Overcrowding of old world

[permeakra]

So , let's say that I got an old fully populeted, developed world with organic population. It produces new pops, that causes amenity usage, overcrowding and unemployment. It does produce a good emigration push, letting me develop my colonies faster. Having 1 police building solves crime issue. But overcrowding means I have pops that don't do anything. And no, resettlement for various reasons is not an option.

Is there a stable level of overcrowding that stops producing pop growth on the planet, keeping emigration only? How much shall I waste on overcrowding? The matter does bug me, since I hit overcrowding on my several first colonies and I'm fairly certain that I'm going to hit it fast on all of my planets and my habitats as well before endgame crisis.

 

[stumason]

There is a planetary decision to stop POP growth - not sure if it's tied to ethics though.

 

[permeakra]

There is a planetary decision to stop POP growth - not sure if it's tied to ethics though.

"Discourage Planetary Growth" costs pop upkeep and doesn't actually stop growth.
"Declare Population Controls" does stop growth, but annoys egalitarian faction and, well, it stops growth. Meaning that if I want to populate some new colonies quickly, I have to man to manually enable growth again - to much of micro and loss of influence.

I'm more interested in keeping overcrowding under contol thanks to decline/emigration of extra pops.

 

[stumason]

"Discourage Planetary Growth" costs pop upkeep and doesn't actually stop growth.
"Declare Population Controls" does stop growth, but annoys egalitarian faction and, well, it stops growth. Meaning that if I want to populate some new colonies quickly, I have to man to manually enable growth again - to much of micro and loss of influence.

I'm more interested in keeping overcrowding under contol thanks to decline/emigration of extra pops.

Those are your options. Although if you let world become too overcrowded, emigration will slow growth to a crawl.

Personally, the happiness hit to the faction isn't worth worrying about IMO, as long as they are happy on other things.

I don't see how 1 click is micro though - you click to stop growth, growth stops. Done. I don't understand the complaints about "micro" sometimes, it seems some just want the game to play itself!

You want growth, click it again or doesn't it have a time limit like the other decisions (like the encourage growth one)? Not used it myself, so don't know.

 

[permeakra]

I don't see how 1 click is micro though - you click to stop growth, growth stops. Done.

With ten old worlds and about ten more habitats? Nice try.

 

[stumason]

With ten old worlds and about ten more habitats? Nice try.

So, 10 clicks every 10 years or so (unless the decision doesn't time out)... Again, hardly back breaking (or finger breaking ) micro.

But as I also said, leaving the world to become overcrowded (or even better, have unemployed as well) will limit growth to the point of irrelevance or even decrease your population on the planet. No clicks required, just let the game do what it does.

 

[OrigamiPhoenix]

Increasing the immigration draw of destination worlds is the only way I know of. It helps to keep housing as close to available jobs as possible so an old world's free housing doesn't keep unemployed pops willing to stay.

 

[Gratak]

Higher living standard will mean that the unemployed pops are not useless. At utopian they are even really productive. Think that is currently the only way for egalitarians.

Emigration doesn't really work if you have a huge pull as you should have as a good egalitarian.

 

[permeakra]

But as I also said, leaving the world to become overcrowded (or even better, have unemployed as well) will limit growth to the point of irrelevance or even decrease your population on the planet. No clicks required, just let the game do what it does.

-9 housing, -20 unemployment (of 94) on my capital world.
No pops in decline, huge emigration, still have some growth.

 

[stumason]

-9 housing, -20 unemployment (of 94) on my capital world.
No pops in decline, huge emigration, still have some growth.

Do your pops have traits that boost growth, or are there any other modifiers? I would have thought with everyone unemployed and living on park benches, growth would be a crawl. I can virtually kill growth (down to below 1 ) with unemployed pops, especially with some newly settled colonies.

 

[permeakra]

Do your pops have traits that boost growth, or are there any other modifiers? I would have thought with everyone unemployed and living on park benches, growth would be a crawl. I can virtually kill growth (down to below 1 ) with unemployed pops, especially with some newly settled colonies.

Yes, they do, and I have running robot production there, so I kinda see where it is coming from. It's more about the point pops shall finally decline. And yes, growth is fairly minimal at this point with most of it swallowed by emigration, but it's still positive (around 0.2 and add 2.0 from robotists)

 

[Dalwin]

It seems like a fair trade off to me. Either you are strict in controlling your people, i.e. authoritarian etc., or you let them have their way. In the latter case you will pay the price in difficulties with overcrowding etc.

 

[Matoro_TBS]

Put them on social welfare and they wont be a problem. Give them luxury life standard and even the unemployed are useful.

 

[stumason]

Put them on social welfare and they wont be a problem. Give them luxury life standard and even the unemployed are useful.

Just make sure you have the consumer goods to cover it!

 

[Hyomoto]

I believe someone said that -50 housing is the hard cap on population but I don't know if that's true. Honestly if resettlement isn't an option, and you don't go the city world route, then I think you are going to be stuck managing overpopulation. There's a sort of odd mini-game at work here where the impetus is to have as many pops as possible, but eventually there is a sort of useful limit but the population doesn't stop growing, and so rushing that limit can also hasten overcrowding issues.

Honestly, while I think the mechanic could use a bit of work, ultimately it provides something that Stellaris never has: it's a problem that you can't just research a technology, set a government policy, or pick an edict to deal with. Ultimately your worlds will become overcrowded, and how you choose to deal with that inevitability is an interesting proposition. The issue is, like with many things in Stellaris, the issue really is pretty lenient. A half dozen unemployed pops is hardly world-shattering. I think less of an emphasis on constant populations and allow a more complex ebb and flow would help. It would be interesting to see certain bonuses actually affect growth negatively, such as high amenities. If you wanted to maximize growth, building poor, impoverished, and uneducated worlds would be in your interest.

 

[AmpsterMan]

So , let's say that I got an old fully populeted, developed world with organic population. It produces new pops, that causes amenity usage, overcrowding and unemployment. It does produce a good emigration push, letting me develop my colonies faster. Having 1 police building solves crime issue. But overcrowding means I have pops that don't do anything. And no, resettlement for various reasons is not an option.

Is there a stable level of overcrowding that stops producing pop growth on the planet, keeping emigration only? How much shall I waste on overcrowding? The matter does bug me, since I hit overcrowding on my several first colonies and I'm fairly certain that I'm going to hit it fast on all of my planets and my habitats as well before endgame crisis.

I looked into the defines document. If I understood it correctly, population stops growing at 1.5 times capacity. So a planet with 80 housing will have population still growing until it has a population of 120.

 

[Chieron]

I looked into the defines document. If I understood it correctly, population stops growing at 1.5 times capacity. So a planet with 80 housing will have population still growing until it has a population of 120.

Yes, that seems to be the case. Of course 40 unemployed would mean quite a bit of unhappiness.