That's way more abstraction than the picture implies. That's one tile, and it's already at 15. And it's certainly not guaranteed that 50 is the max. Possibly that's just the amount required for resources to be actually produced.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
It's an arbitrary number. A proportion of an unfinished POP growing out of the other POPs.
still on really high population planets or low developed ones there should be starvation
There is a bar at the bottom of each POP. For all POPs it is full, except for the one selected. And if you compare the amount of the bar filled in the selected one equates to 15/50.
This game will likely be a good normal 4x, but its success will only land in a critical thing, how will it fair as a Grand strategy game and to become a GSG you need more than 8 or 10 Nations on the map, the most critical component being how easily how long lasting and how well will blobs brake. It will live and die on that single feature (or commutation of features) alone.
Last edited:
- 2
No, but from what I gather, they want to make both Stellaris and HoI less complex so they can reach a wider audience. Some of their ideas I like, others not so much. My first Paradox game was CK2, so I can't really compare to what they did before. I played EU3 and EU:Rome and I find their ideas more appealing than EU4 for example (EU4 was the first I played of the 3).
Civ BE is streamlined I feel. They kept some cool mechanics, but compare it to other Civ titles (except vanilla Civ V) it lacks so much depth. The quest system is there to handhold you through the whole experience and make sure you don't stumble. The role of wonders was severely downgraded. Teching is fine I guess. I'd agree that the tree UI could be designed better. Fighting became very mundane. There's no tactical choice anymore, since everyone will just use the same 3 units, until you go into the late game, where their upgrades start differentiating them. It's a game that was designed to be simple in my opinion. It's only saving grace is the interesting covert ops mechanics and the idea trees for me. Perhaps the satellite thing as well, but that has its own problems since there's so many satellites you could build but you only want to use 2-3 of them.
- 2
- 1
Yes, I know. I pointed that out. However, if one pop is 1 billion, then one tile would have 50 billion, and the whole planet would have hundreds of billions, if not trillions. That's way too many. And as mentioned in this post, there is precedent for colonies to become provinces after a certain point. And how likely is it that a planet with most tiles uncolonized has reached the population cap in nearly all of the few colonized tiles?
I'm not sure how you are reaching those conclusions.... What I was saying is that one full POP, so one 50/50 POP, is one billion. Which was just a random guesstimate. If you look at the top there is what looks like a population resource bar, which says 585+5. If we assume it is counting POPs as per their growth, so 50 per full POP, the math checks out. On the planet we see there are 5 full POPs. The window on the right says there are only two planets in this empire, so if we take the other planet as being slightly more populous, it can work out to 585 POPs total. Going by this, it might make more sense that one 'growth' is one million, so a full POP is 50 million. In which case a full planet is 12.5 billion. Which feels a bit low to me, since this is the future, but I guess also acceptable.
Very likely, if you take it to mean POPs grow by filling up sequentially? Which is what we are saying? All the POPs except one are maxed out on something, and per my other post the maths check out for the unfilled POP if the bar represents 15/50, which implies the other bars represent 50/50.
Last edited:
- 1
- 1
Not sure what I think about how planets only have a limited amount of tiles. I mean, they are planets. Tiles is something that makes more sense when building a city or something.
I by far thought Stars!' approach, where you could build as many factories or mines as you wished, but each mine and factory needed a certain amount of people to actually run them, made much more sense. If you have a whole planet to build on, what's limiting you should be manpower, not running out of space. Not being able to build in mountains, for example, makes sense, at least for certain specis, but tiles? Nah. Just makes the game feel unrealistic to me, and breaks my immersion.
My two cents. Sorry if this sounded harsh, I am really looking forward to the game
.
I by far thought Stars!' approach, where you could build as many factories or mines as you wished, but each mine and factory needed a certain amount of people to actually run them, made much more sense. If you have a whole planet to build on, what's limiting you should be manpower, not running out of space. Not being able to build in mountains, for example, makes sense, at least for certain specis, but tiles? Nah. Just makes the game feel unrealistic to me, and breaks my immersion.
My two cents. Sorry if this sounded harsh, I am really looking forward to the game
.- 3
- 2
Not sure what I think about how planets only have a limited amount of tiles. I mean, they are planets. Tiles is something that makes more sense when building a city or something.
