Well, if that's the case then they really need to either substantially increase army manteinance (so keeping the peace with troops become an expensive affair), or give another extra huge buffs to spiritualists and autoritarians, which seems to rely on unrest supression for their advantages.
What we know about unrest and standard of living
- Thread starter GC13
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Well, if that's the case then they really need to either substantially increase army manteinance (so keeping the peace with troops become an expensive affair), or give another extra huge buffs to spiritualists and autoritarians, which seems to rely on unrest supression for their advantages.
At three armies per Pop at zero happiness, I'm not sure it's as simple as just building more armies to deal with Unrest. I do think that Authoritarian and Spiritualist could do with being stronger (at least 15/30, if not 20/40), but they do give you more room to maneuver as is.
If this is the update with global food (I don't remember if it is or not), maybe they're balancing armies to also consume Food, in which case just spamming armies wouldn't be the efficient.
Galactic food is in the update, but there's been no indication that armies will consume food. The tooltip only mentions Pops, and even though you start with a defense army on your homeworld Wiz's eight Pops were still consuming exactly 8.0 food.
It wouldn't make sense for them to add it anyway, since a Pop is far, far larger than an army. Sure, the army logically consumes food, but for it to consume enough food to be worthy of balance consideration is a bit beyond belief.
The maximum number of armies is going to be equal to the maximum number of tiles, and there's an old rule of thumb that you can draft 10% of the population as effective soldiers. So maybe 0.1 food per army?
It still seems to be way too much food for an army. That's just how many armies you can station on a planet: you could happily fill your empire with armies from a single Pop if you wanted.
Anyway, I do wonder about what effect the military service option will have. One idea I had: not allowing aliens to serve in the army can reduce the Unrest they can generate when unhappy by a percentage, since they'll be less effective since they won't have members among them that are trained in how to fight.
Anyway, I do wonder about what effect the military service option will have. One idea I had: not allowing aliens to serve in the army can reduce the Unrest they can generate when unhappy by a percentage, since they'll be less effective since they won't have members among them that are trained in how to fight.
Conversely couldn't barring pops from service based solely on species also work to increase unrest? I mean barring people from government jobs hasn't typically made peopl happy in the past.
Cows, pigs and chickens are sentient species, they are not that upset usually...
Sapient species however...
Three armies per pop at 0 happiness? Sounds WAD to me. That means there literally isn't enough room on the planet to police every rebellious pop with armies for a standard empire. They'll have to take proactive steps to quell unrest and simply use armies as a delaying tactic to reduce unrest. Authoritarian empires could potentially contain rebellions entirely passively with just armies.
which is why I brought up the livestock problem. Let's say you take a full planet from a species and you set that species to livestock. Now you have a planet full of pops with 0 happiness, and the only way to prevent a revolt is to have 3 armies per pop, which is impossible because you can only have one army per pop. Without the ability to set the category of specific pops how does one overcome this problem?
Why is being used as livestock 0 happiness anyway? Farms are much more productive when they keep their livestock happy.
...A lot of stuff in the game doesn't make sense, the scales generally aren't supposed to be taken literally.
Food for armies, if I were the developers, would probably work by having each Pop create a certain amount of Manpower that is adjusted by the amount of surplus Food (probably quadrupling your Manpower supply if you have double the Food you "need").
Well what benefit would you get from barring the Pops from military service if it made them angrier? Reducing a percentage of their Unrest makes perfect sense and would be a useful bonus, so it's what I assume that Paradox went with.
"Social welfare=Impoverished conditions"? What? Ever heard of Europe? #Triggered
Edit to make the post less off topic:
Consumer goods are supposed to represent how much the goverment(you) have to pay for each pop right? The goverment paying more for each pop sounds alot like social welfare to me.
Till now happiness has just been a boost to production, and consumer goods is a mineral maintenance cost on your pops as I understand it. So it's all going to come down to whether you want to pay minerals to get more of the other things, and whether it's even worth it. I see this as a way to have really efficient science more so than anything else. Science efficiency is all about average science per pop, and you can't actually go zero minerals with this strategy because you need to expand. So after you have a good stockpile and all the planets you can get, turn on utopia for a while and break the tech tree.
