How to make Ecumenopolis and Ringworld great again?

[Ryika]

If you have so many pops that you have trouble growing more, how can you not have enough pops to fill a few Ecus?

If natural growth won't do, then the method is to move pops to your Ecus, from normal industrial worlds that you have not converted into Ecus, or from farmer/miner/technician jobs that are no longer required due to increased productivity from repeatables. At that very late stage of the game you can even be very liberal with manual resettlement, since you won't be needing that influence to add more habitats, since they won't produce any pops anyway.

 

[blahmaster6k]

Yeah, but having 200 colonies creating 9 pop a year -- funneling to 1 colony still takes over a decade to fill the single ecu. A full ringworld will take another century. And now you have 195 colonies to go in addition to whatever else you've built in the meantime. And you've had to keep colonizing or accept even less growth per year as your empire malus grows.

In what world are you only getting 9 pops per year with 200 colonies? Sorry, but you're just being misleading and hyperbolic.

I did the math. First, Assume that you already have 1000 pops in your empire making pops cost a base 350 with the default growth required scaling and 200 colonies. This is already generous since if you have 1000 pops in your empire you've probably won the game already. Second, assume an average of 6.5 growth per month across all planets (4.5 base organic from the logistic growth, 2 from the minimum possible robot assembly, with no growth boosting traits or modifiers). This is also a worst case scenario, as most empires will have way higher average monthly growth in the late game from either synthetic ascension, biological ascension, or machine/hive assembly. Also remember that any properly played empire will have modifiers to growth from expansion, rapid breeders, etc.

The math comes out to about 44.57 pops per year across your empire. Each planet grows a pop on average every 4.49 years (350 / 6.5 = 53.84 months / 12 = 4.487 years). 1 / 4.487 = 0.2223 pops per year per colony. Multiply that by 200 colonies and you get 44.57 new pops growing each year. In order for you to be only getting 9 pops per year you would have to have upwards of 5500 pops in your empire already. If you've most likely won the game by 1000 pops, having 5500 pops means you shouldn't still be playing the game and should have conquered the entire galaxy five times over by now.

The math disagrees with your complaining.

And for some actual game-based data, my most recent empire has 4.77 organic growth on its tiniest 7 pop new colony, without even getting the benefits from the logistic growth curve yet. Add 3.14 monthly organic assembly and that's a total of 7.91 monthly pop growth. That's without any sort of logistic growth and it's already faster than my model assuming no modifiers except from the logistic growth curve. And planets that do benefit from logistic growth are getting roughly 8 organic growth per month and anywhere from 3.5 to 4.5 organic assembly thanks to the budding trait. That's about 12 growth per month, and that's not even the ecumenopolis, which is getting over 16 total growth per month, which you can see in screenshots I posted earlier in this thread. A real game scenario including modifiers that any properly played empire will take advantage of shows even more how you're just making things up.

 

[sillyrobot]

In what world are you only getting 9 pops per year with 200 colonies? Sorry, but you're just being misleading and hyperbolic.

I did the math. First, Assume that you already have 1000 pops in your empire making pops cost a base 350 with the default growth required scaling and 200 colonies. This is already generous since if you have 1000 pops in your empire you've probably won the game already. Second, assume an average of 6.5 growth per month across all planets (4.5 base organic from the logistic growth, 2 from the minimum possible robot assembly, with no growth boosting traits or modifiers). This is also a worst case scenario, as most empires will have way higher average monthly growth in the late game from either synthetic ascension, biological ascension, or machine/hive assembly. Also remember that any properly played empire will have modifiers to growth from expansion, rapid breeders, etc.

The math comes out to about 44.57 pops per year across your empire. Each planet grows a pop on average every 4.49 years (350 / 6.5 = 53.84 months / 12 = 4.487 years). 1 / 4.487 = 0.2223 pops per year per colony. Multiply that by 200 colonies and you get 44.57 new pops growing each year. In order for you to be only getting 9 pops per year you would have to have upwards of 5500 pops in your empire already. If you've most likely won the game by 1000 pops, having 5500 pops means you shouldn't still be playing the game and should have conquered the entire galaxy five times over by now.

The math disagrees with your complaining.

