Population growth and balance

[nimen]

It seems to me that the game has a broken balance, look, we have races with rapid growth, for example Boskara or the new Gizureans, with default happiness settings (5) they have a growth of about 7%, and there are Haakonish and Mortalens who have a growth of 3.2 - 3 ,5 and it may seem that there is no problem, but over a long distance of 30-40 game years, fast-growing races will already have completely filled planets, while slowly growing ones will still fill their first world and this will snowball, more population -> more migration -> more population -> more money -> more army -> more science -> you can speed up research and so on.

Also, as a bonus, they have governments that reduce corruption, which increases happiness and the flow of money, which further increases stratification. There are no disadvantages, only advantages, minus 10% according to science is leveled out by money and is not noticeable at all over a long distance.

I haven’t played that much, maybe 5-7 games, but so far I see the picture like this, a huge gap due to population growth.

[AK_icebear]

I think the problem is there is no obvious counter strength to (lack of) rapid population growth.

In macroeconomics, the general idea is that labor force, capital stock, and quality of each (worker productivity level, capital stock technology level) impact total economic output.

In DW2, the only trait specific feature that impacts economic output is population growth. It's easy to imagine how this could change - slower population growth races could have higher average education levels. Or more money available to invest in total capital stock. Or higher quality capital stock.

There would need to be some changes to the economic model and technology tree to make it work.

One suggestion I offer before that is something of a quick fix would be to make racial maximum development level inversely proportional to population growth rate. A rapid population growth races may max development from resources at 100%, but a slow population growth races may max at 400% (for example). This would be a proxy for higher per work capital stock intensity. Technology could be researched for both types of races to level up the maximum, or perhaps buildings per planet. Lots of possibilities, and I think simple enough to fit well within the current framework.

[jorgen_cab]

There are some balancing factors that you don't always take into account such as general happiness and luxury goods distribution. Generally I would say that certain races earn allot more money per population count than others due to how luxuries are distributed and that they have allot more happiness and income modifiers etc..

Then, migration usually can to a high degree offset population growth in the mid game too. If done correctly.

If you have allot of worlds with high population but with low development you might even earn less money than someone who has lower population totals.

It actually can be detrimental to your overall economy to just settle every planet you can rather than strategically doing it so you can capitalize on efficient migration and the total distance of your migration routes.

The game have allot of nuances that is sometime difficult to see past the pure numbers.

It is true that rapid growth races will gain more population and do so faster, but gaining allot of money from them is not guaranteed.

In most of my games when keeping tabs on the above mentioned schemes I usually have about 80-90% of the income come from a handful of planets even after 50-100 years into the game, even from rapid growth species.

The major benefit of rapid growth is that you can more easily colonize and take advantage of more distant places. That is what I see as the main benefit of rapid growth races, not that they directly earn you more money than others.

[Ydyp]

Seems you both also seem to forgot the increase costs for defensive fleets because of the larger area you have to defend because if you want that massive boost in econmy you will have to expand faster to different colonies as well and fleets requite traveltime.

I lost count on how many times I lost a colony to enemy invasion because my defense fleet needed to move one system and arrived to late to stop the enemy troops from landing. And I had to call in an invasion fleet to retake the lost colony.

Also not sure if you noticed how much it costs to crash tier 3+ research projects? Even with increased income I barely could manage to pay those, and also the -x all research hurt in the end that can't be overcome with money when you hit the higher tier research that require 22 bonus in that specific field. So for a hive Bosa and cell Gizu that means you need to find an extra 15 bonus, except for weapons research for the Bosa.

So in the end yes they have an advantage when it comes to generating income, but they also have some nasty drawbacks in tech advancement (especialy mid to late game) as well as a higher cost needed to keep their territory save and remember most races don't like you from the outstart so wars on multiple fronts are more occuring. Though this later part is also true for some of the other races with lower growth rates.

[jorgen_cab]

Originally posted by Ydyp:

Seems you both also seem to forgot the increase costs for defensive fleets because of the larger area you have to defend because if you want that massive boost in econmy you will have to expand faster to different colonies as well and fleets requite traveltime.

I lost count on how many times I lost a colony to enemy invasion because my defense fleet needed to move one system and arrived to late to stop the enemy troops from landing. And I had to call in an invasion fleet to retake the lost colony.

Also not sure if you noticed how much it costs to crash tier 3+ research projects? Even with increased income I barely could manage to pay those, and also the -x all research hurt in the end that can't be overcome with money when you hit the higher tier research that require 22 bonus in that specific field. So for a hive Bosa and cell Gizu that means you need to find an extra 15 bonus, except for weapons research for the Bosa.

