Gene modding species growth problem

[Afinati]

When I modify my species and apply the template, creating a subspecies, the only way to make sure that the default species that grows on every world is to select it as the default on each world ... and each subsequent new colony. Am I missing a way to make sure that the subspecies becomes the default growing pop on all worlds forevermore?

Edit: Oh darn. I just discovered that if I prioritize the subspecies, there's a pop growth malus. There's no way just to permanently change my species genetic structure? Seems lame.

 

[TehJumpingJawa]

When I modify my species and apply the template, creating a subspecies, the only way to make sure that the default species that grows on every world is to select it as the default on each world ... and each subsequent new colony. Am I missing a way to make sure that the subspecies becomes the default growing pop on all worlds forevermore?

Edit: Oh darn. I just discovered that if I prioritize the subspecies, there's a pop growth malus. There's no way just to permanently change my species genetic structure? Seems lame.

Yeah, there's already plenty of threads about how deeply flawed the current pop growth mechanics are.

You basically have to play xenophobe/authoritarian & enact population controls on every species but your primary.

 

[sillyrobot]

You could apply the template to your existing population; that effectively removes the possibility that the original species can grow at the cost of a moderately large Social project.

Modding the probability controls regarding which species will grow is simple. The controls are in common/defines/00_defines.txt in the NPop section:

NEW_POP_SPECIES_RANDOMNESS = 1.0 # The higher this is, the more random species selection of new pops will be
NEW_POP_SAME_SPECIES_WEIGHT = 1.0 # The higher this is, the more new pops will be weighted by number of same or subspecies pops
NEW_POP_EXACT_SPECIES_WEIGHT = 0.5 # The higher this is, the more new pops will be weighted by number of exact same species pops
NEW_POP_SLAVERY_WEIGHT = 0.5 # The higher this is, the more new pops will tend to be balanced between enslaved and non-enslaved species
NEW_POP_SPECIES_DIV = 0.5 # The higher this is, the more planets will tend to grow species that are underrepresented on the planet
NEW_POP_HABITABILITY_THRESHOLD = 0.6 # If habitability is under this, apply exponentinally increasing penalties to new pop weight
NEW_POP_HOMEWORLD_MULT = 2 # Pops have increased weight for growing on their homeworld
NEW_POP_ASSEMBLY_TRAIT_MULT = 1 # Extra weight per trait point for assembled pops
NEW_POP_GROWTH_MOD_MULT = 0.66 # How much does species growth mod trait matter for new pop weight
NEW_POP_IMMIGRATION_MOD_MULT = 1 # How much does species immigration growth mod trait matter for new pop weight (when there is immigration)

 

[Stars_and_Bars]

Yeah, there's already plenty of threads about how deeply flawed the current pop growth mechanics are.

You basically have to play xenophobe & enact population controls on every species but your primary.

Well, only a xenophobe would try and prioritize different species(subspecies) over others.

 

[xrogaan]

Well, only a xenophobe would try and prioritize different species(subspecies) over others.

It doesn't take a xenophobe to be annoyed at unhappy pops because they chose to live on an arid world while their genetics favors oceans. And it's not like the other planets are full either.

 

[Stars_and_Bars]

It doesn't take a xenophobe to be annoyed at unhappy pops because they chose to live on an arid world while their genetics favors oceans. And it's not like the other planets are full either.

Obviously it does. People live in different climates than where their ancestors lived all the time. Nobody gets pissed off when a person born in the himalayas moves to the netherlands. Sure, the person born in the himalayas may have a natural advantage to living in really tall mountains, but very few people are interested in forcing them to stay there. This is not the only example. Africans with darker skin have a natural advantage in very sunny climates and a natural disadvantage in arctic climates. The african that moves to alaska has to find a better source of vitamin D, because the sun isn't doing enough. Nobody tries to prevent Africans from living in alaska. Point is, people groups over time through natural selection have developed specific ecological adaptations that predisposition them to healthier living in certain locales. It doesn't mean that they will choose to live in those locales if given the choice to go elsewhere.

But this is all digression. My original post was about how only xenophobes would prioritize the growth of specific species over others, or prevent a particular species from reproducing entirely. If you want highly specialized species in each environment, the cost is slower growth. That's just the cost of segregation, because you are actively limiting the choices of your pops on where they want to live. Just like in real life, people can make choices and they don't always line up with what we might consider rational.

But it would be cool to see population control restrictions expanded. Like if you're authoritarian, you can limit the growth of slaves or workers, etc. That'd be pretty cool.

 

[xrogaan]

Obviously it does. People live in different climates than where their ancestors lived all the time. Nobody gets pissed off when a person born in the himalayas moves to the netherlands. [...]

But this is all digression. My original post was about how only xenophobes would prioritize the growth of specific species over others, or prevent a particular species from reproducing entirely. If you want highly specialized species in each environment, the cost is slower growth. That's just the cost of segregation, because you are actively limiting the choices of your pops on where they want to live. Just like in real life, people can make choices and they don't always line up with what we might consider rational.

I too am miserable during hot weather. Now imagine a specie that evolved to live in a specific and very cold environment, like a husky, then move one member of that specie to the Mediterranean sea. Well, the lack of snow and general cold weather will make that individual very miserable. Now I don't say that they can't migrate at all, let alone reproduce, just that they need to make the right choice, anything else would be torture - so who's the monster now?

A molluscoid adapted to a wet environment has nothing to do in a desert, which is by definition void of water. I am not limiting the choices of my pops, their biology should limit the choices for them. It is sadly not the case as of now, since I have plenty of water loving pops growing in on desert planets.

 

[Princess Katherine]

You dont get a happiness debuff from habitability anymore. You just pay more to maintain a habitable environment. If your pops are furry and fat, perfect for cols temperatures and colonised a savannah world, you are just leaving the AC on a lot.

 

[TehJumpingJawa]

How anyone can defend the insanity of the current system is completely beyond me.

Not only is it farcically unrealistic, but it ruins any pretense of empire management.

 

[Bayes]

It is a great time to play authoritarian.

 

[btonasse]

How anyone can defend the insanity of the current system is completely beyond me.

Not only is it farcically unrealistic, but it ruins any pretense of empire management.

Wow! Just... Wow.

So what is realistic to you is to be able to have population growth control even with empire ethics that are against that? Like others have said, just play an authoritarian and manage your species the way you want. What's next? Complaining that a pacifist cannot declare war whenever he wants?

 

[sillyrobot]

Wow! Just... Wow.

So what is realistic to you is to be able to have population growth control even with empire ethics that are against that? Like others have said, just play an authoritarian and manage your species the way you want. What's next? Complaining that a pacifist cannot declare war whenever he wants?

The insane and unrealistic part is a species ill-suited to the environment without representation on a planet grows preferentially compared to a species perfectly suited to the environment and that already covers the planet.

It's like biologists create a census of carnivores in the Arctic and find 100 polar bears. The next year, they go back and find a 100 polar bears and 5 bengal tigers. Only the tigers have cubs; the polar bears stopped breeding. Where did the tigers come from? Why would they move there? Why aren't the polar bears breeding any more?

 

[Pyoro]

Besides, a POP surely doesn't represent that one crazy lizard dude who despite being from a cold-blooded species thinks moving to an arctic planet is a nice idea; it's more like hundreds of millions of people usually.