|
|
| Re: Formulae for population change on negative hab planets? |
Thu, 04 May 2017 00:41   |
|
 magic9mushroom |
 | Commander |
Messages: 1369
Registered: May 2008 | |
|
Daniel wrote on Wed, 03 May 2017 22:34For Stars! Nova I have the growth rate formulae for normal planets and for overcrowding from the Stars! wiki. Does anyone know the exact formulae for negative hab planets? IIRC negative hab planets also have a lower population limit for calculating max factories of 25,000? Does this factor into crowding effects?
The Pop * growth-rate * hab value formulae will produce negative growth on negative hab worlds, but it will be more negative for high growth rate races, which seems odd.
On negative hab worlds the negative growth is 0.1 * pop * hab value. So if you have 300,000 pop on a -10% red, you'll lose 3,000 (1%). On a -45% red you'd lose 4.5% of your pop.
Red, yellow, and <5% green worlds are treated as having 5% habitability for the purposes of determining population cap; an OBRM race that isn't HE/AR/JoaT has a cap of 55,000 pop on such worlds (pop over 100% up to 300% - 55k to 165k, in this case - receives half pop resources but can't operate installations, as usual). However, there are no overcrowding deaths on red and yellow planets, just the deaths from negative hab.
EDIT: Incidentally, for AR (whose pop cap is invariant based on starbase, but whose resource efficiency varies with hab) the minimum hab for resource calculation is 25%. So a red can produce 1/4 the resources of a 100% green instead of 1/20... the catch is that you need just as much pop as for that 100% green, rather than 1/20 as much.
[Updated on: Thu, 04 May 2017 00:52] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Formulae for population change on negative hab planets? |
Thu, 11 May 2017 02:39 |
|
| magic9mushroom |
| Commander |
Messages: 1369
Registered: May 2008 | |
|
Daniel wrote on Wed, 10 May 2017 21:10So, if you are just looking to store meat bombs somewhere, a -1% world is far better (in terms of negative growth only) than a 100% world that is already at max pop, right? You only loose 0.1%, no matter how many extra colonists you have on that -1% world; but you could loose up to 12% on the 100% world.
Of course, if you are after production, you are better off overpopulating that 100% world. It depends on what you want the colonists for.
Well, yes, but in almost all circumstances the extra production matters more than the extra growth (by definition, you've already got enough pop to fill everything to 100% if you're even considering this, which means you're in all likelihood IS with a mature orgy and growth is easy). Certainly, the reds and yellows should be overpopped to 300% first, but beyond that there's little point dropping them to the ground if they're working just as much in space (i.e. not at all).
Once you've got everywhere to 300% (at this point you're definitely IS), it might seem optimal to put surplus population beyond freighter capacity on a -1% red. But in practice, no-one bothers; for doing this to be worthwhile, you must both:
a) have more pop than necessary for all your worlds to be at 300%, maintenance orgies on every world, and all the popdrop orgies you could possibly desire,
b) care about making more pop.
However, a) and b) are mutually exclusive. Catch-22. If you have more pop than you know what to do with, there's no point in making more.
(If you're AR and somehow have tens of millions of spare pop, then a -1% red/yellow is the optimal site for making a supercharged planetary scanner. But with no freighter growth - in fact, freighter anti-growth - this situation very rarely arises.)
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
