I only said to open it up to empires with whom you sign a Migration Treaty.
You can mitigate that quite easily -- just don't sign one if you're not going to profit, or sign one and then break it after you get the pop types you want.
- 2
- 1
- 1
Is the nomadic trait, along with "pop growth from immigration", broken?
- Thread starter BakedPotato
- 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.
I only said to open it up to empires with whom you sign a Migration Treaty.
You can mitigate that quite easily -- just don't sign one if you're not going to profit, or sign one and then break it after you get the pop types you want.
But why go for a system that is less flexible? Right now I can have permanent migration treaties without losing pops.
- 1
No you can't. You lose migration pressure (which would have gone to currently building pops).
Under my proposal, if you manage employment so nobody auto-migrates while the treaty is in effect, you have a 0% chance of losing current pops and you lose 0% of current pop growth.
That's an ADVANTAGE, an INCREASE, not a loss for you (assuming you manage employment well for the duration).
EDIT: Furthermore, right now the game auto-selects an under-represented species to grow on every one of your planets, then if the species wasn't already on the planet you can lose all growth for that pop if the source empire's migration pressure changes. You can currently lose a lot of growth just by signing a migration treaty unless you force-grow a pre-existing species (which also costs you -10% growth). Then when the pop growth stops, the game takes another month of no-species empty growth before choosing which species to try to grow next.
It's likely that you are currently losing more than you would lose under my proposal.
- 1
- 1
That's why I propose to increase the emigration push in general, then what you get is completely dependent on how you manage your immigration pull and it drastically decreases the risk of losing growth progress.
As an egalitarian you can't avoid unemployment and I wouldn't want to micro it anyway, that is exactly what auto-resettlement is for.
- 1
You're saying here that you're okay losing pop growth, which to me is the same as losing fractional pops (and quite a lot of them if the game decides to screw you too often by invalidating several months or years of growth when migration pressure changes).
But for some reason you're not okay swapping pops (both losing and gaining whole pops).
What's the difference in your head?
Why is it bad for an unemployed pop to go to the other empire sometimes, but it's okay for the game to just trash your pop growth, and to reduce your pop growth when the other empire founds a colony near your border?
- 1
I wouldn't be against an additional failsafe, that lets a pop continue to grow once it started growing or at least carry over the progress if the initial species becomes unavailable.
My problem with auto-resettle between empires is that it's opaque and you can't really tell what you're getting or losing and that it can be gamed, for example an authoritarian can completely avoid losing pops by micro-management while an egalitarian cannot and only has no migration treaties as counter play, which would be completely out of character for my usual xenophile, egalitarian play style. And let's be honest it should be the xenophile, egalitarian who siphons off pops.
- 1
The current cancel-your-stored-growth is MORE opaque, and you've been defending that.
The current invisible overlapping pressure zones is MORE opaque, and making it non-opaque would be more difficult, and you've been defending that too.
To document the auto-migration, you can tally up how many discrete pops you've gained and lost. That can be easily represented in the UI. It's a whole number which can be broken down by species and colony. This is an easy thing to display.
Maybe you under-value the pops you lose to migration treaties (lost pressure and cancelled growth) because those are difficult to illustrate, so you were unaware of them?
Egalitarian can also completely avoid losing pops by just building more jobs for the duration of the migration treaty. At the absolute bottom of the barrel you could just unlock a ton of bad jobs (eg Clerks) which you then lock out after you end the treaty. This is not rocket surgery.
Xenophiles should gain more pops AND lose more pops -- a Xenophile pop should sometimes auto-migrate to a Xeno empire just because it can.
Egalitarians with better lifestyles (eg Utopian Abundance) should have higher immigration attraction. But if you put everyone on Basic Subsistence while the Authoritarian is giving Social Welfare to its Indentured Serfs then you might not have better lifestyle attraction.
Nobody wants the game to cancel pop growth and claiming otherwise is a bit disingenuous.
What I want is continuous migration that adds to pop growth and I find this pretty transparent, you can take a look at each of your planets and see how much growth you're getting/losing and what contributes to it.