So in the end yes they have an advantage when it comes to generating income, but they also have some nasty drawbacks in tech advancement (especialy mid to late game) as well as a higher cost needed to keep their territory save and remember most races don't like you from the outstart so wars on multiple fronts are more occuring. Though this later part is also true for some of the other races with lower growth rates.

It is not only military support for defending allot of colonies... but that is a good point. In addition, the more distance there is between colonies the more everything will cost you in terms of logistics. Worse distribution of luxury goods, fuel and other materials, worse migration rates etc... this will directly impact the total income per population in your empire too.

A smaller more compact empire can be allot stronger economically even if they overall collect less income. Especially if you can also leverage trade and diplomacy in a good way.

It then also depends on how much pirates you have and how strong they are.

[murdockwan]

The OP says: "Game is unbalanced. Rapid growth races dominate".

In response to the OP's message, I see a lot of theoretical information above trying to explain that in fact there is no unbalance.

In my mind, what counters these responses with "theoretical information" is my own first hand practical experience, me, playing as humans every time, with different galaxy size and settings.
Based on these last 6-7 playthroughs on latest version 1.2.2.0 (April 3rd, 2024) it appears high growth races indeed totally dominate the galaxy as the OP reports.

In addition to my first hand experience, several playthroughs by others, available on YouTube also show rapid breeding races dominate the galaxy.

The nuances, counteracting mechanics you speak of does not seem to impact AI at a level that it ultimately changes the story of galaxy (i.e.: in the end, who rules the galaxy).

In summary I agree with the OP; currently, rapid growth race = more wins.

What do you see in your games?
Please share your results and experiences only for games started in the latest version 1.2.2.0 (April 3rd, 2024).

Based on my limited experiences, I think the game probably need better balancing to ensure we do not have this super simplistic: "more-population = more-wins" equation.

Yes, for sure population is important and very important.
It should stay important but it should not be the ONE STATISTIC THAT RULES THEM ALL.

[Nightskies]

It doesn't appear that they're saying there's no imbalance. They're saying that there is a lot going on- rapid growth isn't without growing pains. And they're certainly correct.

You're (murdockwan) saying that Growth is overpowered, yes?

GROWTH isn't the one stat that rules them all. It is a big stat, no mistake, but it isn't overpowering. You're observing a correlation, with no testing!

Dhayut, with its abysmal growth rate, has a high ratio of galactic domination. This has been since Gizureans came out, and there should be no reason for that to have changed. It'd be nonsense to exclude experiences from before the latest version- it didn't change that much, especially not growth.

OTHER POWERFUL FACTORS FOR GIZUREANS:
• Fighter-heavy. Fighters are powerful when built right (they do that), and they have superior fighter bays.
  
• Swarm targeting computer and swarm tactics. They build a lot of ships and this technology has a strong impact.
  
• Good warship designs. Gizurean ships don't have as pronounced weaknesses as other empires do. They're solid all-around, for AI designs.
  
• Hard military counter to other major empires. All the above accumulates to the ability to easily crush the Boskara and Haakonish in battle, both of which often dominated before the Gizureans came around. That's a lot of easy food.
  
• Hyper-aggressive. In the early game, defenses are weak. Hyper-aggression is the alpha strategy, so long as one doesn't take more than can be chewed. The AI is ... *somewhat proficient* at this. Many other races inhibit automation by restricting expansion with weights to favor other races. Gizureans are indiscriminate- nonrestrictive expansion.
  
• High world count potential (dry worlds). They have more worlds than most other races to pick from to colonize, which means easy expansion outside of war.
  
• Plethora of small bonuses: Invasion boosts, population subsuming, leader events, Gizureans have a lot of little nudges toward domination under the big picture radar. More than most other races get, especially those that haven't been revisited yet.

That's not to say GROWTH isn't strong. Just because Gizureans specifically put it on high blast with population subsuming and a high stat, to begin with, doesn't mean it is *the* reason they're strong.

GROWTH is relatively weak in galaxies with low habitability worlds, lower star density, and more nebulae. Population-capped colonies will be hit quickly without much room to expand. Gizureans still have a shot at dominating those (because GROWTH isn't their only strength), but Dhayut will have a much stronger bid for it.

So again, GROWTH *is* a strong stat. It is a relatively strong advantage, like in all 4x games that I know of. But it's not overpowering- if a race's only advantage were growth, it would not make them a powerhouse. Please take a look at the posts above more closely for some of its disadvantages in DW2.

[jorgen_cab]

If you have a low growth race it is even more important to be more selective on the worlds you do settle and not just settle everything you find. That of course is true for everyone.

If you look at any mid game developed galaxy and enters the scoring screen you will see that population does not always correlate to a better economy, this is quite apparent when you look at that screen.

