Should peace bring a baby boom?

[TrotBot]

Just looking at how intensely the people who would rather not be at war all game fall behind the war mongers in pop growth, it makes me wonder if there should be some mechanic which rewards peace time with a pop growth bonus. maybe it even grows more the longer you're at peace?

 

[Ezumiyr]

If we're going to have this kind of accuracy when it comes to demographics, it shouldn't just be baby booms.
It could also be argued that in societies where the military only covers a small fraction of the population, there's no baby boom, especially when there's also no real war economy.
That's why imo it doesn't make sense for Stellaris to have baby rooms: soldiers don't actually come back from war, our pops don't actually need to sacrifice anything in supporting the war effort. Most of the time, they just get more or less happy.

Additionally, I don't think peace needs this kind of passive, boring reward. By staying at peace, you're already not spending the ressources for war (like alloys to build more ships or energy to maintain those fleets).

 

[TrotBot]

If we're going to have this kind of accuracy when it comes to demographics, it shouldn't just be baby booms.
It could also be argued that in societies where the military only covers a small fraction of the population, there's no baby boom, especially when there's also no real war economy.
That's why imo it doesn't make sense for Stellaris to have baby rooms: soldiers don't actually come back from war, our pops don't actually need to sacrifice anything in supporting the war effort. Most of the time, they just get more or less happy.

Additionally, I don't think peace needs this kind of passive, boring reward. By staying at peace, you're already not spending the ressources for war (like alloys to build more ships or energy to maintain those fleets).

i don't think it needs to be hyper accurate. but it is true that a society that is constantly at war normally has depressed birthrates in comparison to peace and good times. i'm just trying to think of a way to make not annexing a viable tactic, without the absolute requirement for massive habitat spam that is currently attached to it. peaceful societies are nerfed hard by the pop growth changes.

 

[GOLANX]

I don't know If they should get a bonus but the Human cost of warfare should be felt by your population and that currently isn't a thing. You don't even need soldiers to engage in war effectively, technology gives enough fleet capacity to fight AIs, elsewhere there are anchorages that do the job soldiers do but better and without costing a pop. Having the military consuming pops isn't a popular idea, but I think should be a key part of the system.

 

[3ishop]

Other than the criseses most of my pops would only know there's a war on via news. They generally aren't fearing for their lives or that of their families. So I don't see them being relieved that there's peace with a race they haven't met before. If anything I can see being at peace cause them issues with the lack of expansion and the spending of all these resources on a military that's doing nothing.

 

[klopkr]

If pops died during wars in your fleets and on planets I think it would even it out better. BUt the problem is that pops are very inelastic and it hurts in a atomic way.

If pops were instead more of a number with similar pops grouped together then I would suggest losing a percentage of those pops to represent war devastation reducing jobs with prosperity doing the opposite.

I believe Vicky 2 will side step this problem this way.

The problem here isn't an RP thing it's a fundamental mechanic of the way pops are implemented in game.

 

[Vernichtere]

Well, the war in Stellaris will be very professionalized. The space ships do not need many crew members and land battles are not particularly long-lasting either.

Accordingly, the population will only be confronted indirectly with the consequences of the war.

 

[HFY]

i don't think it needs to be hyper accurate. but it is true that a society that is constantly at war normally has depressed birthrates in comparison to peace and good times. i'm just trying to think of a way to make not annexing a viable tactic, without the absolute requirement for massive habitat spam that is currently attached to it. peaceful societies are nerfed hard by the pop growth changes.

More refugees (e.g. from invasions, not just conquest), and refugees preferentially target empires which have been at peace for a long time.

 

[TrotBot]

More refugees (e.g. from invasions, not just conquest), and refugees preferentially target empires which have been at peace for a long time.

that's a very interesting idea

 

[GOLANX]

More refugees (e.g. from invasions, not just conquest), and refugees preferentially target empires which have been at peace for a long time.

Refugees are a bit of an anti-snowballing mechanic and I very much support it, but it doesn't help the empires on the receiving end many of whom are Pacifist due to their poor Diplomacy (defensive pacts can dissuade combative neighbors from invading). I fully support expanding the Refugee mechanic but I'd still like to see a cost in pops for warfare

Well, the war in Stellaris will be very professionalized. The space ships do not need many crew members and land battles are not particularly long-lasting either.

Accordingly, the population will only be confronted indirectly with the consequences of the war.

Not necessarily we have training buildings that give 1 level of experience to your warships/armies. I would argue that in the absence of such buildings your military isn't very professional.

The US military currently employs approximately 1% of the US population, during WW2 that was 9% Germany at the same time employed 31% of its population in its military and it was very professional. The fact that in stellaris 0% of your pops can serve in the military and you can be a hyper aggressive Fanatic Purifier is a problem.