With a discrete system, even if it keeps track of all migration, you will always have questions like, why did this pop move away? Why did that pop come here? And the answer would always be it had a non-zero chance and a dice roll decided it should.
The problem with providing more jobs is that it negates the current use of auto-resettle, if you have an Ecumenopolis or ring world segment to fill just let people on other worlds get unemployed and they will slowly resettle there. And for me migration treaties are a permanent thing and I'm not inclined to change this to make your system work.
You have been arguing in favor of a system with the flaw that I've described. Holding your arguments responsible for the consequences of your arguments is not "disingenuous". Retract or justify that personal attack, please.
And you have been arguing for those consequences, since they are a direct result of the mechanic you want to keep.
You have no information about relative migration pressure before you sign a migration treaty. Signing one is an uninformed decision. You have no transparency about the sources of those pressures, nor their history, only about the current sum total pressure at one point.
That's very poor information.
Why did a pop move out? It was unemployed, and the most attractive prospect was not in your empire.
"It was unemployed" is 100% under your control as a player.
"Most attractive prospect" is at worst the same as the current migration pressure system; at best the UI could display the conditions of the destination system at the time and you could figure out why the pop made that choice, e.g. "oh they're running Academic Privilege and that colony had excess amenities, that's higher happiness for the specialist job she took than my Shared Burdens could offer".
Again, if you honestly think this is somehow "disingenuous", please back that up, or please retract the accusation.
I've had planets gaining 2 or 3 points of growth a month from immigration, which is absolutely noticable, and I think it can get as high as +5. Free Haven + Land of Opportunity + Distributing Luxury Goods on a planet with plenty of housing, or a ring-world / ecu will have a noticable impact on growth -- so long as other planets that can migrate to it have emigration push. The thing to remember is that planets have to be losing growth for other planets to gain it from immigration.
- 1
The base migration can currently go up to 10 and you can stack a few modifiers on it.
I have outlined several methods that for all practical purposes or even completely eliminate growth cancelation, if you choose to selectively ignore these, that's really on you.
As a player I develop an understanding of how much emigration pressure the AI will have at any point in the game and I'm quite confident in my ability to make my colonies more attractive than the AI's.
Again you ignore that having unemployed pops to have them auto-resettle (inside your own empire) is currently a valid strategy (especially if you can't resettle them manually). So it is not desirable to completely avoid unemployment.
So you pretty much want a non-deterministic discrete version of the current migration system (or a beefed up version of it) that has the drawback that it favours empires that can manually resettle pops over those that can't?
No, I don't think you have done that. You've outlined some ideas which might have some effect, but you haven't shown that you can eliminate the issue without causing worse issues.
But if you're making the claim that you have a concrete solution, can back that up with numbers and mechanics?
I'm saying that you can TEMPORARILY not use that mechanism for the duration of a Migration Treaty, then start using it again after you break the treaty.
It is completely viable to avoid unemployment for ~10 years, and won't hurt your empire much.
Is this really new information? I thought I was clear about this.
I want a non-broken migration system, which is different from the current system, and which I've outlined above.
If you can't resettle pops, then you probably can't control which species grows either, so I don't see a significant change in what is favored between the current system and my proposal.
1. Let any world generate some emigration push
Before the pop rework growth cancelation wasn't much of a problem, because you had always had some emigration push, so making sure there is always some emigration push should practically eliminate growth cancelation, unless you lose the migration treaty to your only source of that species.
2. Don't cancel pop growth even if you lose the source for this species
obviously completely solves the problem
3. Carry over accumulated growth upon switching to a new species if you lose the source
obviously completely solves the problem
I find it kind of amusing that you conveniently ignore that I prefer to have permanent migration treaties. Is there a reason you want to force your play style on me?
What does any of this has to do with the issue that an authoritarian can use your mechanic to siphon off pops from an egalitarian without giving any?
This is absolutely incorrect. I saw this issue back in 2.7, and it bothered me back then, and that's part of why I'm such a proponent of leaning into the new auto-migration mechanic.
This problem is easy to miss. It's a silent failure and you might not know it's even happening if you're not looking for it, and I suppose that's what's happening here: you didn't know about it, so it didn't bother you.
