DESIGN: Population growth & caps

Past public reviews and discussions.
Locked
Message
Author
krum
Creative Contributor
Posts: 244
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 12:58 pm
Location: Bulgaria

#76 Post by krum »

Nightfish wrote:Exponential growth is what MoO used all along? Now that comes as a surprise... when I played MoO2 a few minutes ago all my colonies grew at a rate of about +100k per turn... no matter how many people were on it. That seems like linear growth to me...
I think it was PowerCrazy who said earlier in the thread that growth in MoO and most space strategy games was exponential, diminishing after half max pop was reached. I think the formula was
Pop growth = Old pop x (1 - Old pop/Max pop) x Growth rate

Although the simplicity of linear growth is appealing. But it might be too simplistic.

Nightfish
FreeOrion Designer / Space Monster
Posts: 313
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 7:07 am

#77 Post by Nightfish »

I hope no one confuses this discussion about population growth with a previous discussion about empire growth - meaning colonisation. :wink:

mr_ed
Space Squid
Posts: 82
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 1:13 pm
Location: Ottawa

#78 Post by mr_ed »

I remember in school around grade 10 (11 years ago?) that there was this equation for population -- not that I can remember the equation...

But basically it's exponential up to a certain point, and then it will slow down (or overshoot slightly) and eventually settle down to an equilibrium which should be the planet's max.

I'll see what I can come up with equation-wise, but it could just be as simple as PowerCrazy's formula.

Nightfish
FreeOrion Designer / Space Monster
Posts: 313
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 7:07 am

#79 Post by Nightfish »

I can look up that formula if we want to. The problem is, that it's subject to exploits if we allow for moving of colonists, so I'm not a big fan of it.

mr_ed
Space Squid
Posts: 82
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 1:13 pm
Location: Ottawa

#80 Post by mr_ed »

I found the equations, but agreed.

If we do allow forced (coerced) migration, we'd need to make a cost associated with it that makes it not worth exploiting.

krum
Creative Contributor
Posts: 244
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 12:58 pm
Location: Bulgaria

#81 Post by krum »

Yes, why not make pop moving awefully expensive. It would even be realistic. Moving milliards of people around on trips lasting several months isn't the easiest thing to do :)

An easy way to do it would be to incliude 1 pop point transport and basic colonial equipment as a modules you can fit at ship design. The first you can use to move population, the second for homes and basic equpment for the new colony, depending on EP (more modules for worse EP stat of the planet). And have those two take up a LOT of space, so it would have a huge upkeep cost. And there would be no need to think up any migration mechanisms. And there would still be the ability to conduct expensive planetary eacuations.

mr_ed
Space Squid
Posts: 82
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 1:13 pm
Location: Ottawa

#82 Post by mr_ed »

It could still be possible to have people migrate. Just, well in Western-style democracies anyway, the government can't just forcibly remove someone from their land without compensating them.

What's it called? Expropriation? They do it for highways and stuff mainly right now, but I'm sure they could give colonists enormous monetary bonuses for moving.

Either that, or you'll have rebelling anti-government sentiment.

The exception to the rule would probably be Hive-type minds. The government would still need to allocate funds for space ships and stuff, though.

PowerCrazy
Creative Contributor
Posts: 383
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 2:35 am
Location: Texas

#83 Post by PowerCrazy »

Nightfish. I think the 100K you were seeing in Moo2 was a result of the cloning center. It automatically added 100k of population each turn. If you look at the population of a growing planet (new colony) you will see that the growth rate is a maximum at about one half the planets population. Sakkra player would exploit this and be able to maximize their entire empires populaiton at a rate that was MUCH faster than just their growth rate, in fact they would grow EXPONENTIALLY faster. The formula I posted ealier is geometric growth and has a few benefits.

1. A fledgling colony that is struggling for survival will not be having a high growth rate. Thus the growth rate is a minimum.

2. As the colony grows and gets "stronger" and actually starts to contribute to the empire it will naturally begin to grow faster becuase it will have both technology and more people.

3. As we are concerned most about gameplay, slowing the populaiton growth as a colony matures makes "old" colonies more valuable. Only an old colony will be completly maxed out as far as population is concerned. Thus this formula ensures that a significant amount of time must pass before a colony is completely developed.

Also the formula I posted earlier was for the growth RATE. Therefore it cannot be linear. The complete calculations for planet growth would be: NewPop = CurrPop * [(MaxPop-CurrPop) / MaxPop] * X
where X = the Race specific growth rate.

If you are a little math savvy you can multiply the currpop out and get a 2nd order quadratic equation. Which by definition is NOT Linear nor Exponential. :)
Aquitaine is my Hero.... ;)

Nightfish
FreeOrion Designer / Space Monster
Posts: 313
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 7:07 am

#84 Post by Nightfish »

PowerCrazy wrote:Nightfish. I think the 100K you were seeing in Moo2 was a result of the cloning center. It automatically added 100k of population each turn.
No, that's not what I saw :wink: Maybe I'm wrong here because usually I created new population by "building people".

As for your other arguments:

1. Struggling for survial? Erm, we're talking a nation that can travel faster than light here. Would a new colony really have to struggle for survival?

2. That is not an argument for a formula of exponential growth as far as I can see.

3. If we allow moving of colonists people will just pick up some on a half maxed colony and ferry them over to the nearly maxed one. That won't be fun.

Your formula may be perfectly realistic, I don't doubt that. But that's not a priority. (imho)

drekmonger
Space Kraken
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 10:17 am

#85 Post by drekmonger »

1. Struggling for survial? Erm, we're talking a nation that can travel faster than light here. Would a new colony really have to struggle for survival?
a: Yes, why wouldn't they have to struggle a little?

b: Who cares? It makes for good gameplay for new colonies to take a little while to grow into usefulness.

3. If we allow moving of colonists people will just pick up some on a half maxed colony and ferry them over to the nearly maxed one. That won't be fun.
a: Hopefully the costs of moving the colonists will be prohibative--so that you'd really only want to manually move them in emergancy situations.

b: actually, this is the reasons why i liked impaler's bio idea. If a colony's population cap starts off small and grows over time, you can't just toss colonists on to a new colony.

Not that we'd have to call it "bio" or use all the trappings of the bio system: I'm just thinking when you first colonize a world the population cap is small--and it gets bigger with time and/or industry expentitures.

Anyway those are the two possiblities. If the "bio" idea is too much to worry about, then just make moving colonists expensive.

Plasma Dragon
Space Floater
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2003 7:13 am

#86 Post by Plasma Dragon »

PowerCrazy wrote:Nightfish. I think the 100K you were seeing in Moo2 was a result of the cloning center. It automatically added 100k of population each turn. If you look at the population of a growing planet (new colony) you will see that the growth rate is a maximum at about one half the planets population. Sakkra player would exploit this and be able to maximize their entire empires populaiton at a rate that was MUCH faster than just their growth rate, in fact they would grow EXPONENTIALLY faster. If you are a little math savvy you can multiply the currpop out and get a 2nd order quadratic equation. Which by definition is NOT Linear nor Exponential. :)
Sakkra race in Moo2 had +100 % growth and subterran race picks. Yes it grows really nice, however it wasnt so unbalanced as your trying to say. This race had only avarage food production and awfull form of goverment. So even large population was wasted by other negatives.
The best early growth combination in Moo2 is : +100 growth, aquatic, subteran and dictatorship. However this race wasnt the most powerfull population race. Can u guess what custom race is better ? 8)
Guest

PowerCrazy
Creative Contributor
Posts: 383
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 2:35 am
Location: Texas

#87 Post by PowerCrazy »

3. If we allow moving of colonists people will just pick up some on a half maxed colony and ferry them over to the nearly maxed one. That won't be fun.
YES. Thats what i was talking about in those other threads. In MoO2 where you COULD move colonists a sakkra player would and get a huge advantage. Thats why i say we shouldn't have moving of colonists beyond natural migration which shouldn't be controlled directly only "enocuraged", or just dropped all together. I don't really see an advantage or any added gameplay value by microing the population tendencies of my empire. I'm beginning to wonder Nightfish are you the same person all the time? Or are there multiple nightfish users? ;)

Anways, I obviously like my system for planetary growth, and I suppose a few otehrs do to. I don't think we'll be implementing it for awhile though right? Like v.4 or so. And the coding for that is at least a year off. But if you don't like it you can always submit another one.
Aquitaine is my Hero.... ;)

Plasma Dragon
Space Floater
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2003 7:13 am

#88 Post by Plasma Dragon »

PowerCrazy wrote: NF : 3. If we allow moving of colonists people will just pick up some on a half maxed colony and ferry them over to the nearly maxed one. That won't be fun.
YES. Thats what i was talking about in those other threads. In MoO2 where you COULD move colonists a sakkra player would and get a huge advantage. Thats why i say we shouldn't have moving of colonists beyond natural migration which shouldn't be controlled directly only "enocuraged", or just dropped all together. I don't really see an advantage or any added gameplay value by microing the population tendencies of my empire.
Not only Sakkra player could move his colonists. Every player could. It was very fun to take 1 colonist and put him on the other planet. It was the way people optimzed thier empires. I think manual method of moveing colonists is much more better then migration like in moo3. Simply because it gives more control to player what is happening with his empire.
Guest

drekmonger
Space Kraken
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 10:17 am

#89 Post by drekmonger »

Anways, I obviously like my system for planetary growth, and I suppose a few otehrs do to. I don't think we'll be implementing it for awhile though right? Like v.4 or so. And the coding for that is at least a year off. But if you don't like it you can always submit another one.
v.2 almost certainly. This thread's purpose is to come up with a population model for inclusion in the v.2 requirements document. And hopefully that's less than a year away. Much less.

Nightfish
FreeOrion Designer / Space Monster
Posts: 313
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 7:07 am

#90 Post by Nightfish »

PowerCrazy wrote:I'm beginning to wonder Nightfish are you the same person all the time?
Yes, we have been the same person all along. Why did you ask? :wink:

Personally I don't have anything against people moving their colonists if they feel like it. But if we chose your formula for growth and allow moving of colonists we give this moving process one more advantage: Moving colonists affects the number of colonists you have in total. If you keep one or two of your colonies at optimum growth rate you gain a significant advantage. And that's what I'm against.

If we use a simple, linear growth formula the only bonus you get out of moving colonists is having a young colony with more than one guy on it. Of course it's horribly unrealistic, but I really couldn't care less about realism.

Locked