Too many worlds can mean that the world that really need luxury will not get what they actually need and so income will be affected. Corruption can also erode some profit as well.

Defending planets from pirates raids can be quite expensive, successful raids can loose you allot of income too. If you don't play with pirates that is one factor that certainly favour quick growing races, likewise is reducing the number of independent races too.

I have looked into a few other players save games and noticed that often are overachievers in colonizing planets as many planets are never really going to give you pure profit within the games given timeframe or if ever. Just the investment in facilities, troops and fleets needed to protect them will cost more in maintenance and initial cost to never make the worlds really profitable rather than never invested in it in the first place.

Therefore being very selective about the worlds you colonize is very important. Either they fill a strategic importance, such as expanding your influence of space or they will net you a high potential income. Low quality worlds especially small ones can often be trash to colonize, there are many dry planets out there but most of them are of low quality and smaller ones you really should avoid unless they fill a strategic importance.

In the last save I saw the guy had around 100 planets where less than a dozen planets was 80% of their economy. A high amount of planets were just draining the economy and in case of a war would just become impossible to defend with way to little fleet resources. There is no possibility to protect that many planets efficiently. You are just lucky the AI are not super efficient spreading out their forces in my opinion.

Growth is an important stat and whether it is unbalanced or not remains to be seen. I'm sure the developers holds a close eye on this and constantly review data they are able to collect from players games and reports.

[I Throw Spears.]

Originally posted by jorgen_cab:

If you have a low growth race it is even more important to be more selective on the worlds you do settle and not just settle everything you find. That of course is true for everyone.

If you look at any mid game developed galaxy and enters the scoring screen you will see that population does not always correlate to a better economy, this is quite apparent when you look at that screen.

Too many worlds can mean that the world that really need luxury will not get what they actually need and so income will be affected. Corruption can also erode some profit as well.

Defending planets from pirates raids can be quite expensive, successful raids can loose you allot of income too. If you don't play with pirates that is one factor that certainly favour quick growing races, likewise is reducing the number of independent races too.

I have looked into a few other players save games and noticed that often are overachievers in colonizing planets as many planets are never really going to give you pure profit within the games given timeframe or if ever. Just the investment in facilities, troops and fleets needed to protect them will cost more in maintenance and initial cost to never make the worlds really profitable rather than never invested in it in the first place.

Therefore being very selective about the worlds you colonize is very important. Either they fill a strategic importance, such as expanding your influence of space or they will net you a high potential income. Low quality worlds especially small ones can often be trash to colonize, there are many dry planets out there but most of them are of low quality and smaller ones you really should avoid unless they fill a strategic importance.

In the last save I saw the guy had around 100 planets where less than a dozen planets was 80% of their economy. A high amount of planets were just draining the economy and in case of a war would just become impossible to defend with way to little fleet resources. There is no possibility to protect that many planets efficiently. You are just lucky the AI are not super efficient spreading out their forces in my opinion.

Growth is an important stat and whether it is unbalanced or not remains to be seen. I'm sure the developers holds a close eye on this and constantly review data they are able to collect from players games and reports.

One thing no one has hit on here is how STRONGLY population affects research capacity.

Every single game I play the Quameno and im feeling like the Technology Tsar™, I invariably find some Gizureans with double or even TRIPLE my research power.

Like, they have the money for crash research 24/7, the power of their fleets, and the money to do whatever they want on either front.

Has me feeling like the Pakleds from Star Trek every time lol.

"We are not strong..."

[Nightskies]

I suspect a lot of people try to play Quameno tall. The AI also plays the Quameno timidly, forgoing allies and meekly avoiding war. This is not the way.

Play them aggressively, expand for the research stations at least and grow to take advantage of the high population capacity of ocean worlds and relatively good quality marsh planets.

Aiming for a high population is what every empire should do, even with slow growth.

The real point of discussion here is about growth. High growth in itself does not mean high population, it just makes it easier to get it more quickly. There are other ways of getting high population- namely, conquest. Well-executed conquest is superior to good growth.

Then there's racial diversity. That's more important than growth in the big picture- though it's easy to acquire some diversity, focusing on getting as much as possible is a good idea.

If we are trying to talk about having a high population itself being unbalanced... that's... inane. You don't hear anyone saying "high economy is overpowered", right? That's because it's overwhelmingly obvious that having a strong economy is a key to a strong empire- likewise, a large population is key.

No empire should be striving to get ahead with a low population. At worst, they should be making the most of their low population if failing to grow quickly enough, and trying to get more population as soon as they can.

That is assuming the end goal of the empire/player is to dominate the galaxy in some way. Most practically measured in economy, population, and territory.