I by far thought Stars!' approach, where you could build as many factories or mines as you wished, but each mine and factory needed a certain amount of people to actually run them, made much more sense. If you have a whole planet to build on, what's limiting you should be manpower, not running out of space. Not being able to build in mountains, for example, makes sense, at least for certain specis, but tiles? Nah. Just makes the game feel unrealistic to me, and breaks my immersion.
I agree to a limited extent.
I would prefer each planet have a simplified population mechanic localized by climate of each tile, with buildings limited by available workers in each tile.
Each tile would represent a large land regions analogous to those on Earth like Iberia, South America, North Africa, Southern Africa, etc.
Then open up sea tiles when certain research is unlocked, or the race is amphibious.
Basically these planets would act like regions in Victoria II.
But I would want to see large diminishing returns as factories and populations increase, to the point that encouraging these pops to relocate to different provinces on the world, or even to different worlds, that would have a strong incentive, beyond just the drawbacks of overpopulation and pollution.
- 1
What if food was something like infrastructure instead. not simply what you need to eat but also the shelter you need, the roads to get to work for money, hospitals ect. the representation of what a person needs to survive, and the amount you have on the planet tells you how many you can support on that planet before overcrowding or a lack of resources kicked in making population angry leading to either revolts by people thinking they can run it better or people moving to other planets with open infrastructure.
Another thing infrastructure could do is remove a hard cap on planetary populations and instead make a soft cap based on your industries. Infrastructure could have a decay rate, modified by racial traits, representing the wearing and tearing of products and the replacement as well as societies that display a more thrifty nature in that they would repair what they have over replacing it or a more capitalistic and throw away society that might demand more infrastructure.
Building the basic infrastructure to overcome decay would lead to a situation of overpopulation as people grew but the infrastructure rate stayed steady. Growing more infrastructure than needed encourages growth but in turn asks for more industrial upkeep, this could lead to an interesting guns vs butter sort of debate when you get into a war while 30% of your industries is trying to keep your population housed fed and happy, you might need that industry for the war effort, leading to the effects of rationing, and help contribute to a war weariness effect.
I think the thing that worries/dissapoints me the most about this is it looks like with the build option you will be choosing the buildings going into the positions regardless of your empire. I could be wrong maybe the build option is grayed out for republic or free capitalist type governments but more autocratic governments get to choose whats built there, I know I would like if it was more like Vicky 2 where you could try to suggest and push for certain buildings, but you didnt actually control what was built there in a democracy. the private sector in Distant worlds which handles the shipping of supplies and colonists from planet to planet automatically was a really nice touch to it, giving you that feeling that you weren't an all powerful leader and that the Ai would do these things, and the best you could do is try to influence the flow of supplies through other means.
Another thing infrastructure could do is remove a hard cap on planetary populations and instead make a soft cap based on your industries. Infrastructure could have a decay rate, modified by racial traits, representing the wearing and tearing of products and the replacement as well as societies that display a more thrifty nature in that they would repair what they have over replacing it or a more capitalistic and throw away society that might demand more infrastructure.
Building the basic infrastructure to overcome decay would lead to a situation of overpopulation as people grew but the infrastructure rate stayed steady. Growing more infrastructure than needed encourages growth but in turn asks for more industrial upkeep, this could lead to an interesting guns vs butter sort of debate when you get into a war while 30% of your industries is trying to keep your population housed fed and happy, you might need that industry for the war effort, leading to the effects of rationing, and help contribute to a war weariness effect.
I think the thing that worries/dissapoints me the most about this is it looks like with the build option you will be choosing the buildings going into the positions regardless of your empire. I could be wrong maybe the build option is grayed out for republic or free capitalist type governments but more autocratic governments get to choose whats built there, I know I would like if it was more like Vicky 2 where you could try to suggest and push for certain buildings, but you didnt actually control what was built there in a democracy. the private sector in Distant worlds which handles the shipping of supplies and colonists from planet to planet automatically was a really nice touch to it, giving you that feeling that you weren't an all powerful leader and that the Ai would do these things, and the best you could do is try to influence the flow of supplies through other means.
