| Re: Formulae for population change on negative hab planets? |
Thu, 11 May 2017 02:39  |
|
 magic9mushroom |
 | Commander |
Messages: 1361
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
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