It functions more like taxes on the pops though. Utopian living standards could mean that the you are letting the pops keep more of the resources they earn for doing work. Subsistence living means your taxing the shit out if them, leaving with barely anything.
I think some people may be missing the reasoning behind why population control is being made more unwieldy.
Currently Stellaris has a lot of mechanics... that players never have to deal with because they can reliably turn them into non-issues and forget those aspects of the game exist. Suppressing factions for example, selectively purging faction/ethically divergent pops, selectively enslaving faction/unhappy pops, tossing all unhappy planet-factions into one sector to reduce the number of factions to suppress.
That's too simple, too abusable.
So to address that, factions are being changed so that you HAVE to interact with them and then deal with the consequences of your interactions, no more one-click problem solvers.
Species-wide slavery and purging is designed so that you can't just cherry-pick dissidents, but actually have to either pacify everyone or fight ethics divergence the old fashioned way. Unrest on planets is being introduced so that revolts WILL (like they logically should) happen under oppressive regimes and the oppressed, impoverished, unhappy pops WILL be less efficient.
If you don't want planets to be unproductive messes constantly on the verge of revolt, don't fill them to the brim with billions of people who despise you. Resettlement will probably be the best way to counteract unrest buildup, but in the end, if you are playing a warmongering empire of slavers and sapient cuisine connoisseurs... you kinda have to live with the consequences of it ^^ Just like all-welcoming egalitarian xenophiles will have to deal with factions, divergence, limited expansion avenues and the sheer expenses of trying to keep everyone happy.
Strategy games are at their most boring when they start to play themselves. Perfectly functioning empires, lack of internal and external threats, complete domination over everything in the galaxy are all lovely power fantasies, but... if it's as effortless as it's now, then the entire charm of the fantasy evaporates.
Currently Stellaris has a lot of mechanics... that players never have to deal with because they can reliably turn them into non-issues and forget those aspects of the game exist. Suppressing factions for example, selectively purging faction/ethically divergent pops, selectively enslaving faction/unhappy pops, tossing all unhappy planet-factions into one sector to reduce the number of factions to suppress.
That's too simple, too abusable.
So to address that, factions are being changed so that you HAVE to interact with them and then deal with the consequences of your interactions, no more one-click problem solvers.
Species-wide slavery and purging is designed so that you can't just cherry-pick dissidents, but actually have to either pacify everyone or fight ethics divergence the old fashioned way. Unrest on planets is being introduced so that revolts WILL (like they logically should) happen under oppressive regimes and the oppressed, impoverished, unhappy pops WILL be less efficient.
If you don't want planets to be unproductive messes constantly on the verge of revolt, don't fill them to the brim with billions of people who despise you. Resettlement will probably be the best way to counteract unrest buildup, but in the end, if you are playing a warmongering empire of slavers and sapient cuisine connoisseurs... you kinda have to live with the consequences of it ^^ Just like all-welcoming egalitarian xenophiles will have to deal with factions, divergence, limited expansion avenues and the sheer expenses of trying to keep everyone happy.
Strategy games are at their most boring when they start to play themselves. Perfectly functioning empires, lack of internal and external threats, complete domination over everything in the galaxy are all lovely power fantasies, but... if it's as effortless as it's now, then the entire charm of the fantasy evaporates.
Last edited:
I could have agree with you, but there is one major counter-argument - Resettling a lot of POPs is quite a micro-intensive process and PDX is obsessed with reducing micro. And if they give such an ability to Sectors AI, that's would be a disaster.
Not really, considering that achieving the same effect is currently being done by enslaving/purging individual pops. If anything, that would replace one kind of micro with another, resulting in zero-sum.
Thats the beauty of it, Its up to interpretation wich is why I guess that Social welfare kind of forces a certain kind of interpretation leaving less room for story telling. So I guess it shouldnt be called that either way.