in terms of decreased influence production, and to a much lesser extent in decreased pop productivity [less happiness from lower faction approval --> less stability --> loss of production bonuses]. As such, even now it is only ever worthwhile for the Egalitarian to resettle in extreme emergency situations, as the costs are otherwise too great; adding an influence cost only reinforces what was already true.

2.) I agree with you that Democracy is too weak as it currently stands, and that reduced demotion times are an almost meaningless bonus.

3.) I agree with you that making Democracy's authority bonus be increased faction influence generation would be both more fitting and more powerful. In fact, I independently suggested exactly the same idea [even down to the specifics of making it a +25% faction influence bonus] earlier in this thread, alongside suggestions for adjustments to the other authority bonuses.
 
In principal I agree with your sentiment, but this is the kind of thing that could result in more micro rather than less. You could end up managing dozens of sub species on a per planet basis, or having to institute a 'decision' for each species present on a given planet.

As a slaver, I dont care that my tropical slaves are working mines on an arctic planet, and in fact when I conquer their next planet, I would like to move more of their tropical asses to my arctic mining planets.

I am not sure your system would accommodate my sadistic traits.
I don't quite get how the underlined follows. In your example you'd have previously made the governmental decisions that "This arctic world is a mining colony" and "This tropical genus are slaves". When you conquer the planet all the old ruler and specialist workers become unemployed slaves, increasing their emigration pressure. They follow the slave emigration weighting of "Go where the work is not where you will be happy (except as a tiebreaker)", now your mining colony starts growing tropical slaves at a massively accelerated rate as they decline off their home planet. Also if you've made a template for that genus with arctic preference your slave ships will have stapled winter coats onto them by the time they arrive.

Meanwhile the new planet gets a hefty immigration pull for leader and specialist pops, but as non-slaves they'll care about going somewhere they they like, not just somewhere they can work. How you handle that is up to you.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
With starbases bein limited and wide gameplay being absolute uncontested king: doesn't this module just transform the current intensive micro into a whac-a-mole game where you try to funnel all those extra pops on new planets and stop before you come near the limit so you can scramble the station and use it elsewhere for some time before the new planet also becomes overcrowded? You just keep introducing these disconected mechanics gimmicks.

The main issue is that it does not address the underlying problem: pops are too powerful. There is no choice to be made: build a starbase and a module for some alloys or continuosly drain your much needed influence? There is just the optimal strategy of put a starbase with the module on every overcrowded system.

Will it be less micro? Yes, but it is still just a dull chore, nothing that you would expect the leader of a space empire to deal with.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Yes. It makes perfect sense.

The primary determinant of growth for any population is it's starting population modified by its specific environment (planet). As long as the environment (planet) can support the species it will grow rapidly, while a population of the same species in an unforgiving environment (different planet) will decline.

Having 10 sets of population (10 planets), could mean that each population given positive environmental factors would grow rapidly. While having 100 pops on one or two planets (with limited housing, etc) would in fact be growing slower.

The missing factor in Stellaris is the starting population. Population growth is linear independent of the number of pops of that species on the planet. This is what makes no sense.

Separately, we could add migration, but Stellaris migtation figures are all wrong and makes no sense.

Take North America as an example. Population grew exponentially between 1600 and 1900, with the primary determinant being migration (which was limited by shipping).

For me, growth rate would make sense as ....

R = pops/x * e ^ ((availability of housing, hab, jobs, amenities) + (policies, decisions)).

This would necessarily be calculated on a per planet and species basis, with each species growing independently.

Migration/resettlement has to be an entirely separate system. Whether its movement of pops (my preference) or an additive factor.

This makes literally 0 sense.

Assuming we are comparing planets with the same habitability, and all of them have available jobs and housing, 100 pops across 10 planets will still grow 10 times quicker than 100 pops in one planet. That is a massive limitation of the current system.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Just a quick question the previous poster reminded me of, bacause it's not iherently clear from your wording:

We do agree that significantly reducing late game pop numbers is a good thing, right? Because our CPU's agree as well.


