Pop growth universal constant

[Tisifoni12]

Frustrated by population growth I've gone into the 'descriptor' file (?) and reduced the base pop growth rate from 3 to 2.

Started a few games to see how that goes and it seems to work 'better'; offers a different challenge.

Unfortunately each run so far has been limited as my species has been boxed in by others and has been limited to homeworld and two or three colonies.

 

[Dalwin]

I am not sure why you would want lower pop growth. If you want that, why not take the slow breeder trait and get some other perk for your trouble. Most seem to argue that the pace of the early game is too slow since progress is gated by population growth. I have tried some games where I maximize growth. I had one devouring swarm that got to +123% growth on the home world by year 5. It was year 110 before I had to stop giving everyone extra food.

As far as being boxed in, that comes down to settings and aggressive early play. Personally I don't like clustered starts so I don't use them.

 

[Von Thoma]

Seems you have done it only for your own pops ?
You need to do it for the whole galaxy ... don't forget to reduce the strength of the crisis also , as the galaxy will have a lot fewer production ...

POP GROWTH
... for me that is the biggest problem from the Stellaris Game , even now worse than before. As you now need houses, entertainment and jobs . POP growth as it is now is boring, because more pops didn't offer more variation of strategic play only senseless clicking AND MOST IMPORTANT , you don't care for them in any situation as it is mass ware !

Even at midgame you are limited to build only buildings with 10 jobs , as the next game design error is , that you could only build 16 buildings AND THAT doesn't even keep in account, how large the planet is ...

MORE isn't better, it only means MORE from the same ...
so the game really needs AN OPTION (all who don't agree COULD YOU READ and UNDERSTAND , what an OPTION mean ?),
when you start a game , it should be possible to chose ,
which modifier you want from PLUS 90% to MINUS 90% pop growth for your universe.

Also to make more strategic decisions possible and make it possible to build buildings with only 1 job , how many buildings are possible should depend on DISTRICT SIZE and not that strange 16 slots always !

I am using a mod which allows , I think 32 buildings and my own mod for minus 90% galaxy wide pop growth ... THE GAME HAS NOW A LOT MORE STRATEGIC decisions to offer, the original game is unplayable for me, special after mid game, when all planets are already full and the same ...


BUT YES AGREE, with that change , the game needs more DIFFERENT GAMEPLAY , like spies , ground exploration , ground battles ...
but even without them it is more fun, for strategic minded players !

When you are playing right , even after 100 years you could have a large home world ...
and I AM PLAYING WITH MINUS 100% GROWTH ...

Now all that technology and BUILDINGS for pop growth MAKES SENSE, never used it in normal games ...

And to enjoy the game and create different specializations for your planets you need for sure more than 16 buildings ...

I am using this two MODS ...

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1587178040

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1590464835

 

[Hyomoto]

I also LOVE to EMPHASIZE words without really ANY context as to WHY. But, I DON'T agree with your CONCLUSIONS because while I do THINK planet size should factor into buildings, it's fair TO SAY it benefits tiny worlds so it has it's own INTERESTING aspects... NEEDLESS ellipsis withstanding, I fully expect to see CHANGES and NEW SYSTEMS in the coming year to flesh out the patch, but the game is hardly UNPLAYABLE from a mechanical viewpoint and just SAYING it isn't doesn't CHANGE THAT.

I do think a pop growth slider is a good idea though.

 

[Tisifoni12]

I understood that by altering the pop growth rate in defines that I had altered the pop growth rates for all ?

AI controlled follow different rules.

I have tried slow breeder species (-10%), but wanted to experiment with slowing it down more than that; reducing the pop growth factor from 3 to 2 (a reduction of -33%).

 

[OnyxAbussos]

Point goes to Hyomoto.

 

[zukodark]

I'd probably quit if they reduced growth rate anymore, currently I don't really enjoy the pace of the game unless I explicitly use a growth-based build.

Could well add it as an option though, so I could put it higher alongside lower tech/tradition cost and earlier crises, which I already do, to get truly quick games.

 

[Astax]

Make universal base a slider in game setup.

 

[Tisifoni12]

I haven't tried a fractional setting, e.g. 2.25 or 2.5. If there were a slider it would I guess range between a setting of 2 and 3 (2, 2.5, 3).

I can't really tell if AI species are affected too, but so far AI empires are consistently stronger than mine. Whether that is about population growth or other factors I again cannot tell.

 

[the glory of plain]

growth should slow down and not just direct to migration when there are very few job and housing and no new district can be build
but that calculation will just needlessly more confusing

 

[Ariphaos]

Since it doesn't modify robot growth, it's better to change the numbers being built to.

One idea I've had is to change starts so that players begin with fairly developed, nearly overcrowded worlds (~60 pops or so), but the total amount needed for pop growth/assembly is 1,000 rather than 100. Killing a pop still only takes 100, though. Death can happen quickly. Every pop growth is thus rather precious, but you're encouraged to resettle pops.

 

[Blurb]

I haven't tried a fractional setting, e.g. 2.25 or 2.5. If there were a slider it would I guess range between a setting of 2 and 3 (2, 2.5, 3).

I can't really tell if AI species are affected too, but so far AI empires are consistently stronger than mine. Whether that is about population growth or other factors I again cannot tell.

That should be fairly easy to test:
1) Set the universal pop growth to 0, meaning it should be impossible to gain pops through natural growth.
2) Start a new game and note the number of pops that various empires have - use tagswitching to verify at year 2200
3) Verify that your own empire is correctly affected by the pop growth setting.
4) Fast-forward a decade or two, then check up on the same empires. If they have gained more than one pop (available via homeworld tileblocker), then something fishy is going on.

 

[Tisifoni12]

Started a new game and cycled through around five empires. All had a base growth rate of 2 and base pop of 24.

Then looked at a game in which I'd played though about 30 years. Base growth rate consistent and home world populations similar at around 30. However my neighbour empire had a fleet around four times mine (36 : 9). I had limited access to alloys and increased fleet capacity wasn't an option that came up on research.

AI empires do get advantages to balance their lack of intelligence.

 

[Ariphaos]

Started a new game and cycled through around five empires. All had a base growth rate of 2 and base pop of 24.

Then looked at a game in which I'd played though about 30 years. Base growth rate consistent and home world populations similar at around 30. However my neighbour empire had a fleet around four times mine (36 : 9). I had limited access to alloys and increased fleet capacity wasn't an option that came up on research.

AI empires do get advantages to balance their lack of intelligence.

That's thought to be a bug. They get a crash boost to their energy credits, which they spend on alloys, which they use to buy ships, then they get the crash boost again, repeat.

 

[Blurb]

AI empires do get advantages to balance their lack of intelligence.

More news at 11.

 

[Tisifoni12]

News at 11 !

Game forced to undergo an 'integrity check', one file updated, pop growth re-set to 3 . . .

 

[Von Thoma]

That POP handling in STELLARIS is broken and was and still is a repetitive micromanagement hell ...
with pop growth reduction you could only SLOW it down, but not make it more meaningful after some time ...

Played a game with my MINUS 90% mod and of course still insane pop growth possible :-(

So pop growth should be handled different ,
but it is out of reach of any mod or a single value change, too much to change and you would have to do it with every patch.
Only PARADOX could make it better or more meaningful, my change is only a fast fix since the first Stellaris version,
which still works and very sad, that Paradox has not already changed the whole system.

So in my opinion the pop system should be changed to:

1.) POPs should be a valuable and desired part of the game, if not the most important !
Now it is still a boring mass ware

2.) You should have the tools/buildings to fight against pop growth and not to improve it

3.) All pop growth buildings should improve longevity and productivity of your pops and not growth rate. More healthy and longer life should be the key and not more poor masses.
A successful civic should be one, which has FEW and productive pops , who cares for the environment and not how it is now in this game and in reality ...
...
SO YES in my opinion the whole pop system in Stellaris is broken and dumbed down to stupidity and sorry to say a change of one value couldn't change that and it is out of anyones reach to do it ...
it is only to make the first 100 years a more strategic approach to the game, after you have once again too many pops !
and last too many pops should ruin your planets environment even the whole galaxy ...