And for some actual game-based data, my most recent empire has 4.77 organic growth on its tiniest 7 pop new colony, without even getting the benefits from the logistic growth curve yet. Add 3.14 monthly organic assembly and that's a total of 7.91 monthly pop growth. That's without any sort of logistic growth and it's already faster than my model assuming no modifiers except from the logistic growth curve. And planets that do benefit from logistic growth are getting roughly 8 organic growth per month and anywhere from 3.5 to 4.5 organic assembly thanks to the budding trait. That's about 12 growth per month, and that's not even the ecumenopolis, which is getting over 16 total growth per month, which you can see in screenshots I posted earlier in this thread. A real game scenario including modifiers that any properly played empire will take advantage of shows even more how you're just making things up.

What world? This one. https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ng-empire-growth-model.1469327/#post-27462646

The default growth required scaling is 0.5. At 1,000 pop, that means you need 600 points of growth for a new pop. If you assume an average colonial growth rate ~6 (since at least one colony will likely no longer be at its maximum on the curve and several colonies will not have pop to operate assembly stations yet), each colony will produce a new pop in 100 months or to put in another way, you'll get 1 percent of a pop per month per colony. To hit 9 new pop in a year, you need at least 75 colonies. As soon as the next pop hits, however, everything slows down again. 100 colonies falls to +9 pop per year at 1,400 pop; 200 colonies hit that point at 3,000 pop.

"Winning the game" isn't the point. I have 100 colonies by 2300, typically. I have 200 by 2350 as I finally fix a ring world segment and am creating research habitats and keep colonizing to gain enough new growth centres to try and stay even on the growth penalty.

I haven't "won" because the crisis won't strike for another century and a half and I only occupy somewhere around 10% of the galaxy. 1,000 pop means my colonies have an average of 5 pop each -- or in other words, almost nothing. By 2350, to maintain 5 pop average, I need to I have about double that: 2,000 pop. Growing the extra 3 pop per colony to maintain that average requires 300 new pop in 50 years which doesn't seem insurmountable until you realize with horror each new colony increases the pop growth threshold on every colony by +1.

 

[DeanTheDull]

Yeah, but having 200 colonies creating 9 pop a year -- funneling to 1 colony still takes over a decade to fill the single ecu. A full ringworld will take another century. And now you have 195 colonies to go in addition to whatever else you've built in the meantime.

9 pops a year is still faster than an ecumenoplis can build jobs. By god, the horror that you can't have unemployed pops on your newly-constructied mega-world while 200 pre-existing colonies are already producing pops!

Or, you know, re-locating pops. Because if you have 200 colonies, and pops auto-migrate at about 1 a year, you could give new ringworlds about 200 pops a year. I'm led to believe this is a bit faster than they can districts or segments, but I may be mistaken. If the auto-migration forces the colony to be abandoned, re-settle it and do it again. It's not like normal colonies are actually good for anything but breeding and resources once you have the Ecu and Ringworlds up and supplied.

And you've had to keep colonizing or accept even less growth per year as your empire malus grows.

You could also accept that you've already won the game. 25x crisis isn't the standard of measurement, Stellaris is balanced around gaining galactic dominance well before pop growth slows that much, and you don't need to constantly grow pops to be competitive.

Also, getting good with better pop-accumulation and power strategieis. Sector release-and-reintegrate, pop-abduction builds, Tributaries, Federations, that sort of thing. Growing pops has always been for chumps, which is why martial expansion is meta.

 

[blahmaster6k]

The default growth required scaling is 0.5.

Wrong. The default is 0.25. 0.5 was the only setting back in 3.0, but it was changed to 0.25, and then the slider was added with the default remaining 0.25. Note in the screenshot below. Your math is based on a faulty impression of the game that was probably formed in 3.0 when it was actually bad enough to be noticeable. But at 0.25 it's not nearly as noticeable or bad as before. As a refresher, these are the default settings. You can check them yourself, I'm not lying. You should have actually done the research before trying to put more incorrect information into this thread.

"Winning the game" isn't the point. I have 100 colonies by 2300, typically. I have 200 by 2350 as I finally fix a ring world segment and am creating research habitats and keep colonizing to gain enough new growth centres to try and stay even on the growth penalty.

I haven't "won" because the crisis won't strike for another century and a half and I only occupy somewhere around 10% of the galaxy.

If you only control 10% of the galaxy in 2350 even though you have 200 colonies and 1000 pops, that's you deliberately choosing to sabotage yourself by not conquering, and you could have won the game by now if you tried to. Winning the game is the point for any discussion around game balance and optimization. You don't need more pops when you could have already won with what you have already. If the goal isn't winning the game, then any discussion about gameplay balance is meaningless. There's no rule that says "whoever has the most pops in 2500 wins the game, but no empires are allowed to go to war and must make do with whatever systems they peacefully expand into". In any competitive scenario the empire that doesn't attempt to conquer should absolutely lose in a 1v1 to an empire who has already conquered other empires.