All numbers are relative. There is no actual game play need for tens of thousands of pops to be in a mid game galaxy clogging up performance with all of their calculations. Less pops that do more is just better for the game to run smoother.

If your fleet cap is 900 and you are producing 2000 alloys a month, 10 battleships is a nearly irrelevant investment. If your fleet cap is 150 and your alloy production is 200 per month, those 10 battleships are a major investment. How powerful 10 battleships actually are is entirely dependent on what everyone else is doing.


I would really love to see paradox try a beta that drastically reduces the number of widgets that need calculations every day/month (pops, ships, all of it) but maintains the scale of game play.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
This makes literally 0 sense.

Assuming we are comparing planets with the same habitability, and all of them have available jobs and housing, 100 pops across 10 planets will still grow 10 times quicker than 100 pops in one planet. That is a massive limitation of the current system.

Entirely true, and really, really dumb.

Hopefully some sort of growth system that even somewhat resembles the way populations actually grow is in the works.

<Edit>

It's been a really long time, but I seem to remember the population growth from Victoria II was pretty spot on. I don't recall it having ridiculous expansion numbers that defy all reason. Maybe that is a place for Stellaris to look at.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
In real life situations fragmenting a population below a certain size kills the species, due to a variety of reasons. Smaller populations suffer from inbreeding depression, are more vulnerable to the normal stochastic variability of life (disease/disaster) and smaller populations are more likely to just die out completely when exposed to a period of decline from any cause rather than being able to recover after the threat has passed, leading to a species going extinct when the populations become fragmented as each pocket fades away over time.

I don't think that should happen in Stellaris, but it is worth factoring in that smaller populations are more at risk and less stable than larger populations. Having the same number of individuals split into many smaller individual populations from a conservation biology perspective would make the species more at risk of extinction than having those individuals inhabiting a single contiguous territory.
Fairly sure this can be wholly ignored here. Because those smaller populations are small indeed. They usually number in the tens if not hundreds at most. Even at the lowest estimation, a single pop is vastly, vastly, vastly bigger than any reasonable population you need to achieve growth and be safe even from horrific catastrophes. With those threatening such a number being able to threaten basically any number of people.

As for faster pop growth. Highly urbanized human populations tend to grow much slower for a whole slew of reasons. From limited space to various distractions, to economic pressure, etc. It's usually the rural population which produces the majority of growth. Much of which nowadays moves into urban centers to sustain them.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
This makes literally 0 sense.

Assuming we are comparing planets with the same habitability, and all of them have available jobs and housing, 100 pops across 10 planets will still grow 10 times quicker than 100 pops in one planet. That is a massive limitation of the current system.

My apologies @GeorgieBest, i probably misunderstood the original argument. I 100% agree that the Stellaris model of +3 growth regardless of number of starting pops is flawed. It basically allows 10 planets to generate 10 pops, in the same time that 1 planet of 100 pops generates 1 pop. This is stupid, and quite correct of people to say so. It overwhelmingly favors wide strategies.

On the other hand, even if population growth rate is a function of the number of pops, splitting the population into a number of small viable groups with favorable conditions is likely to yield more growth than having the same population in one unfavorable environment. But not by a factor of 10 I would think.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Fairly sure this can be wholly ignored here. Because those smaller populations are small indeed. They usually number in the tens if not hundreds at most. Even at the lowest estimation, a single pop is vastly, vastly, vastly bigger than any reasonable population you need to achieve growth and be safe even from horrific catastrophes. With those threatening such a number being able to threaten basically any number of people.

