You can actually consecrate uninhabited worlds, even asteroids. And I believe you can even make them timed, you just won't be able to see the time or cancel them (since there's no build queue). Both those issues are solvable with some workarounds; you could make a timed modifier that tells you how long until the decision finishes, and add another decision (call it "cancel original_decision_name_here") that adds a one-day timed modifier that breaks the original decision (make the original decision only doable if that modifier isn't present via the potential block).
A Modest Proposal, or Why Cities Should Eat Pops
- Thread starter HFY
- Start date
-
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.
Huh, I've only ever done it on Gaia and ocean worlds, never thought to try a Gas giant, for example.
Yep correct. You can, it just doesnt show up on uncolonised worlds, you can work around it using planet modifiers that have a tool tip that reads back a time/variable anchored in the planet entity - something like this in localisation "modded_planet_modifier_tooltip_desc: "text [planet.myvariable] months remaining".
Though, with my earlier example, using the caravaneers, it'd be an instant effect to apply the modifier. Not much point in dragging the process out when you'd be building a habitat there after too.
But the above point with variables/static modifiers could be used to create - say - a "military battle station" to bring back pre 2.0 style fortresses [like below is a mid-sized one], anchored around certain worlds, entirely through decisions (letting you modify its loadout/gun-platforms[x4 below] via decision too) - decisions are extremely easy to setup AI logic for, so you could flag and teach the AI how to build orbital fortresses on chokepoint stars (which have special flags and the trigger to test it is "is_bridge = <yes/no>").
Last edited:
Also why would modern day problems be replicated 200 years in the future, and why would a planet be 100% urban metro just because its main export is alloys? The urban vs. rural fertility gap has only grown to such an extreme recently.
- 1
- 1
.png){kind=avatar}
I don't think you're wrong about anything you are saying, BUT:
Do not extrapolate specifically human phenomena to all extraterrastial life.
While you can make a decent case for all roughly human-like lifeforms would see this effect, it is quite a stretch to assume that there are only lifeforms like us with societies like ours.
Maybe there are species where cities grow to be huge breeding facilities, because of the constant availability of partners and no social/societal/economic reasons not to have kids. (i.e. a society where "parenting" isn't really a thing, but kids get raised by society and not the individuals that spawned them.)
Extreme cases would be:
Devouring Swarm and Rogue Servitor. The concept makes absolutely no sense for them as a default and they would have to be excluded from that mechanic (or have it optional).
Do not extrapolate specifically human phenomena to all extraterrastial life.
While you can make a decent case for all roughly human-like lifeforms would see this effect, it is quite a stretch to assume that there are only lifeforms like us with societies like ours.
Maybe there are species where cities grow to be huge breeding facilities, because of the constant availability of partners and no social/societal/economic reasons not to have kids. (i.e. a society where "parenting" isn't really a thing, but kids get raised by society and not the individuals that spawned them.)
Extreme cases would be:
Devouring Swarm and Rogue Servitor. The concept makes absolutely no sense for them as a default and they would have to be excluded from that mechanic (or have it optional).
- 1
.png){kind=avatar}
Stelalris starts in 2200. Most civilization would probably be pretty hygenic and not have pathlogens by then.
- 1
Yeah invasions should kill pops more. And i like the idea of some sort of new "manpower" mechanic which you would get from pops. And if you recruit enough of it pops could dissapear. And maybe some sort of pop size like in vicky 2?
- 1
It's a thing which was written about as far back as 40 BCE, here's a quick & dirty pair of citations:
Wikipedia said:
Slug-people and machine intelligences and arachnid hive-minds all decided to use the exact same four hull types -- with the same hull names -- which were all taken from historical human Earth navies.
Don't let the terrestrial origin of a good mechanic break your SoD, everything else in the game is also from Earth.
Sure, they're the ones who pick Bio Ascension and build Clone Vats. This mechanic covers them just fine. In my proposal, Bio-Assembly works perfectly well on urban worlds -- no penalty, just the expected growth.
Yep, this proposal is ONLY for regular empires. Gestalts would need their own balance done separately from this.
That's also a good idea.
- 3
- 1
That might be true in the US, maybe in the UK. Where I live (Brazil) people might move out of the big cities when they retire (at sixtyish), and definitely not before unless they are civil engineers touring the country after construction work. I'm fairly sure this situation holds in most developing countries.
Anyway, I think the idea of having research and alloys contribute to negative planetary growth is a great idea, exactly because it requires the player to balance their economy so that the population doesn't shrink. Also the historical sources are absolutely impressive. Congrats to the OP.
- 3
Yes, good idea I approve this.
I actually just finished telling my brother Stellaris model of pop growth is so unrealistic cuz in Stellaris, urban city don't eat pop.
I actually just finished telling my brother Stellaris model of pop growth is so unrealistic cuz in Stellaris, urban city don't eat pop.
- 1
Cities apparently fail to breed enough people to maintain population even when they have clean air, clean water, plentiful food, and good doctors.
- 6
I think you misunderstood, it's not that urban city literally kill people but it somehow have an uncanny way (from numerous factors) to make itself a net negative in fertility (people birth is lower than people dead in urban city) and it's only viable because people from outside that city migrate into it.