Besides, all empires have the same growth scaling required. If you have 2000 pops and are growing slower than other empires because of it, it's because you're already ahead. Personally I like the growth scaling because it slows down passive snowballing and makes you have to actually work to get pops through beating other empires instead of winning by going afk with zero effort or skill required. I know that "tall" players don't like to hear this, but it's the truth. Playing tall is always going to be a meme and not an actual good strategy, nor should it be.

And if you're so far ahead but the crisis still won't spawn for another 150 years (sounds like you have the endgame date set to 2450?!?! might I suggest playing with an earlier crisis date? Surely you could defeat it as you are in 2350.

 

[sillyrobot]

Wrong. The default is 0.25. 0.5 was the only setting back in 3.0, but it was changed to 0.25, and then the slider was added with the default remaining 0.25. Note in the screenshot below. Your math is based on a faulty impression of the game that was probably formed in 3.0 when it was actually bad enough to be noticeable. But at 0.25 it's not nearly as noticeable or bad as before. As a refresher, these are the default settings. You can check them yourself, I'm not lying. You should have actually done the research before trying to put more incorrect information into this thread.
View attachment 773452

If you only control 10% of the galaxy in 2350 even though you have 200 colonies and 1000 pops, that's you deliberately choosing to sabotage yourself by not conquering, and you could have won the game by now if you tried to. Winning the game is the point for any discussion around game balance and optimization. You don't need more pops when you could have already won with what you have already. If the goal isn't winning the game, then any discussion about gameplay balance is meaningless. There's no rule that says "whoever has the most pops in 2500 wins the game, but no empires are allowed to go to war and must make do with whatever systems they peacefully expand into". In any competitive scenario the empire that doesn't attempt to conquer should absolutely lose in a 1v1 to an empire who has already conquered other empires.

Besides, all empires have the same growth scaling required. If you have 2000 pops and are growing slower than other empires because of it, it's because you're already ahead. Personally I like the growth scaling because it slows down passive snowballing and makes you have to actually work to get pops through beating other empires instead of winning by going afk with zero effort or skill required. I know that "tall" players don't like to hear this, but it's the truth. Playing tall is always going to be a meme and not an actual good strategy, nor should it be.

And if you're so far ahead but the crisis still won't spawn for another 150 years (sounds like you have the endgame date set to 2450?!?! might I suggest playing with an earlier crisis date? Surely you could defeat it as you are in 2350.

My bad. The 0.25 eases things slightly. 200 colonies drops to +9 pop at 6,000 pop. Which is still a point I hit. With the growth limiter turned off, I typically hit 10K pop just after 2350 and still desperately need more.

My galaxy is 1,000 star with 5x habitable planets. Influence is the big limiter. One cannot grow outposts / claim systems faster than influence can be gained. Owning 100 colonies in star systems (and having a bunch more linking the empire together) is pretty good within 100 years, especially as I am not a warmonger and don't have total war available; I fight to defend myself and once I'm forced to take out the Spiritualist FE, I take out the other two potentially dangerous FE. That's all the wars I plan to fight by 2400.

End game is set to default: 2400. Crisis typically spawns 50 years after that. Setting end game earlier is possible, but it restricts the part of the game I actually want to play: growing a large viable empire.

 

[blahmaster6k]

My bad. The 0.25 eases things slightly. 200 colonies drops to +9 pop at 6,000 pop. Which is still a point I hit. With the growth limiter turned off, I typically hit 10K pop just after 2350 and still desperately need more.

My galaxy is 1,000 star with 5x habitable planets. Influence is the big limiter. One cannot grow outposts / claim systems faster than influence can be gained. Owning 100 colonies in star systems (and having a bunch more linking the empire together) is pretty good within 100 years, especially as I am not a warmonger and don't have total war available; I fight to defend myself and once I'm forced to take out the Spiritualist FE, I take out the other two potentially dangerous FE. That's all the wars I plan to fight by 2400.

End game is set to default: 2400. Crisis typically spawns 50 years after that. Setting end game earlier is possible, but it restricts the part of the game I actually want to play: growing a large viable empire.

Fair enough. All I can say to that is that your galaxy settings are a very large outlier compared to what most people would consider a normal game. But hey, that's what sliders exist for. In my opinion, it's only valuable to discuss balance of default settings if we assume that other settings are also default because then you can't really discuss anything meaningful.