As for faster pop growth. Highly urbanized human populations tend to grow much slower for a whole slew of reasons. From limited space to various distractions, to economic pressure, etc. It's usually the rural population which produces the majority of growth. Much of which nowadays moves into urban centers to sustain them.
Perhaps it can be ignored, or perhaps not. I think it's perfectly valid for people to take the opposite stance - that putting all your eggs in one basket/planet would dramatically increase the longterm risk of catastrophes wiping out a race (e.g. doomsday origin, asteroid sighted event chain).
But part of the reason criss-crossing a forest with roads kills species is not just about dividing a once contiguous territory into smaller ones, but also introducing new dangers that kill the unwary individuals who are not adapted to deal with all the environmental hazards they rather predictably wander into.

I see humans on the galactic stage like squished crabs and hedgehogs on the roads... until we learn to pop tires and fight the cars we'll have a tough time.

Imagine this: 1 planet with 2 blockers (Sprawling Slums and Industrial Wasteland - fairly safe and boring)
10 Planets with: Active Volcanos, Deep Sinkholes, Dangerous Wildlife, Noxious Swamps, Toxic Kelp, Radioactive Wastelands and Bomb Craters
I can't imagine spreading people out amongst those dangers would drastically improve their growth rate or short-term survival chances no matter how many free jobs or spare housing is available (at least until the hazards were dealt with). I don't imagine them all being instantly killed or anything quite that dramatic, but I do imagine growth would be slower with lots of relatively small setbacks on each colony, at least in the early years on a new world until the hazards have been overcome (blockers cleared). In the current game total growth is supercharged on colonization and it just doesn't sit well with me.

I always imagined the first pops on a planet like the first cities in a game of Alpha Centauri. Even if they supported a fairly large population and controlled a decent amount of land the pops are concentrated in a small number of cities where one tectonic event, mindworm boil or planet buster missile and the planet is no longer occupied. Or if the population is imagined to be more spread out like a crashlanded Rimworld game then coldsnaps, heatwaves, toxic fallout, radiation storms, crop blights, diseases, volcanic winter or meteorite impacts could block a significant portion of the planetary population growth.

In Stellaris terms you can lose an entire pop or two to the odd factory, but don't care about the dangerous animals nearby. While a planet has a small number of pops battling completely unknown conditions there's a lot of risk there that isn't currently represented in terms of population growth (blockers only impact district limit, which isn't a factor in the early game). Once the planet is fully established (colony shelter upgrade) and those risks are mitigated (blockers cleared) and understood (research projects to protect from the worst events) then the colony should be growing quickly. But until then the colony is in a delicate balance and life is harsh and dangerous.

In 1.9.1 I felt that was represented by the influence cost of colonizing, the massive energy drain colonizing imposed and the more disruptive tile blockers giving each planet uniqueness and different regions of a planet character. In the current version even the most harsh planet is just more expensive to keep organic pops on and you can spend decades not caring about the Radioactive Wasteland, Bomb Craters and all the unexploded ordnance around your cities.

I'd like to consider a system where pop growth is global to represent the entire empire population being free to go wherever they want/sent wherever is most efficient, slower growth on frontier planets with Dangerous Wildlife/tile blockers... because those sound like terrible and unproductive places to live and people would rather settle in the rich, safe and prosperous core worlds first and only move out to the rim when the good planets fill-up and people are desperate.

Mechanically it means you'd colonize planets in serial rather than parallel (one or two at a time). You would benefit from all the extra planets eventually, expanding when existing worlds fill up, picking new planets based on your empire needs. New worlds would have a period where overall growth was reduced while the planet develops, limiting the number of different worlds you would want to expand into at any one time (so not blindly colonizing every single world at the same time). One Ringworld would be more than enough extra space for a very long time as it would sink a large portion of your empire growth until full, which would take a long while... rather than churning Ringworlds and Habitats out like cheap plastic toys.

But I'm not completely sold on any one pop system (I like to try to imagine them, but it's not easy to see where any one breaks down). I just hope that the new system will be more fun to play. My arguing for realism before seems to completely miss the point.