- 4
- 1
You guys seems to be underthinking what this level of abstraction regarding to POP's might lead to.
Some terrain might be unsuitable for colonizatoin unless expensively terraformed. If you are a multi-species empire, maybe one of your species is able to colonize a terrain without the need for the expensive terraformation. That way you basically have more available assets at the cost of whatever negative repercutions a multi-species empire may encounter for being what it is.
Also, this is just a very limited representation of it. Maybe you can have multi-species pops, why not? Fairly easy to implement.
In my opinion everything is going very well. Maybe I'd like to see a cultural system implemented, regardless of pop species? Similar to religion in vicky (which at this point of social evolution, might simply be the same - religion as part of one's cultural self.)
So you may have two human empires that are vastly different culturally and a multietnic empire that has dozens of species but is culturally homogenuous. It will give that paradox feel which relies on "human" conflict as the phylosophical base of the game.
Oh, and most important of all, EVERYTHING should by dynamically generated. Species, cultures, tech trees. This will make the game monstruously more replayable and diverse. In CK2, I get very tired of seeing France covered by my cultural Irish green instead of whatever melting pot irish and french people might lead to.
One last thing: 1 POP might be an abstraction on that specific species resource generation, consumption and military capacity minus the species bonus. So what 1 human POP might be 1 biliion people, but 1 X'ilafri POP might be 100 billion (X'ilafri are the size of terrain rats.) So I'm assuming this is well though. If players want flavour to the amount of individuals 1 POP implies, this is a matter of localization, basically.
Some terrain might be unsuitable for colonizatoin unless expensively terraformed. If you are a multi-species empire, maybe one of your species is able to colonize a terrain without the need for the expensive terraformation. That way you basically have more available assets at the cost of whatever negative repercutions a multi-species empire may encounter for being what it is.
Also, this is just a very limited representation of it. Maybe you can have multi-species pops, why not? Fairly easy to implement.
In my opinion everything is going very well. Maybe I'd like to see a cultural system implemented, regardless of pop species? Similar to religion in vicky (which at this point of social evolution, might simply be the same - religion as part of one's cultural self.)
So you may have two human empires that are vastly different culturally and a multietnic empire that has dozens of species but is culturally homogenuous. It will give that paradox feel which relies on "human" conflict as the phylosophical base of the game.
Oh, and most important of all, EVERYTHING should by dynamically generated. Species, cultures, tech trees. This will make the game monstruously more replayable and diverse. In CK2, I get very tired of seeing France covered by my cultural Irish green instead of whatever melting pot irish and french people might lead to.
One last thing: 1 POP might be an abstraction on that specific species resource generation, consumption and military capacity minus the species bonus. So what 1 human POP might be 1 biliion people, but 1 X'ilafri POP might be 100 billion (X'ilafri are the size of terrain rats.) So I'm assuming this is well though. If players want flavour to the amount of individuals 1 POP implies, this is a matter of localization, basically.
Last edited:
- 1
They have mentioned a maximum 32 starting empires (i.e more can form from rebellion or a planet bound species advancing sufficiently), so I doubt the game will feel particularly empty or gamey.
- 1
- 1
Levelling the planet and building powerplants etc. everywhere should reduce the habitability of a planet. Who would want to live on a planet covered with powerplant where every forest, moutain was levelled and razed ?
And that's empires, too. There will be planetbound species as well.
- 1
Yeah, if anything the map might feel a little cramped. That gives each "starting" empire an average of 30.25 systems to colonize in the maximum map size and that assumes no fallen empires, no pre-FTL species that achieve FTL on their own, and no uninhabitable systems due black holes or whatnot.
While I would like an option for diverese starting polities at a various sizes and levels of tech development in theory, in practice I think I would rarely ever enable them. Playing North American OPM in 1444 is one thing, try playing a Western tech OPM in 1800, but with tech at 3/3/3. You will get crushed by everyone, no amount of neighbor bonus will help, and there's no quick catch up option through westernizing or reforming the government. You're just hundreds of years behind everyone with no way to catch up. You probably won't even survive as Revolutionary France at that kind of tech disadvantage.
More like playing as the Zunists in 769 against HOI's Germany.
- 1
- 1