 

[DeanTheDull]

My bad. The 0.25 eases things slightly. 200 colonies drops to +9 pop at 6,000 pop. Which is still a point I hit. With the growth limiter turned off, I typically hit 10K pop just after 2350 and still desperately need more.

For what?

What, mechanically, is more pops doing for you other than showing a number of having more pops? Fallen empires can be beaten well before 500-600 pops. The Crisis at normal difficult 1000. The only thing in the game that will even reach more than a thousand pops is another empire in a setting with no pop-limiter, but they literally do not exist with the limiter. War-monger empires might, but they only get stronger the lower the growth limiter is, as each conquests grows them faster rather than stronger.

200 colonies with 6000 pops is averaging 30 pops a colony- that's the second highest capital tier. You can relocate those and fill five entire science ringworlds- not

My galaxy is 1,000 star with 5x habitable planets. Influence is the big limiter. One cannot grow outposts / claim systems faster than influence can be gained. Owning 100 colonies in star systems (and having a bunch more linking the empire together) is pretty good within 100 years, especially as I am not a warmonger and don't have total war available; I fight to defend myself and once I'm forced to take out the Spiritualist FE, I take out the other two potentially dangerous FE. That's all the wars I plan to fight by 2400.

Why aren't you using vassals or releasing sectors to claim space for you?


Make a sector. Give it enough alloys and resources to support itself. Release as a vassal. Release from vassalage. Use diplomacy to turn it into a tributary. Voila- you have doubled your species' ability to generate influence for expansion. If you have feudal society, you can skip the tributary step. The vassal has no pop-growth limit like you, has as much influence as you do.

End game is set to default: 2400. Crisis typically spawns 50 years after that. Setting end game earlier is possible, but it restricts the part of the game I actually want to play: growing a large viable empire.

Your empire was viable 5000 pops ago.

 

[sillyrobot]

For what?

What, mechanically, is more pops doing for you other than showing a number of having more pops? Fallen empires can be beaten well before 500-600 pops. The Crisis at normal difficult 1000. The only thing in the game that will even reach more than a thousand pops is another empire in a setting with no pop-limiter, but they literally do not exist with the limiter. War-monger empires might, but they only get stronger the lower the growth limiter is, as each conquests grows them faster rather than stronger.

Mechanically? Increasing my research past 150K per month, increasing fleet power, and producing enough infrastructure to support the empire (admin and strategic resources). Not too much, but those 200+ colonies have tonnes of unfilled jobs that are unsightly. Even with about half the colonies building very few districts.

200 colonies with 6000 pops is averaging 30 pops a colony- that's the second highest capital tier. You can relocate those and fill five entire science ringworlds- not

Yes, and? That leaves 196 colonies empty. Also it's not like my pops are evenly distributed to begin with.

Why aren't you using vassals or releasing sectors to claim space for you?


Make a sector. Give it enough alloys and resources to support itself. Release as a vassal. Release from vassalage. Use diplomacy to turn it into a tributary. Voila- you have doubled your species' ability to generate influence for expansion. If you have feudal society, you can skip the tributary step. The vassal has no pop-growth limit like you, has as much influence as you do.



Your empire was viable 5000 pops ago.

I hate vassalization. Not just that the the AI sucks, the resources are more efficiently handled in a single empire, or the dilution of Galactic Council power -- I don't want vassals. I think it's boring and generally terrible game play.

And I doubt a vassal doubles my influence gathering from 15 / month to 30 / month. Will the AI build only research habitats or will it waste influence on resource habitats? How many times will it claim the same system or claim systems inside empires I have no interest in attacking? Heck how many times will it claim one of my systems? How many foolish edict shifts will it perform or planetary decisions will it enact? I'll be lucky to get a useful +1 a month from a vassal.

 

[DeanTheDull]

Mechanically? Increasing my research past 150K per month, increasing fleet power, and producing enough infrastructure to support the empire (admin and strategic resources). Not too much, but those 200+ colonies have tonnes of unfilled jobs that are unsightly. Even with about half the colonies building very few districts.

That's not a 'for what' beyond just increasing big numbers of the sake of bigger numbers. What, aside from the number itself, strategically changes if you have only 75k science per month? Will you have to re-arrange your science-vs-alloy economy? Will you lose the next war?


'Unsightly' is not a valid strategic consideration. It is an aesthetic.

