eleazar wrote:
By "scale exponentially" i mean something that works similarly to this:
Geoff the Medio wrote:
Civ cities ... treated the first population point at 10000 people, the second as 20000 (for population 2 = 30000 people), the third, 30000 (for 60000 people total), etc.
Why would we want to do this? I never really understood in Civ, if 30000 people can work 3 squares (2 pop units + city square), why can 60000 people only work 4 squares (3 pop units + city square).
If we want to model decreasing population use efficiency with increasing numbers, that is: 10000 of 10000 people work, but only 20000 of 30000 work, or 40000 of 80000, etc. Then I think we'd be better off representing that as penalties to meters on high population worlds. Whatever the scaling factor, things are more consistent and understandable if the population number is actually proportional to number of workers and number of individual beings...
Quote:
Geoff the Medio wrote:
As you said,
eleazar wrote:
Because whole numbers are obvious, intuitive, discreet units of population.
and because at a scale of 1-30, the smallest-steps are too large. Having 1-3000 or 1-300 allows a whole number step of 1 to be small enough for gameplay and setting-plausibility purposes.
I assume having our fun-facts/flavor populations number takes care of "setting-plausability" problems. How does adding zeros help gameplay?
The fun-facts/flavour would be so that planet populations are reasonable for different races. It wouldn't fix colony ships however... In that if we say that 30 population is equal to 12 billion humans, then a colony ship carrying 1 point of population will have 400 million people on it. That's not plausible. Conversely, if we have 30000 population points on a planet, represeting 12 billion people, a colony ship carrying 1 point of population will have 400 thousand people on it. Still quite a lot, but significantly more plausible.
In gameplay terms, you (eleazar) want to make "1" population the minimum allowed on a viable colony, but this doesn't really reflect the practical reality of the situation, in which less than "1" unit of population is still a viable colony that can grow in a reasonable amount of time to a large and significantly productive colony. However, if we lower the number of people that "1" population unit represets, "1" unit might actually be closer to the minimum viable number of colonist to qualify as a usefully colonized planet, and less than "1" might be a more reasonable threshold at which to declare the colony starved to death or otherwise depopulated.
Also, in the context of this style of game, I think 3% to 10% of a developed colony's population is too much to be the smallest unit the player can manipulate. By making "1" unit represent a smaller amount of production capacity / growth potential, this problem is avoided.
Combining both the above, if we make "1" unit of population actually less than what's practical for a viable useful colony, so that really you'd need more like 50 colonists to have a colony that's capable of growing into something useful in a reasonable amount of time, we make it possible for the player ot have some choice about how many colonists to send... They can be agressive and send 100, or cautious and only risk 10 or so, but end up waiting longer for growth to compensate. (Though perhaps this isn't an interesting or worthwhile choice to include, and we'd be fine with a smaller range of possible colony ship sizes with variation on the order of 1 to 3 instead of 1 to 100...)