Has someone done the math when -x% housing is resulting in more pop growth than +x% pop growth

[Aepdneds]

Now that actual pop growth is depending on the excess planetary capacity which itselfs is linked to free housing capacity there could be a point when reduced housing requirements becomes better than additional pop growth bonusses. I don't know if this point does exists, but has someone done the math for this?

 

[Franton]

Since the new pop growth mechanic doesn't take actual housing use into consideration at all, reduced housing is never better than +pop growth. The only "benefit" you get from it is that you may have even less housing before growth entirely stops. However, if you ever reach that point, you'll want more housing on that particular planet, not an otherwise useless pop trait.

 

[Aepdneds]

Stefan Anon and the Wiki are disagreeing, as long as it is not bugged housing should be an indirect part of the calculation

Celestial body - Stellaris Wiki

stellaris.paradoxwikis.com

(video with time stamp, just the next ten seconds about this topic)

 

[Jaxck]

Yo Stellaris devs, questions like this are why the logistical growth system is dumb. If you wanted fewer pops, just cut pop growth. There was no need to obscurely relate it to so many variables, and in the process make managing one's empire even more of a pain.

Ass to your question OP, I seem to remember there being a video knocking around (not from Stefan) where somebody broke down how capacity relates to pop growth. Effectively they disentangled Paradox's mess of bad tooltips. If I'm remembering correctly, the best thing to do is +% pop growth since 1% of pop growth is worth more than the additional capacity of anything other than Ecumenpolis districts. So unless it's an Ecumenpolis, prioritize pop growth before capacity.

 

[Franton]

If I'm remembering correctly, the best thing to do is +% pop growth since 1% of pop growth is worth more than the additional capacity of anything other than Ecumenpolis districts.

You seem to be referring to buildings (e. g. gene clinic vs. housing districts). As I understand the OP, the question was about pop traits ("-x% housing" is not something you can attain with any building or district).

 

[Franton]

Stefan Anon and the Wiki are disagreeing, as long as it is not bugged housing should be an indirect part of the calculation

Thanks for the link. I stand corrected. I am a bit surprised this wasn't mentioned in any of the patch notes - I specifically watched out for changes on pop groowth but don't remember seeing anything on this.

That said I did occasionally spot capacity numbers being 'off' recently, and couldn't find an explanation...

 

[monatomic]

Thanks for the link. I stand corrected. I am a bit surprised this wasn't mentioned in any of the patch notes - I specifically watched out for changes on pop groowth but don't remember seeing anything on this.

It is this line in 3.1.1 patch notes

* Tweaked carrying capacity formula to make housing usage modifiers more useful again (instead of taking total housing, it now takes total pops plus free housing).

 

[monatomic]

I don't know if this point does exists, but has someone done the math for this?

Pop growth modifiers are applied after the logistic growth is calculated, so it's better when growth speed is high. If your current logistic growth is near the max (4.5 by default I think) then extra housing won't make a difference, but growth modifiers will. Generally, build more housing if you're not at the max growth. Growth bonuses are better in that situation.

Housing modifiers are better to squeeze in extra pops after it's getting full and you can't/won't build more housing. So for example, if you have a nearly full planet (free housing roughly <=5) with rapid breeder pops, it would be better to gene mod them to replace rapid breeders with communal.

 

[Tech Noir Synth]

Since the new pop growth mechanic doesn't take actual housing use into consideration at all,

Thats how it used to work, but we told Paradox thats not cool, so they changed it.

 

[Critical Ethics]

Communal on Void Dwellers kicks pop growth out of the water because it makes it much much easier to keep your housing at more than twice your pops on your smaller starter habitats.

 

[Franton]

Thats how it used to work, but we told Paradox thats not cool, so they changed it.

Thanks, @monatomic already pointed out it's in the 3.1.1 patch notes. (and apparently I have missed that)

Communal on Void Dwellers kicks pop growth out of the water because it makes it much much easier to keep your housing at more than twice your pops on your smaller starter habitats.

Indeed. Housing on a first stage habitat is a pain. Second stage is fine though, as you can use housing buildings: the two extra slots from Functional Architecture really help here.

That said, reduced housing from being slaves should help even more. (And starting with Slaver Guilds is even better) With Genetic Ascension you could later add the Fertile trait too: Fertile Communal Slaves sounds like a nice rabbit hole!

So, if you want high pop growth on Void Dwellers, my seggestion would be a Communal and Rapid Breeder race with Slaver Guilds and Functional Architecture heading for Genetic Ascension. (should be Xenophile to unlock Xeno-Compatibility and Authoritan to allow Slaver Guilds)

 

[Dragatus]

Now that actual pop growth is depending on the excess planetary capacity which itselfs is linked to free housing capacity there could be a point when reduced housing requirements becomes better than additional pop growth bonusses. I don't know if this point does exists, but has someone done the math for this?

The point probably exists, but is only relevant to habitats. On planets, and later colonies in particular, you can always reach maximum growth from pops and housing bonuses and penalties only modify how many City Districts you have to build.