I want a population growth system where the number of planets that is optimal to play is still fun to manage (preferably by reducing the number of planets I want to have, and also by allowing me to only managing a couple of new worlds at a time, or perhaps by improving automation but I don't really want to have the AI play the game for me). Currently the optimal number of planets is... ALL OF THEM, and the optimal time to colonize is as soon as possible, and to make more habitats and Ringworlds as fast as possible. I don't know what changes will work best, I just hope that any changes are fun first and foremost.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Phew, this dev diary. I normally read them and go "cool, cool", but I figure I should point out the obvious this time:
  1. The current system where you get more pop growth by having a few people everywhere than everyone in one place is stupid, and exactly opposite how pop growth in the real world actually works, on top of favoring wide play for no reason.
  2. Colony ships generating a pop from nowhere leading to exploits is stupid. I get the desire to let us colonize with any species available, but couldn't we just select which pop to send?
  3. Trying to discourage our micromanagement by making it still necessary but costing a ton of resources (influence is not cheap) is an awful bandaid solution. You should be making it so we never have to touch the resettlement screen in a normal game (when not doing some hijinks.)
  4. Robots automatically build. Please make it so they automatically resettle too when unemployed and at a lower priority. It's really annoying to have to constantly check for unemployed robots after starting as a mechanist empire, and doubly so when an event gives you a second type of robot to micromanage.
  5. The transit hub is a bad idea because it's on a thing that people often DON'T want paired with their colonies, and doesn't provide sufficient granularity when there's multiple colonies in a system. A planetary building is better, but still shouldn't be something we build on like every planet (it'd just be another meaningless bit of micromanagement).
  6. While we're on the subject of starbases, the current piracy system is a micromanagement chore. Why can we not build some kind of space police, when we can easily build space trade?
 
  • 8
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
So the problems with starbase modules to control migration are obvious.. I don't need to restate the limited slots, and the fact that you don't want starbases everywhere and frequently not in inhabited planets. And building slots are similar - one on every planet?

Why overcomplicate things? Planetary decisions: "encourage emigration"; and "encourage immigration"
 
  • 3
Reactions:
On sidenote, while i agree that filling choke points with bastions will be harder if you want to compete putting starbases on systems with planets(well unless you generate galaxy with very few planets), isn't it technically good thing to have more incentive to put starbases in same systems? It would make that tradition that increases amount of starbases more useful if there were more competition between where you want to put them.

That said, thread has been doing pretty good job at convincing me that we should probably have just some sort of "orbital building" thing for planets so that all those planet specific starbase updates would be more useful. Would definitely be way more quality of life thing than having to choose between effectiveness and ease.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I see humans on the galactic stage like squished crabs and hedgehogs on the roads... until we learn to pop tires and fight the cars we'll have a tough time.
Except, many of the risks we already have on our homeworld. Then again, humans are both capable of abstract thought and long term planning. They don't wander around seemingly aimless the way many less developed species do. They also have the advantage of technology. Humans aren't just dropped inside some forest to wander at random till they run into something dangerous like lemmings. They establish cities, build walls, etc. They fundamentally change an environment as soon as they are around, to better suit their own needs.

Most of this is frankly, "RP". And one that primarily suits to justify the end outcome you would want. That's fine, but others can and will disagree.

I'd like to consider a system where pop growth is global to represent the entire empire population being free to go wherever they want/sent wherever is most efficient, slower growth on frontier planets with Dangerous Wildlife/tile blockers... because those sound like terrible and unproductive places to live and people would rather settle in the rich, safe and prosperous core worlds first and only move out to the rim when the good planets fill-up and people are desperate.
I disagree with Empire-wide pop growth. It would make expansion and being proactive much, much, much worse, and heavily favour those who turtle or idle. Also, I disagree with your rationale that most people would default towards the core worlds. The American frontier and how it was settled as well as many other examples in human history show this isn't really how things go.