CIV VI has seen ONCE AGAIN that problem, and will bring back environment problems with too many pops in the new DLC,
I really hope Stellaris will do the same in the future !

 

[Kakotheres]

So in my opinion the pop system should be changed to:

1.) POPs should be a valuable and desired part of the game, if not the most important !
Now it is still a boring mass ware

Pops are currently the most valuable part of the game. The only way in which you could argue that they aren't is Admin Cap keeping costs semi-proportional to the number of pops you are supporting, but there's pretty clear resource gains to be made via gaining pops. Even 'Tall' empires, like MegaCorps or your typical Inward Perfection run are dependent heavily on high pop density, because they work by stacking bonuses on your pops.

2.) You should have the tools/buildings to fight against pop growth and not to improve it

There's a Decision on each planet to stop pop growth if you want it. In addition to that, there's the Strict Rationing Policy and the 'Slow Breeders' trait. There are strong options to reduce your growth rate.

3.) All pop growth buildings should improve longevity and productivity of your pops and not growth rate. More healthy and longer life should be the key and not more poor masses.
A successful civic should be one, which has FEW and productive pops , who cares for the environment and not how it is now in this game and in reality ...

An increase in average pop longevity is represented by Pop Growth specifically because individual pops don't decay except under very specific circumstances. If you think of Pops as 'working age population' is becomes clear that the increased longevity will result in a larger work force i.e. Pop Growth. Pop support is modeled by their political power and consumer goods consumption, pretty clearly separate to their growth rate or longevity.

This is good! If you want to model an Empire with strong pop support, a small population and an environmental bent, you can do that through Empire traits, which is how that system is supposed to work (in this case I would argue: Slow Breeders, Shared Burdens and Environmentalist. EDIT: There's also a 'Conservationist' trait).

SO YES in my opinion the whole pop system in Stellaris is broken and dumbed down to stupidity and sorry to say a change of one value couldn't change that and it is out of anyones reach to do it ...
it is only to make the first 100 years a more strategic approach to the game, after you have once again too many pops !
and last too many pops should ruin your planets environment even the whole galaxy ...


CIV VI has seen ONCE AGAIN that problem, and will bring back environment problems with too many pops in the new DLC,
I really hope Stellaris will do the same in the future !

All of your proposed solutions are either already represented in game or wouldn't change the decisions you would have to make, just have less of them.

It could be argued that this makes every decision more impactful and thus the game more strategic... and I'd tend to agree that we should be making less decisions in game atm. I think a large chunk of the dissatisfaction from the new system is decision fatigue, not an objection to the systems in place per se. However, drastically reducing Pop Growth is going to increase the amount of downtime and burst decisions you have to make in game, something the game was explicitly trying to move away from as... well, it's super boring to have to wait between clicking a bunch.

In fairness your post has inspired me to make the smallest Pop Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism empire I can.

 

[EvilTom]

Surely to make it a bit more interesting... to build a colony ship should cost 1 pop (or 2 if have the traditions, but at your choice). If not reducing it by a pop, surely the population growth on that planet should be halted for the growth period of one pop.

At the moment it's just too easy to colonies a planet and functionally increase your population (and growth) for the price of the colony ship, the influence and the administrative burden.

This would also mean destroying and protecting a colony ship is more important, depending on your goals. Also leads the way for population transports and migratory fleets!

 

[evilcat]

My main issues:

• Each colony choose breading champion for next pop.
  
• If you do not control population of xenos they will just dominate your empire.
  
• 1 pop breads as fast as 80 pops
  
• no matter crime, housing, job crisispops will bread full of hopes.

Pops breading too fast is not really a problem.
Late game if stack several bonuses for growth may need to just chain buildings since growth is then quite fast.