Yes, and? That leaves 196 colonies empty. Also it's not like my pops are evenly distributed to begin with.

All the better. So what if 196 colonies are all-but empty? Power comes from pops and their output, not the number of places where pops are.

The advantage of mega-worlds is their economies of scale. 500 pops on an arcology are worth more than 600 pops on normal worlds because not only do they get 20% bonuses, but have far higher efficiencies in upkeep requirements, requiring fewer pops on upkeep roles. They make pops worth more by being there rather than other places.

Once Ringworlds and Ecu come online, the primary value of any other planet is to provide resources to the specialists there.

I hate vassalization. Not just that the the AI sucks, the resources are more efficiently handled in a single empire, or the dilution of Galactic Council power -- I don't want vassals. I think it's boring and generally terrible game play.

This is a boring and generally terrible understanding of how the the subject system.

Influence is your limiting factor for expansion, megastructures, and galactic resolutions. It is gated primarily on a per-empire basis, and the fastest way to get more of it in the galaxy is to have more empires. Those empires may not use it as efficiently as you desire, but they actually have it to spend.

Moreover, subjects actually expand your galactic influence. Set aside whether you actually need more diplomatic- at your levels you should easily be able to dominate the galactic community without any favors, and if you're not you need to explain how and why. Loyal subjects- which is to say subjects weaker than you- can have favors bought for basic resources you should have in abundance, increasing your diplomatic weight above what you'd be able to have on your own. Subjects released from your territory, sharing your ethics and civics, will naturally be diplomatically aligned and generally vote for the sort of things that would benefit you both. Subjects can use the influence they generate to start the sort of galactic community resolutions that benefit you disproportionately but which you'd not want to use your influence for/have already invested in a different resolution. Subjects in Federations further boost the president's power through the various Federation mechanics including the Federation fleet, which increases with member fleet capacity, letting the Federation President have a more decisive say in the galactic community.

You balance these resources -influence and pops and diplomatic weight- against other resources you have. Yes, you could probably manage the energy/minerals/science production better... but those aren't the limiting resources in dominating the Community or in expnading across the galaxy. Complaining about a shortage of limited resources while ignoring the systems that let you address them is self-inflicted.

And I doubt a vassal doubles my influence gathering from 15 / month to 30 / month.

Each vassal will- depending on their techs and what your build is when you release them- produce at least about 5 influence a month. 3 base, about 2-3 from factions, before other build considerations.

If your chokepoint on expansion or habitats is influence, releasing just three single-planet sectors will double influence production for the governed space they control.

Will the AI build only research habitats or will it waste influence on resource habitats?

Since you lack the influence to build either, either is more resources, pop growth, and habitats than you would get.

How many times will it claim the same system or claim systems inside empires I have no interest in attacking?

Basically never, and since it's influence you'd not have in the first place it doesn't detract from your influence spending on habitats and mega-structures and galactic community resolutions. And since you're not obliged to help wars of aggression, you don't need to attack even if they do.


Then there's the point of understanding what different subject states even do. Different subjects have different rights. Unless you have Feudal Society civic, Vassals themselves do not expand, that's tributaries. They also do not have normal diplomacy rights.

Tributaries can expand, but all AI empires favor expanding to their natural limit over invading neighbors unless they're much stronger. If the tributary thinks they can win, no involvement by you. If the tributary doesn't, it won't attack. If the tributary has the tech and the alloys but is weaker than the neighbor- and they probably will be since they started as a tributary minor sector and not a year-0 empire- they will build habitats.

Heck how many times will it claim one of my systems?

Bascially never, if you give them the alloys to build habitats. And since it's your subject, it would have to launch a war of independence before it could even if it had pre-existing claims, which it won't since you released it from your own empire. Also because it's a subject, it would only try to become independent if it and all other rebellious subjects outpowered you.

But since you're a 200 planet/6000 pop empire and it's starting as a dinky 1-sector subject with with a few pops at best at the start, that's not going to happen.

And, of course, integration.

How many foolish edict shifts will it perform or planetary decisions will it enact?

Basically none, since the AI prioritizes expanding over edicts and wants to grow its planets. It's not going to use influence to stop it's pop growth, and while it may spend influence on edicts before habitats, an AI with the access to habitat techs and alloys will build them over constantly changing edicts.

But since it's influence you wouldn't receive in the first place, it doesn't matter as long as they spend any net-positive influence in ways you couldn't afford to.

I'll be lucky to get a useful +1 a month from a vassal.