Mechanically it means you'd colonize planets in serial rather than parallel (one or two at a time). You would benefit from all the extra planets eventually, expanding when existing worlds fill up, picking new planets based on your empire needs. New worlds would have a period where overall growth was reduced while the planet develops, limiting the number of different worlds you would want to expand into at any one time (so not blindly colonizing every single world at the same time). One Ringworld would be more than enough extra space for a very long time as it would sink a large portion of your empire growth until full, which would take a long while... rather than churning Ringworlds and Habitats out like cheap plastic toys.
I'm not going to lie, this sounds terrible. It sounds like it would grind the game to a complete halt. Making pop growth even slower than it already is.


On sidenote, while i agree that filling choke points with bastions will be harder if you want to compete putting starbases on systems with planets(well unless you generate galaxy with very few planets), isn't it technically good thing to have more incentive to put starbases in same systems? It would make that tradition that increases amount of starbases more useful if there were more competition between where you want to put them.

That said, thread has been doing pretty good job at convincing me that we should probably have just some sort of "orbital building" thing for planets so that all those planet specific starbase updates would be more useful. Would definitely be way more quality of life thing than having to choose between effectiveness and ease.

I assume you mean grasp the void? Nah, that one would still be terrible. 5+ Starbase limit doesn't help. It's a static and minor increase that takes up a slot you could spend on something actually useful.
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
That is the one I meant, though hypotethically they could increase how many star bases it gives you. Though I still imagine it would still be mostly for tiny map blitz games :p On larger maps I'd imagine the bonus would have to be absurdly high to be actually useful
 
That is the one I meant, though hypotethically they could increase how many star bases it gives you. Though I still imagine it would still be mostly for tiny map blitz games :p On larger maps I'd imagine the bonus would have to be absurdly high to be actually useful
Well, if it scaled with Galaxy Size, it would need to be 20 for Huge maps or 0.8 for tiny maps. Still not certain I would pick it. Tying starbases to pops/economy seems like a more sensible fix. That way planets would unlock their own starbase.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
why... why does it cost influence to abandon a colony!?

that doesnt make much sense at all

seems to kill another playstyle for the sake of... "balance"... using colony ships to "grow" robot pops and settle them on your core worlds
 
  • 8
Reactions:
1.) I don't think Egalitarians being such having to pay influence for resettling really matters AT ALL, because simply put the demands of Egalitarian faction means that there is ALMOST NEVER a time wherein an Egalitarian Empire would want to be manually resettling. More specifically, this is because the costs of displeasing one of your largest factions [as the egalitarian faction will most likely be in an egalitarian empire] will be too great, especially in terms of decreased influence production, and to a much lesser extent in decreased pop productivity [less happiness from lower faction approval --> less stability --> loss of production bonuses]. As such, even now it is only ever worthwhile for the Egalitarian to resettle in extreme emergency situations, as the costs are otherwise too great; adding an influence cost only reinforces what was already true.

2.) I agree with you that Democracy is too weak as it currently stands, and that reduced demotion times are an almost meaningless bonus.

3.) I agree with you that making Democracy's authority bonus be increased faction influence generation would be both more fitting and more powerful. In fact, I independently suggested exactly the same idea [even down to the specifics of making it a +25% faction influence bonus] earlier in this thread, alongside suggestions for adjustments to the other authority bonuses.

RE: Democracies, personally I'd prefer keeping as is except changing the reward from mandates back to influence from unity (I think this was pre-Utopia).

Plucking numbers, I'd say make it x20 monthly influence income capped at 100.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
why... why does it cost influence to abandon a colony!?

that doesnt make much sense at all

seems to kill another playstyle for the sake of... "balance"... using colony ships to "grow" robot pops and settle them on your core worlds

That's exactly the reason why it got added, but it kills any Playstyle that wants to abandon colonies for legitimate reasons.
 
  • 3
Reactions: