Why is the homeworld so empty at game start?

[Shadowstrike]

I was thinking about how at the beginning of the game, your homeworld has 25 pops, but the ability to hold at least 3x as many. That's profoundly weird, if you think about it: we're already talking about our planet being overpopulated right now, much less 200 years into the future (and I assume other FTL capable aliens would have the same issue). The game doesn't suggest any reason why this might be the case: it's not like we've created merpeople to fill the oceans, or somehow developed incredibly efficient farming/mining/energy gathering tech to suddenly allow much more resource production in the years right before the game starts.

Obviously, this is a gameplay convention to start with as little as possible, but I'm wondering if the game would play better if at the beginning, the homeworld is actually fully developed (district-wise at least, but you could argue it should come with a basic set of buildings available from game start). Obviously, you'd have more resources right from the get-go, and the growth of new colonies could be jump-started by resettling a lot of your homeworld population - though that might mess with your industrial base, making this a more strategic decision. It would limit the possibility of aliens displacing your starting species, since there wouldn't be very much space to grow on the homeworld to start with (unless you do stuff like massively resettle your population to the colonies). I can anticipate the argument that this makes early game conquest more lucrative, but that's countered by a more populous homeworld producing more resources to defend yourself with.

I'm curious what others think about this...

 

[JodelDiplom]

"Due to technology breakthroughs right before game start, earth now has a carrying capacity of much more than its present population, and no longer should be regarded as overpopulated, provided mankind can muster the resources required to invest into the new technology."

Made up quotation. Doesn't that properly describe the situation at game start?

 

[ZomgK3tchup]

That's profoundly weird, if you think about it: we're already talking about our planet being overpopulated right now

Yes, and people who say this are wrong.

 

[TartarosHero]

The Earth is not overcrowded. It's just very poorly managed. We could fit trillions by throwing out our modern concept of cities. The biggest problem is reliable cheap energy for the huge towers of hydroponics we will need. We already waste a third of all farm land on live stock feed.

 

[meertn]

Earth's population isn't limited by the space people use, it's limited by resources. By going into space, food and consumer goods can be produced elsewhere, allowing a lot more people to live on Earth.

 

[VerKer]

Once we upload our neural patterns into the human machine consiousness, space or time are no issues any more.

 

[Dalwin]

I was thinking about how at the beginning of the game, your homeworld has 25 pops, but the ability to hold at least 3x as many. That's profoundly weird, if you think about it: we're already talking about our planet being overpopulated right now, much less 200 years into the future (and I assume other FTL capable aliens would have the same issue). The game doesn't suggest any reason why this might be the case: it's not like we've created merpeople to fill the oceans, or somehow developed incredibly efficient farming/mining/energy gathering tech to suddenly allow much more resource production in the years right before the game starts.

Obviously, this is a gameplay convention to start with as little as possible, but I'm wondering if the game would play better if at the beginning, the homeworld is actually fully developed (district-wise at least, but you could argue it should come with a basic set of buildings available from game start). Obviously, you'd have more resources right from the get-go, and the growth of new colonies could be jump-started by resettling a lot of your homeworld population - though that might mess with your industrial base, making this a more strategic decision. It would limit the possibility of aliens displacing your starting species, since there wouldn't be very much space to grow on the homeworld to start with (unless you do stuff like massively resettle your population to the colonies). I can anticipate the argument that this makes early game conquest more lucrative, but that's countered by a more populous homeworld producing more resources to defend yourself with.

I'm curious what others think about this...

Your logic also assumes that other species over breed and burden their environment as much as humanity does. It could well be that we are not a typical species but rather an ecologically destructive one.

 

[aaronfranke]

Earth is not overpopulated and likely won't be for thousands of years. A massive amount of Earth is simply uninhabited. With further developments in technology such as water conservation, energy production, and transportation... Earth could likely sustain many hundreds of billions of people, perhaps trillions, though I doubt there will be double-digit trillions. You would be surprised at the advances Israel has already made in water desalination, conservation, and recycling.

 

[AlphaAsh]

<snip>

The blockers you get on your homeworld, and the initial blurb, provide some insight into what the game devs are going for. Whilst not post-apocalyptic, this suggests that the planet is beginning to recover from a global economic collapse, and more than likely a population drop that resulted from the scrabbling over natural resources and consolidation of nations.

I've got a mod up that attempts to make actual over-population a concern at game-start, however: Crowded World https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1591546375

With enough initial buggering around with starting economy, this can actually prove to be a very strong start. Eats a civic slot though.