Which would still be a nearly 10% increase on your most restricted resource. But even that misses the point.

'You' don't get any influence directly unless it's a protectorate, at which point it's .25 influence a protectorate, which for minor ones is far more useful than most single-planet system.

The point is that the other empire uses influence it generators for things you'd like to have influence for, but don't have the generation for. Which means a tributary is saving the overlord 75-ish influence per system it expands to, or a vassal is saving 150 influence per habitat you front the alloys for, and of course the holy grails of using Vassals to build mega-structures for 300 influence and side-stepping the fact that your own empire can only build one of max. Using vassals as mega-structure builders is the most OP use of them.

If a Tributary you give two hundred alloys to expands two systems, that's enough influence you didn't spend to build another habitat. If a Vassal builds just one 150 influence habitat before you integrate it at a cost of 1 influence a system/pop and 5 influence a planet, you are likely saving 145 influence, or nearly a year's worth of influence generation.

If the Vassal spends all the alloys you gave them on a kick-ass fleet, that too can be used to your advantage: vassals joins the overlord's war, and so you can use vassal fleets that, while not as well designed as yours, are an extra 90-ish fleet cap from the techs you gave them more than you'd have unless you spent all 20 pops as soldiers instead.

 

[Eled the Worm Tamer]

To fix ecu / ring world and to balance them, you just need a more realistic approach to pop growth.

Each pop generates growth for its species, based on a few factors:-
Habitability (Higher hab means more comfortable, so more offspring)
Stratum (in the real world as material affluence increases and supporting off spring becomes more costly, so fertility declines. Rich nations and even just cities within them are net - on population, while poorer nations have higher overall fertility)
Likewise higher living standards will have a suppressing effect on pop growth.
Degree of colonial development (Given the goal of settling a new world it's fair to say, as with colonial era US vs UK of same era, that a frontier colony will have a higher birth rate and indeed will have chosen colonists for that).
And make migration more fluid and rapid than it is presently.

What does this mean overall? Slave economies and Authoritarians will have a population advantage, but still struggle to produce research, alloys and consumer goods on their bottom heavy resource extraction focussed economies, and will be pushed to open up new territory for living room to support its large worker/slave populations.

Meanwhile egalitarian civs have a huge manufacturing and research advantage, but need to find pops to fill those jobs, low population growth and lots of skilled jobs refining and using raw materials to make alloys CG, unity and culture will mean any new native pops self promote to those specialist jobs, and have to go to war to attain more population.

Ecu and ring world? Well they get a buff because now pops are easier to get. But they are also a problem because a huge world full of specialist and ruler jobs is a ravenous maw eating pops by the handful. Which in turn is the performance saving negative feedback on this, a civ would eventually find its point of equilibrium as colonies mature and economies shift away from worker stratum jobs.

 

[DeanTheDull]

Ecu and ring world? Well they get a buff because now pops are easier to get. But they are also a problem because a huge world full of specialist and ruler jobs is a ravenous maw eating pops by the handful. Which in turn is the performance saving negative feedback on this, a civ would eventually find its point of equilibrium as colonies mature and economies shift away from worker stratum jobs.

This is reversed: Ecumenopoli and Ringworlds are more powerful the fewer pops you have, not more, because their primary advantage is pop-efficiency, which is rare, and not pop-capacity, which there is already an excess of. The relative advantage matters more the fewer pops you have.

The advantage comes from the output per pop, and per strategic resource, which are your main limiting factors. A scientist on a science ringworld is getting a 30% buff to science output that normal worlds can not get, and is getting it with less Gas and Admin Sprawl upkeep than the equivalent number of scientists on regular worlds. Similarly but on a slightly different metric, Ecumenopoli are getting a 20% output buff to CG and Alloy production.

More pops on more non-ecu planets increases the number of raw output, but decreases the relative pop efficiency. Unless those pops are doing non-output scaling specialist jobs- which is to say being bureacrats or soliers with flat outputs- the more specialists you have off of the 20% specialist building world, the less of a share of the empire's production the Ecumenopoli will have. And since you can already maximize your Ecumenopoli-share of the economy by building more Ecu, you don't need more pops to increase your share of pops on the Ecu.

 

[Eled the Worm Tamer]

ah my read has always been they are useful for their pop-density as the actual jobs are no better than district ones unless I missed something which, is wholly possible.

If I have it's just a misapplication of per pop fertility with negative feed backs, but I still hold that would be better than the present system, as it's more realistic and also creates more of an emergent conflict.