[Thought] Terrain preference should restrict # of pops, not happiness.

[terrycloth]

Ehh, I'm not sure most people are calling those "technology."
But if you want to say so, then sure, humans, when stark-naked, are best adapted for subtropical and tropical climes. So maaaaybe parts of the Mediterranean, Africa, some tropical islands and such.

But then, I would say that our intelligence is the adaptation by which we left those climates.



Sure, and I agree. That's one of the reasons I made my Expanded Habitability mod. I'm not 100% happy with it, but far more happy with it than the default, which says that people on a planet they're unsuited to become murderously, rebelliously angry and unproductive; yet are perfectly capable of eventually growing and occupying every single inhabitable niche of that planet?

Clearly technology has an answer for all the habitability problems, but the solutions are really, really annoying.

 

[Gorton]

Technology is indeed the solution, and this should be reflected by an increased cost in doing it, not an impossibility or other random restriction that makes no sense.

 

[Brucesim2003]

The simple way to do it? Cap the maximum number of pops on a planet by terrain preference.
Consider an ocean-dwelling species. They can occupy most or all of the tiles on an ocean planet. Let's say they can occupy 100% of their homeworld, and 80% of another ocean world. Now, they move onto an ocean world of 18 tiles. Their population cap on that world is (18 * .8 = 14.4 rounded) 14. Ocean-Preference species can occupy 14 squares on that planet. Now say you import a Desert-preference species. They have abysmal ability to colonize an ocean world, only able to occupy 10% of its land. (18 * .1 = 1.8) 2. So your ocean-dwellers and desert-dwellers combined can occupy 16 out of those 18 tiles. You can just throw a robot pop onto the last two, and Bob's your uncle.

So if you have three different ocean-dwelling species, they'll still only be able to occupy 14 squares on that 18-square ocean planet. But if you import a Tropical-dwelling species (Compatibility with Ocean = 60%) and an Arctic-dwelling species (Compatibility with Ocean = 50%) you'll quickly fill that planet, since you'll have three different ocean-dwelling species filling as many as 14 of those squares, a Tropical species filling up to 11 of those squares, and an Arctic-dwelling species filling as many as 9 of those squares. Since that's way more than 18 potential maximum, you'll fill the planet.

I don't mean to be rude, but that makes no sense at all. What you are effectively doing is making it so an ocean native species on an ocean planet can populate less of that planet than they could if they mixed in some arctic dwellers. Surely biome natives would be able to utilise a planet better than a mix of non-natives and natives could?

As an example (and apologies in advance if you have not played Kotor II), you have the Selkath from Manaan (a full on ocean world from what we see in the game) move to Kamino (another full ocean world). According to your Idea, they would need some wampa (uplifted by the rebel alliance to be used as empire bashers ) to utilise more of the planet. I can't see that working.

 

[ShadowDragon868]

I don't mean to be rude, but that makes no sense at all. What you are effectively doing is making it so an ocean native species on an ocean planet can populate less of that planet than they could if they mixed in some arctic dwellers. Surely biome natives would be able to utilise a planet better than a mix of non-natives and natives could?

The ocean-dwellers can't effectively populate the polar ice caps. The arctic dwellers can. By mixing the two, maximum utilization can take place.

It makes perfect sense, really. If you bring a load of only Kenyans to a new planet, they're going to have a great time in the parts of that new planet which are relatively like Kenya in environment; far to the north and south where it's cold and snowy, though, and they won't be so happy to live there. Buy you bring a boatload of Norwegians, Icelanders and Russians, and they'll have no problem colonizing that part of the world.

As an example (and apologies in advance if you have not played Kotor II), you have the Selkath from Manaan (a full on ocean world from what we see in the game) move to Kamino (another full ocean world). According to your Idea, they would need some wampa (uplifted by the rebel alliance to be used as empire bashers ) to utilise more of the planet. I can't see that working.

I am well acquainted with Selkath and Kamino. And frankly, Selkath would hate living in the polar regions of Kamino. So would Mon Calamari. Native ice-dwellers, like Talz, would be far better equipped to do so. Thus, if you want to colonize Kamino, and you want to do it fast, you bring one pop of Talz, one pop of Selkath, and one pop of Mon Calamari. The Selkath and the Mon Cal populate the oceans, and the Talz populate the ice caps. Bring some hyuuumans and maybe Twi'lek to boot, and you'll have the place at pop-cap in no time.

 

[Crissa]

I'd loe the idea of tiles that you need to upgrade to turn more habitable. Toxic places could be lived in by toxic species; cold places by cold... And to expand, they'd need 'appropriate infrastructure'.

And cities! As your technology improves, the value of a 'pop' in a city should increase, because there's a city there and it can hold more pops even if they're kinda invisible.

Upgradable squares, perhaps? Or upgraded buildings count as additional infrastructure/habitability?

 

[KonradKurze202]

One way to handle this that I personally think would be amazing is to have each tile represent a specific biome. So Earth might have 8 Continental Tiles, 4 Ocean Tiles, 2 Desert Tiles, 2 Arctic Tiles. This not only better represents the fact that a 'Desert World' isn't Tatooine, it's a real world that just happens to have a lot of desert due to its proximity to it's sun & orbit, but it also encourages multiple species to inhabit the same planet. Those Desert lizards would move to the desert tiles, Fluffy Penguins go to the Arctic tiles, Cat people go to Continental tiles, etc.

It was one of the things I was disappointed to hear the Devs actually thought about, but took it out.

 

[Sibericus]

Here's an alternative, with the upcoming consumer goods system, pops in less habitable systems could cost more resources due to needing more equipment and resources to sustain the same standard of living.

 

[Seomis]

I mean, you take a race which evolved on a hot water world and move them to Earth. Sure, they're gonna be unhappy (or rather, they'll be DEAD,) if you put them in the middle of the Gobi desert or the Siberian Tundra, but they'd flourish in the Caribbean and South China seas. They wouldn't be miserable and unproductive and murderously ready to revolt at the slightest additional provocation, they'd just not be able to expand into many of Earth's environments.

If an Earth aquatic fish quickly dies in the Earth's oceans, I don't think you can say much about whether some ocean-planet species we have no details on (beyond them being "strong" and "thrifty") has anywhere it can comfortably live on Earth. But extrapolating much from the Stellaris planet classes will always lead to absurdities. They're very simplified for the purpose of the game, mostly follow the Star-Wars-esque "single-biome planets" trope, and are otherwise intentionally vague on details.

 

[mighij]

One way to handle this that I personally think would be amazing is to have each tile represent a specific biome. So Earth might have 8 Continental Tiles, 4 Ocean Tiles, 2 Desert Tiles, 2 Arctic Tiles.

I would love this. More diversity in planets but more importantly it would make migration treaty work a lot better then they do now.

 

[KonradKurze202]

Here's an alternative, with the upcoming consumer goods system, pops in less habitable systems could cost more resources due to needing more equipment and resources to sustain the same standard of living.

That actually sounds great. It's not only easy technically it is a soft limit, rather than a hard limit. You could theoretically put some pops on a world they hate and their consumer goods might cost 20 minerals per month while they only give you 16 minerals as output. So while you could settle every possible world it would be horribly inefficient.

 

[Person012345]

Disagree. If they can survive there (because of technology) then the carrying capacity is limited by the planet's ability to provide space and food. I think it's fine to represent it the way it is, because just because they can live there doesn't mean they like the climate.

Here's an alternative, with the upcoming consumer goods system, pops in less habitable systems could cost more resources due to needing more equipment and resources to sustain the same standard of living.

This is a decent idea.

 

[Strager]

Tiles should be given terrain types to handle this.