Growth makes little sense

[zukodark]

Are two pops the same amount of people whether they live on one planet or two? Probably some difference. In Stellaris, it is a large difference. Growth here is determined by how many planets you have, as it is tracked separately for each planet. Apparently, a colony with a small amount of population grows at same pace as a decently populated one. This makes some sense considering the new colonist waves, but that isn't really represented elsewhere. I think that is the problem.

The solution might be to introduce a small yet significant mechanic. Planets with a Planetary Shelter will grow at the current pace, but will decrease the growth elsewhere. Other planets with a Planetary Shelter will take a much reduced decrease from this. Once you upgrade to the Planetary Administration, this will cease to happen, but that planet will now also be affected.

This mechanic would make it so a planet rapidly expanding will have very little growth in their already developed planets. If all planets have Planetary Administrations or higher, you will have no penalty at all. You might consider dropping out on them on all new planets to avoid much penalty, but at the cost of not gaining the resources and ethic unity. This might be suitable for a wide empire emphasizing rapid expansion, and you could always make them later.

In effect, I believe the change will be a temporary penalty to rapid expanders without actually taking anything away from them, more a delay and an obstacle than a hard limit.

 

[Fourthspartan56]

Are two pops the same amount of people whether they live on one planet or two

Obviously not, pops are not a exact number of people. It is a relative game-play mechanic that is intentionally abstracted, so two pops in two different planets will absolutely represent different numbers of people.

Apparently, a colony with a small amount of population grows at same pace as a decently populated one. This makes some sense considering the new colonist waves, but that isn't really represented elsewhere. I think that is the problem.

I don't, pops are not the exact number of people on a planet rather they are a undefined number of people working on resources. Thus pop growth being equivalent is absolutely justified considering how abstracted the mechanic is.

The solution might be to introduce a small yet significant mechanic. Planets with a Planetary Shelter will grow at the current pace, but will decrease the growth elsewhere. Other planets with a Planetary Shelter will take a much reduced decrease from this. Once you upgrade to the Planetary Administration, this will cease to happen, but that planet will now also be affected.

I don't see how this is necessary, pop growth works fine as is.

 

[jetfx]

Planets with a Planetary Shelter will grow at the current pace, but will decrease the growth elsewhere. Other planets with a Planetary Shelter will take a much reduced decrease from this. Once you upgrade to the Planetary Administration, this will cease to happen, but that planet will now also be affected. This mechanic would make it so a planet rapidly expanding will have very little growth in their already developed planets.

The growth on developed planets is already much slower than on new colonies. While all pops technically grow at the same level per month assuming equal food surpluses, the amount of growth it takes to produce a pop scales based on how many pops are currently on a planet. See the wiki on it. Rapid expansion already has significant costs associated with it, especially in early game. Colonies take a while to pay off the initial investment, and resources spent on developing them, could have been spent on core planets. And new colonies do also draw pop growth away from developed planets in the form of migration. Not to debate whether penalties to rapid expansion should be harsher or not, I just don't think this is the way to do it, since pop growth already slows with development.