 

[prismaticmarcus]

The Earth is not overcrowded. It's just very poorly managed. We could fit trillions by throwing out our modern concept of cities. The biggest problem is reliable cheap energy for the huge towers of hydroponics we will need. We already waste a third of all farm land on live stock feed.

we waste land on growing fuel as well

 

[Shadowstrike]

Obviously, whether alien societies will also reach the same level of resource use as we do when they reach FTL is entirely speculative: we can't really say very much because we are only familiar with our own world. The "resurgence after economic/ecological collapse" explanation kind of flies, although it's a bit odd how it would affect every planet in the galaxy (particularly the gestalts). It just seems really strange how you start being able to build a bunch of agricultural districts, implying that there are unclaimed continents out there on your homeworld. The answer that "technological progress makes us more productive so there is more space to grow" is kind of countered by the fact that it's basically impossible (other than through MoN or events) to get more districts.

I'm a little surprised at the vehemence that the idea of Earth being overpopulated now is getting. Sure, we can cram in a lot more people if everyone just gets protein mush and minimal consumer goods, but the game doesn't represent that: pops are assumed to live decently well. But right now, just to raise everyone's living standards to the one of the average forumite would require a ton more resources than we currently use. I'm not sure we can really support a trillion people without external resources - I mean yes, you could physically give a trillion people a minimal amount of space to stand on, but you'd be paving over everything to do so (and the starting world isn't an ecumenopolis).

Thanks for the link to your mod AlphaAsh. I'll check it out - seems like an interesting concept.

 

[yerm]

I like the idea of having your homeworld only have a couple open slots and WAY more blockers. Instead of feeling like your planet just suddenly realized it can now fill more space, it will feel like a planet with sprawling slums and waste that can either head for colonizeable worlds not obstructed, or use resources to solve it.

 

[Less2]

From a gameplay perspective, the stronger the homeworld is the stronger early aggression ("rushes") are and the weaker it is to play a more passive economic game. If Homeworlds started with 100 pops then the only reasonable strategy is to spend 10-20 years building up corvettes to take another 100 pop homeworld, since obviously founding new 1-pop colonies aren't going to grow to 100 pops in a few decades. Some would argue that rushes are already excessively powerful.

Since most players presumably aren't looking for the next Starcraft E-sport in Stellaris, the Homeworld has to start weaker than you would expect relative to stations and new colonies.

 

[Secret Master]

Sure, we can cram in a lot more people if everyone just gets protein mush and minimal consumer goods, but the game doesn't represent that: pops are assumed to live decently well.

Umm, yes it does.

Go reduce your living standards. Some of them ain't living "decently well."

You get bonus points for counting up how many consumer goods slaves use with the worst living standards.

 

[Scorpio_Shirica]

Overpopulation is a malthusian myth to justify a minority of the population holding a majority of its resources. The homeworld starting state is fine.

 

[AlphaAsh]

Since most players presumably aren't looking for the next Starcraft E-sport in Stellaris, the Homeworld has to start weaker than you would expect relative to stations and new colonies.

Pretty sure most players aren't playing each other. I'm not sure this actually factors into the reasons why homeworlds start weak. The main gameplay reason is cos progression of initial asset over time. Hence mod if you want to change the starting scenario.

 

[Peace Weaver]

Yes, and people who say this are wrong.

We've wiped out 60% of mammals, birds, fish and reptiles since 1970, and the majority of humans are still experiencing abject poverty, starvation, and war. I would call that overpopulated.

 

[TehJumpingJawa]

I think the homeworld is underdeveloped because dealing with developed planets in 2.2 is a real problem, and having to endure that from the outset would make the mechanics feel broken.

As is you at least get 200 years of gameplay before you reach this revelation.

 

[AlphaAsh]

Overpopulation is a malthusian myth to justify a minority of the population holding a majority of its resources. The homeworld starting state is fine.

Overpopulation is a reality exacerbated by the truth of a minority of the population holding a majority of its resources. Dismissed by those who swallow the bullshit and then start spitting it out themselves. Because hey, they're in the minority, or really hope they are.

 

[Less2]

Pretty sure most players aren't playing each other. I'm not sure this actually factors into the reasons why homeworlds start weak. The main gameplay reason is cos progression of initial asset over time. Hence mod if you want to change the starting scenario.

1. As long as it can be played in MP, it needs to be balanced somewhat reasonably for it.

2. Even in a completely SP setting, if rushing is so much better than not rushing you've ruined the depth of strategies available.