[jorgen_cab]

Originally posted by I Throw Spears.:

One thing no one has hit on here is how STRONGLY population affects research capacity.

Every single game I play the Quameno and im feeling like the Technology Tsar™, I invariably find some Gizureans with double or even TRIPLE my research power.

Like, they have the money for crash research 24/7, the power of their fleets, and the money to do whatever they want on either front.

Has me feeling like the Pakleds from Star Trek every time lol.

"We are not strong..."

I just started playing a long campaign with the Quameno... they need to really spread out and claim space, even spending money early on to do so. They need research stations. That and their bonuses will easily make up for lower population. In the mid game your economy should be as strong or even stronger than most as it will still be a handful of maxed out planets that make up the brunt of your income.

And as Nighskies said... you need to concentrate on the right planets to colonize. When you play a race such as the Quameno these choices becomes even more important. You need high quality planets and big planets where you can develop your economy. Later on once some core worlds are done you can start developing lesser worlds.

So, your strategy is to settle a planet to claim space, also good if said planet is big with good quality such as a Continental, Ocean or Marsh planets that tends to have decent quality where Continental planets in particular have very high quality. Secondary you concentrate on only big planet with high quality and rely as much as possible on migration. More recreation stations can also help for migration.

It can also be better to save money to crash research rather than spend money to develop new worlds. If the tech you get improve your economy, growth or science it probably is worth it as it will likely boost you economy, growth and science faster than it takes to develop sub par planets. Even with a higher population count.

So it is a matter of how you go about getting what you need. But you still need population, planets and science stations. But there are different ways to go about them based on the race and government you play with.

You also need to consider that planets max out eventually making the growth a moot point. So, population growth is not an exponential gain throughout a game.

[jorgen_cab]

Originally posted by Nightskies:

I suspect a lot of people try to play Quameno tall. The AI also plays the Quameno timidly, forgoing allies and meekly avoiding war. This is not the way.

Play them aggressively, expand for the research stations at least and grow to take advantage of the high population capacity of ocean worlds and relatively good quality marsh planets.

I think this is quite a good way to look at how to play them. I'm allot into role-playing my empires and races. In general I don't think the Quamino are directly aggressive and warlike but they should and will expand in space rapidly and if they get into war they should be mercilessly ferocious and don't care much about enemy civilians at all.
I can even see them taking over enemy research stations as a natural thing. If war is declared they would go for enemy research stations and take them over, and even outside war they could raid and take over research stations from other empires inside their borders.
They really don't pay allot of attention to reputation, why bother if you don't intend to gain allies much anyway or intend to make trade very profitable. You just take the resources that you need instead and ignore most enemy colonies and empires. If they bother you you just bomb them into the stone age until they leave you alone.

I do think they would completely destroy enemy planets through just bombarding them, especially planets they don't think are valuable to take. And the planets they do take they could easily enslave certain races they deem problematic or even exterminate them as they find them lower beings.

In my playthrough my Quameno really don't ally much or make allot of friends, but they also don't really start wars but if someone declare war they will finish them in style and destroy as much as they can to weaken the enemy and remove them as a threat. Invading planets are just wasting resources to them unless there is a huge incentive to do so.

[Nightskies]

And I thought I was an evil Quameno... I feel both admiration and terror for the indifference toward lesser life. This is the way to cyber godhood.

[Nightskies]

Wait a sec- a distant memory called to me. I Throw Spears once said he played mean Quamenos in DW:U.

What did you mean by that?

Or is it that the Gizureans are just that strong in your galaxy(ies)? They haven't been that impressive in mine. At least not compared to other races when they dominate.

[jorgen_cab]

Originally posted by Nightskies:

And I thought I was an evil Quameno... I feel both admiration and terror for the indifference toward lesser life. This is the way to cyber godhood.

Yeah... I mean they just use logic to solve their puzzles. Logic is not always in line with compassion is it... ;)

[I Throw Spears.]

Originally posted by Nightskies:

Wait a sec- a distant memory called to me. I Throw Spears once said he played mean Quamenos in DW:U.

What did you mean by that?

Or is it that the Gizureans are just that strong in your galaxy(ies)? They haven't been that impressive in mine. At least not compared to other races when they dominate.

QuaMEANos, yes lol.

I do NOT play them passively. All shall bow to the frog overlords!

Im pretty sure I eventually added one of those mods that added all the races? BaconMod? I cant recall, its been years now.

On the Gizurean note, yes, it feels like every game I find them they have conquered half the galaxy, have the most money, the most research, and the most fleet strength. Their bonus planet, Nazareno, often spawns as a VERY large planet and gives them a sweet early bonus.