And because Stellaris deoesn't model pop death from old age or other factors the solution to make pop growth in Stellaris more realistic (and not SOD breaking in how they cap pop unlike the empire wide pop penalty that a lot of people dislike right now) from OP suggestion is that to make pop death in urban planet via scaling with industrial job (alloy and CG producer).
So no, making criminal job killing pop wouldn't make sense because it's not about alloy and CG job literally killing pop but it's to simulate how urban city kill fertility and need to rely on migration for pop growth.
Last edited:
- 2
- 2
- 1
This also happens in the US, except American retirees also often move to nearby developing countries because their retirement fund stretches a lot further in Belize than California.
So you get something of a cycle where people are broadly born in rural or small urban areas, many move to cities as young adults, and then many of those move back to the country when they retire.
- 1
- 1
It has certainly been a while, but I have just seen this, and I think that this is a genius idea.
- 1
This population trend doesn't make sense for machines (assembled at a factory, organic pops are specifically bred), synths (are pretty much immortal and new population is assembled) or hiveminds (born in hatcheries). It also doesn't make sense for pops living under higher living standards: what causes the cities' population to die out is that city living is expensive, rather cramped, and plentiful workforce makes lower-wage jobs pay much less than is actually required, making rearing children more often than not a burden and a huge risk (compare also how much it costs to bring up a child from birth through higher education pretty much necessary for a city job versus bringing someone up to work as a farmer or miner). You wouldn't expect such a trend from an egalitarian utopia, which would be expected to pay for a child and give them the best of the best, freeing the parents from the burden of choosing between making a career to pay the bills or breeding like rabbits.
Sure, OP does bring up relevant statistics, but statistics exist to be interpreted. They are not knowledge in and of themselves. Cities aren't some magical fertility inhibitors. People there don't produce zygotes because they use protection during sex, they aren't barren.
Sure, OP does bring up relevant statistics, but statistics exist to be interpreted. They are not knowledge in and of themselves. Cities aren't some magical fertility inhibitors. People there don't produce zygotes because they use protection during sex, they aren't barren.
- 1
With the way the game currently works in 3.2, doesn't it really already do that? If you just leave the sliders at default, the game does require more and more growth to grow pops the more the game progresses.
My current game: Go all the way back to day 1 and it costs me 108 growth to make a pop. Fast forward to year 2412, and its now taking 605.7 growth to make a pop. That is a very significant slow down to pop-growth in my game. I've stagnated around 1500 pops total now and to really grow its much more efficient to go 'liberate' pops from neighboring empires.
However, having the game move along at basically the speed it did on day 1 at end game crisis time is nice, to be sure.
My current game: Go all the way back to day 1 and it costs me 108 growth to make a pop. Fast forward to year 2412, and its now taking 605.7 growth to make a pop. That is a very significant slow down to pop-growth in my game. I've stagnated around 1500 pops total now and to really grow its much more efficient to go 'liberate' pops from neighboring empires.
However, having the game move along at basically the speed it did on day 1 at end game crisis time is nice, to be sure.
No, what you're describing is a galaxy-wide penalty which you can't manage.
What I'm talking about is a planet-specific mechanic which you CAN manage -- you can do many things to feed your engines of industry, including:
- Breeder / Feeder rural worlds
- Clone vats
- Wars to acquire slaves or citizens which you re-located back to your industrial worlds
- Migration treaties with naive AIs who provide unemployed pops (this should be a personality type)
- Thrall worlds
- Robots
The galaxy-wide malus is not something I like, so replacing it is what this proposal is about.
The end result should be a slower growth curve than 2.8, but it should not feel the same as the 3.2 mechanic.
- 1
Criminals and cartels are responsible for most human/exotic animal/alien smuggling.
This Nature article might be of interest for this discussion. "Limitations to population growth are either density-dependant or density-independent. Density-dependent factors include disease, competition, and predation... Density-independent factors, such as environmental stressors and catastrophe, are not influenced by population density change." There are a number of good sources and further readings available at the bottom.
Humans are hardly the only animal population on the planet to have reached a point where competition amongst their own population is a limiter on growth once other aspects are mitigated.
- 2
I hope the custodians see this post. Even if they don't use most of its ideas, I'd like them to have the ideas in their heads the next time they look at pop growth.
- 3
One of the most interesting suggestions in this forum, indeed.
Some time ago, I came up with a similar idea: occupied building slots and districts increasing the urbanization level of a planet and thus, decreasing its pop growth, with colonies getting fewer building slots the further away they were from your capital.
A clunky way of imitating a "metropolis VS colony" dynamic, with developed planets offering tons of jobs yet no demographic growth, and fringe worlds growing tons of pops with very few places to work at.
I don't know if it could have worked as well as the OP version of that idea, but I certainly support the whole "limiting population through urbanization ("cities eating pops") concept rather than the current band-aid of a global pop cap.
Some time ago, I came up with a similar idea: occupied building slots and districts increasing the urbanization level of a planet and thus, decreasing its pop growth, with colonies getting fewer building slots the further away they were from your capital.
A clunky way of imitating a "metropolis VS colony" dynamic, with developed planets offering tons of jobs yet no demographic growth, and fringe worlds growing tons of pops with very few places to work at.
I don't know if it could have worked as well as the OP version of that idea, but I certainly support the whole "limiting population through urbanization ("cities eating pops") concept rather than the current band-aid of a global pop cap.
- 1