|
Post by xdesperado on Sept 11, 2014 5:53:42 GMT -5
Would be nice to have some influence over population growth.
Colonize 3-4 planets and that 22 Quality planet with 18 minerals sits there with just one population, meanwhile the quality 5, 8 and 11 planets are rapidly bursting at the seams, you literally cant build big enough Habs fast enough to contain the population explosion and lack of quality means that you end up hammered by over building as well or else have a planet that sucks resources and produces nothing in return except bad morale.
|
|
|
Post by fallen on Sept 11, 2014 9:58:31 GMT -5
xdesperado - we have some treaties on our list to add that will help give you a handle on shifting population around.
|
|
|
Post by xdesperado on Sept 11, 2014 10:36:41 GMT -5
Looking forward to it...hate seeing prime planets fail to grow in pop while some chunk of irradiated space debri packs them in like disneyland
|
|
|
Post by Rico's Roughnecks on Sept 17, 2014 0:47:33 GMT -5
First off, hi Cory and fallen. I was very vocal on the templar assault forums a year or two ago. It's ok if you don't remember me. I've played tutorial and one Normal game so far and population is the most frustrating and seemingly arbitrary part of colonizing. I'm afraid to expand because I can't afford another over populated stinker that I can never rectify. Low quality systems would be fine as mining colonies or simply refueling stations, except thirty turns later their population is higher than their quality. I think uncontrolled over population doesn't fit the theme of the game very well either. If these are lost refugees who ran out of fuel and had to settle on whatever planets happened to be nearby, it shouldn't be possible to be reproducing like rabbits. I would expect, like battle star galactica, the president to have an exact count of every human survivor and manpower to be a critical resource. So... Smaller population plants should reproduce slower than large populations that's just common sense. Building a colony ship removes one population unit from its home planet, which is transplanted to the new planet. Additional colony ships could transport more population units between existing colonies Tie reproduction to quality. People living in a toxic swamp or in bubbles on airless asteroids shouldn't reproduce as fast as 25 quality utopias Add a way to reduce reproduction by lowering morale (people don't like mandatory birth control implants and licenses required to have a baby) or increase growth by reducing income or CP. You might be able to adjust the "spice festival" feature to act as a "orgy festival" or a much less fun "vasectomy festival" Hm, that's a long, demanding post. Remember me now?
|
|
|
Post by fallen on Sept 17, 2014 0:51:47 GMT -5
rico - it is easily misunderstood that all of the population growth is from reproduction. The refugees from the great Exodus are continuing to pour into your systems, and especially once the beacons and lights of civilization flicker on, they come even faster. Thanks for the feedback, we'll keep working on improving this part of the game. It's especially important to give the player some levers to use in this area.
|
|
|
Post by slayernz on Sept 17, 2014 1:08:16 GMT -5
If you were Steel Song, you could set up some orbital defense platforms that automatically fire on colonist ships. Problem solved, Steel Song for the win!!! <muhahaha> No, the feature doesn't exist, and I don't think fallen or Cory Trese would even implement it. The result would be that Steel Song would become (a) despised by all the other colonies because innocent people are dying (b) become weaker in the long run because fewer colonists means smaller populations to actually expand influence, (c) even more stupid than before because they would be inbreeding. Oh wait ... Steel Song ARE hated by all factions, are weaker because they ended up with crappy planets, and can't shake their Ratkin lineage ...
|
|
|
Post by Rico's Roughnecks on Sept 17, 2014 1:19:07 GMT -5
After I wrote that post, I founded a colony that grew to population 2 the same turn it was created and pop 3 the next turn. fallen, ok but they would still avoid the crappier systems? Or still allow the central government (the player) to have policies to influence where they go. After all, they must be able to pick where they land since they always go to the systems founded by their syndicate Ratkin would be great at tunneling for minerals
|
|
|
Post by slayernz on Sept 17, 2014 1:32:55 GMT -5
Usually with colonists, their ships are on the verge of total system failure, so they are not too picky with their destination planet. So long as the Civ beacon is up and running, the colonists will keep on coming.
Maybe in a future update, you might be able to turn the beacon on/off, but I have a feeling that you're not allowed to do that - you have strong obligations to the migration fleet, and turning your beacons off could result in those migrants dying before they reach another planet. It'd be like the Galactica telling some of the fleet that they can't join, already at capacity.
|
|
|
Post by xdesperado on Sept 17, 2014 1:55:58 GMT -5
Usually with colonists, their ships are on the verge of total system failure, so they are not too picky with their destination planet. So long as the Civ beacon is up and running, the colonists will keep on coming. Maybe in a future update, you might be able to turn the beacon on/off, but I have a feeling that you're not allowed to do that - you have strong obligations to the migration fleet, and turning your beacons off could result in those migrants dying before they reach another planet. It'd be like the Galactica telling some of the fleet that they can't join, already at capacity. Hey can I turn off all the Rychart ones please...pretty please...
|
|
|
Post by Brutus Aurelius on Sept 17, 2014 5:39:07 GMT -5
Or the Song's beacon?
|
|
|
Post by En1gma on Sept 17, 2014 6:14:22 GMT -5
Who knows, slayernz- maybe the massive influx of people who aren't of the SS 'lineage' (if you can call it that) could do wonders for their gene pool. Unless that DNA is more relaxed than a cat napping in the sun......
|
|
|
Post by fallen on Sept 17, 2014 8:37:28 GMT -5
fallen, ok but they would still avoid the crappier systems? Or still allow the central government (the player) to have policies to influence where they go. After all, they must be able to pick where they land since they always go to the systems founded by their syndicate This is the plan!
|
|
zeno
Honored Guest
Posts: 1
|
Post by zeno on Sept 21, 2014 0:17:38 GMT -5
Why can't the haven planets put surplus colonists on transport ships and ferry them to underpopulated worlds? After all they can build carriers and what not , a big barge with hibernation holds should be a piece of cake
|
|
|
Post by slayernz on Sept 21, 2014 17:41:43 GMT -5
It's what they call a "shake and bake" colony.
Unfortunately one one of the planets, they found an alien space craft and had a Xenomorph infestation.
|
|
|
Post by Rico's Roughnecks on Sept 22, 2014 0:57:15 GMT -5
I think the civilian transport ships are the best solution, or modifying colony ships to have this function. Building the ship removes one population unit and deposits them on an existing colony, dismantling the ship to do so. Transports from different factions could cause huge morale penalties or just refuse to land. Also if a transport ship is in space for more than a certain time (ten turns, twenty turns maybe) morale drops across the entire faction or the entire empire: you can't park unwanted population in orbit or fly aimlessly around without the media screaming "BLOODLESS GENOCIDE"
Once transporting exists, those additional refugees could show up on the map in their ships, which the player directs to appropriate colonies. They would occasionally show up in xeno space, requiring a rescue expedition (or morale penalty if they are destroyed)
Then you could remove the random "refugee surges" from the colony population growth rate. Doing it this way would be more in player control while still having limitations, more interesting and less arbitrary
|
|