I do think the idea to lower pop count to increase performance is a step in the right direction - the exact ways the devs implemented have been seen as controversial to say the least, but I won't delve into that this much.
Conquest and Pop Acquisition is now more powerful than ever
Conquering was always a more efficient way to grow than investing in your exisiting realm - which is unfortunate. But with the limitation to pop growth you now gain pops at a much lower rate compared to the amount you get per year if you do regular conquest. And the whole economy of Stellaris builds on pops. More pops is pretty much always better.
Conquerers get more pops faster -> Conquerers get more powerful faster -> Conquerers get conquering faster -> the cycle continues.
Peaceful growth is severely weakened and that is sad, because to me Stellaris is more than a map painter.
To alleviate this imbalance my suggestion is to:
Increase Pop Growth for x% per year not at war
This way peaceful growth has a chance again. And it also makes sense, war strains your resources - there are probably way less babies born if a major fraction of your populace is participating at the front lines and the logistics at war. (I am aware it is not a perfect explaination)
Alternatively (or additionally), the pop growth/assembly cost modifier through pop count could be reduced the longer you are at peace. (this way peaceful machine empires would also be affected)
Decrease Pop Growth for x% per year at war
Continous war should be a drain on your pop growth. Families do not have the chance to settle. Your battle thralls are constantly rallied and at the front lines.
Combining the two into one value: Prosperity
Potentially, these two concepts do not need to be two seperate modifiers replacing one another and gaining impact over time, but both effect the same modifier.
Prosperity would be the a modifier that shows how much time your civilisation has to grow itself. If you were at peace for 30 years, but 1 year ago a war started, you don't immediately lose all your prosperity, but it slowly decays. In the same way, even a militarist empire would gain prosperity in the times between wars, when the population can regain their breath and thrive through the spoils of war.
Potential tie-ins with other systems
Pacifists could have an increased prosperity gain per year if at peace, while Militarists have a lesser prosperity loss per year at war.
Ethics and civics could also increase the caps on these effects. (i.e. lower max prosperity loss as militarists, Citizen Service could reduce the max prosperity loss per year, etc.)
Espionage could be used to increase an empires prosperity loss if they are at war. (subversive propaganda)
Possible additional mechanics
The higher the percentage of recently conquered worlds is in your empire, the higher your prosperity loss per yeat at war. This would result in excessive conquest (and thus excessive pop gain) bringing you vastly reduced growth rate.
Problems with the suggestion
Feedback and additions would be appreciated
Conquest and Pop Acquisition is now more powerful than ever
Conquering was always a more efficient way to grow than investing in your exisiting realm - which is unfortunate. But with the limitation to pop growth you now gain pops at a much lower rate compared to the amount you get per year if you do regular conquest. And the whole economy of Stellaris builds on pops. More pops is pretty much always better.
Conquerers get more pops faster -> Conquerers get more powerful faster -> Conquerers get conquering faster -> the cycle continues.
Peaceful growth is severely weakened and that is sad, because to me Stellaris is more than a map painter.
To alleviate this imbalance my suggestion is to:
Increase Pop Growth for x% per year not at war
This way peaceful growth has a chance again. And it also makes sense, war strains your resources - there are probably way less babies born if a major fraction of your populace is participating at the front lines and the logistics at war. (I am aware it is not a perfect explaination)
Alternatively (or additionally), the pop growth/assembly cost modifier through pop count could be reduced the longer you are at peace. (this way peaceful machine empires would also be affected)
Decrease Pop Growth for x% per year at war
Continous war should be a drain on your pop growth. Families do not have the chance to settle. Your battle thralls are constantly rallied and at the front lines.
Combining the two into one value: Prosperity
Potentially, these two concepts do not need to be two seperate modifiers replacing one another and gaining impact over time, but both effect the same modifier.
Prosperity would be the a modifier that shows how much time your civilisation has to grow itself. If you were at peace for 30 years, but 1 year ago a war started, you don't immediately lose all your prosperity, but it slowly decays. In the same way, even a militarist empire would gain prosperity in the times between wars, when the population can regain their breath and thrive through the spoils of war.
Potential tie-ins with other systems
Pacifists could have an increased prosperity gain per year if at peace, while Militarists have a lesser prosperity loss per year at war.
Ethics and civics could also increase the caps on these effects. (i.e. lower max prosperity loss as militarists, Citizen Service could reduce the max prosperity loss per year, etc.)
Espionage could be used to increase an empires prosperity loss if they are at war. (subversive propaganda)
Possible additional mechanics
The higher the percentage of recently conquered worlds is in your empire, the higher your prosperity loss per yeat at war. This would result in excessive conquest (and thus excessive pop gain) bringing you vastly reduced growth rate.
Problems with the suggestion
- It wouldn't be a solution to everything - obviously. Pacifists can still be forced into wars frequently and end up with negative prosperity. But RP-wise it makes sense that this would severely harm pacifists.
- Balancing this would be difficult.
- How much does prosperity affect growth?
- What are the capped effects of this?
- Should it move asymptotically towards a cap rather than linearly? (i.e.: having prosperity gain increased the lower prosperity is)
- Does it actually equalise the playing field or are militarists permanently stagnant now?
- It doesn't solve the other major pop issue of mid- to late game ratios of available jobs vs existing pops. (Planet/district sizes need to be reworked and job counts revised. Potentially increasing job efficiency instead of giving more jobs through building upgrades)
Feedback and additions would be appreciated
Last edited:
- 12
- 3
- 1