Growth cancellation was an issue before 3.x
One of these has an obvious potential for abuse, can you spot it? Do remember you were supposed to provide concrete mechanics which don't create more problems, and this ain't cutting it.
I also prefer to have permanent migration treaties, but you're the one complaining about losing any potential pops. The proposal was specifically aimed at your objection.
Do you honestly not realize that you're losing pops to your migration partner right now? If you did know that, why would it be a problem if a pop auto-migrated out?
I maintain permanent migration treaties in the full knowledge that it's costing me something.
I just told you how to "steal" pops as an Egalitarian.
What do you get by pretending otherwise?
I did notice if you bother to actually read what I write. My suggestion is stronger and always generates some emigration push.
Please be more vague otherwise someone might actually follow your train of thought.
My current game has at least +1 growth from migration on most worlds and none lose pops.
Unless I completely misunderstand your idea only unemployed pops migrate, so if you can avoid unemployed pops you don't have to give any. Authoritarians can do this permanently egalitarians can't.
Do you mean that you want to ensure no colony ever has more immigration pull than emigration push?
So you honestly don't see the problems? That's fine, it wouldn't be a useful solution even with the most obvious one fixed.
What would it be if you had closed borders? It will be higher in some places, and lower in others. In the places where it would be higher, you are losing growth to emigration.
I don't believe you can make the statement that none have lost pops, since that failure is silent.
Oh hey it's the guy who acts like he hates vague statements, yet apparently makes only vague statements.
Want to explain what you mean in specific?
- 1
They would be handled separately, first emigration push fills the migration pool, than immigration pull drains it. This way any emigration push will fill the migration pool at least a bit.
You do know that if you don't want to talk about it, you can just not write about it, don't you? I guess your mind conjures up a problem where there is none.
With no migration treaties it would balance to zero before modifiers.
I doubt that with the emigration pressure in my federation.
Was it vague at all? That's my problem since the start, in your system only unemployed pops ever migrate, so if you can completely avoid unemployment by manual resettlement you have an advantage over those who can't.
fusei, I'm a bit confused by some of the things you're saying so I just want to make sure we're all on the same page:
1) are you aware that positive immigration on a planet requires there to be negative immigration (aka emigration) somewhere else*? If it's not from somewhere else in your empire it's from another empire entirely.
2) if you are seeing positive immigration on all your planets it's because you're stealing growth from your allies and neighbours due to you having a nicer and more desirable empire.
3) assuming pop teleportation followed the same logic, replacing immigration growth with teleportation would not cause you to lose pops unless you were already leaking pop growth to other empires.
Given all of the above surely objections to losing pops via teleportation only apply in situations where you'd already be losing /pop /growth/ due to emigration? I can understand your issue with transport hubs, democracy etc. accelerating pop loss in situations where you were already losing pops, but this could be remedied by making a distinction between in-empire movement and between-empire movement and setting transport hubs and democracy to only boost the former.
*due to weird stuff about how migration modifiers work it will not sum to 0
1) are you aware that positive immigration on a planet requires there to be negative immigration (aka emigration) somewhere else*? If it's not from somewhere else in your empire it's from another empire entirely.
2) if you are seeing positive immigration on all your planets it's because you're stealing growth from your allies and neighbours due to you having a nicer and more desirable empire.
3) assuming pop teleportation followed the same logic, replacing immigration growth with teleportation would not cause you to lose pops unless you were already leaking pop growth to other empires.
Given all of the above surely objections to losing pops via teleportation only apply in situations where you'd already be losing /pop /growth/ due to emigration? I can understand your issue with transport hubs, democracy etc. accelerating pop loss in situations where you were already losing pops, but this could be remedied by making a distinction between in-empire movement and between-empire movement and setting transport hubs and democracy to only boost the former.
*due to weird stuff about how migration modifiers work it will not sum to 0
- 3
That really does not follow.
The game likes to pick the least represented species to grow, so emigration pressure inside your empire is not the only -- nor even the most likely -- source of trashed growth.
Then you're either running a trivially small empire or you will run out of Influence swiftly, and then not have any permanent advantage (nor have any Influence which seems a bit rough).
Corvee can be removed.