Imo I'd remove base naval capacity all together and have capitals give soldier jobs, techs will increase soldier naval capacity output. Soldier would also allow a certain # of anchorages to be built as soldiers would be required to man them. Based on the amount of Fleet capacity you used soldier species would see reduced pop growth, crew quarters remove ships from this status (sailors make babies while on shore leave)

 

[Vernichtere]

Refugees are a bit of an anti-snowballing mechanic and I very much support it, but it doesn't help the empires on the receiving end many of whom are Pacifist due to their poor Diplomacy (defensive pacts can dissuade combative neighbors from invading). I fully support expanding the Refugee mechanic but I'd still like to see a cost in pops for warfare


Not necessarily we have training buildings that give 1 level of experience to your warships/armies. I would argue that in the absence of such buildings your military isn't very professional.

The US military currently employs approximately 1% of the US population, during WW2 that was 9% Germany at the same time employed 31% of its population in its military and it was very professional. The fact that in stellaris 0% of your pops can serve in the military and you can be a hyper aggressive Fanatic Purifier is a problem.

Imo I'd remove base naval capacity all together and have capitals give soldier jobs, techs will increase soldier naval capacity output. Soldier would also allow a certain # of anchorages to be built as soldiers would be required to man them. Based on the amount of Fleet capacity you used soldier species would see reduced pop growth, crew quarters remove ships from this status (sailors make babies while on shore leave)

It's relative. We're talking about a population of a few billion. But the fleet doesn't need that many crew members. It is already clear that there are many more people working in the relevant industry. But I mean in the end that the matter does not need mass armies, which are associated with high losses at the front. The wars in Stellaris are mostly decided in space. The storm of the planets is rather short and violent.

 

[GOLANX]

It's relative. We're talking about a population of a few billion. But the fleet doesn't need that many crew members. It is already clear that there are many more people working in the relevant industry. But I mean in the end that the matter does not need mass armies, which are associated with high losses at the front. The wars in Stellaris are mostly decided in space. The storm of the planets is rather short and violent.

Who is to say how many crew members a ship needs? You think an empire of 7 billion is going to have a navy the same size and scale of one with 330million? For all we know a basic corvette requires the same crew compliment as a modern day Nimitz class Carrier. If you combined the world's resources together I have no doubt we could build and maintain 20 of them like what you get with base naval capacity.

 

[Vernichtere]

Who is to say how many crew members a ship needs? You think an empire of 7 billion is going to have a navy the same size and scale of one with 330million? For all we know a basic corvette requires the same crew compliment as a modern day Nimitz class Carrier. If you combined the world's resources together I have no doubt we could build and maintain 20 of them like what you get with base naval capacity.

I mean actually the losses that are supposed to affect population growth. You have work in industry even in peacetime. Not that many people die in space battles. It only gets interesting when battles on the ground break out. But they don't take that long.

 

[HFY]

Refugees are a bit of an anti-snowballing mechanic and I very much support it, but it doesn't help the empires on the receiving end many of whom are Pacifist due to their poor Diplomacy (defensive pacts can dissuade combative neighbors from invading). I fully support expanding the Refugee mechanic but I'd still like to see a cost in pops for warfare

Sure, and why not both?

Let devastation remove pops, and sometimes also create refugees. If no refugee, the pop must've been killed.

Pacifist pops might leave your empire if you're at war ("Conscientious Objectors" or something), and they'd become refugees targeting a Pacifist empire, or at least an empire which has been at peace for a long time.

 

[GOLANX]

Sure, and why not both?

Let devastation remove pops, and sometimes also create refugees. If no refugee, the pop must've been killed.

Pacifist pops might leave your empire if you're at war ("Conscientious Objectors" or something), and they'd become refugees targeting a Pacifist empire, or at least an empire which has been at peace for a long time.

I mean 100% of a militarist empires pops can be Conscientious Objectors because they don't have to fill military roles for your empire to be able to fight. That is why I suggested soldier jobs would have to be filled to get naval capacity and those jobs reduce planetary growth when you have a large Navy it should be relatively simple to add as its mostly just # and math changes.

BTW I am fully on board with the refugee mechanic it is an excellent anti-snowballing suggestion. I just don't think it goes far enough on its own.
I would even go so far as to move free haven civic to Pacifist (cannot be xenophobe) and give it a bonus to receiving refugees.

 

[VintageDot]

Honestly it's a cool idea. I always talk about the post war blues with my friends where your economy takes a hit due to acquiring poorly optimized territory. A baby boom or something would help with that while not being a major change.

 

[Lazy Name]

I would even go so far as to move free haven civic to Pacifist (cannot be xenophobe) and give it a bonus to receiving refugees.

I can see your point in terms of game balance, but I can't help but like the idea of Militarist Free Haven empires.

"The tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free - all are welcome to join us in bombarding their former oppressors to oblivion."

 

[TrotBot]

I can see your point in terms of game balance, but I can't help but like the idea of Militarist Free Haven empires.

"The tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free - all are welcome to join us in bombarding their former oppressors to oblivion."

yeah i wouldn't want the peace mechanic to be a nerf to liberation wars either

 

[TrotBot]

To balance this and not make it a reward for "sitting back and doing nothing", maybe it should require some crazy percentage of happiness, amenities, and stability on the planet for the growth bonus to apply. So that way you have warmongers frantically building ships and warring, and the rest of us frantically building holo theatres and resort worlds.