Child aging rate

[Fruchtgummi]

So how does this work fro a chronological standpoint? The standard at which children age is 400%. If the parents are both 20 years old when the child is born does that mean the game tells me in a few years time that the child is 12 when the parents are 23? Doesn't that look stupid? Maybe I'm a bit pedantic but that is the sole reason I 'prefer' playing at 100% aging rate even though is feels extremely slow. Can someone explain that to me?

And if it is exactly how I just described can someone tell me a way how I - petty as I am - can somehow find a logical explanation as to why the game tells me that the kid is chronologically only a few years younger than their parents?

[dot]

Only Tynan can answer you why, my guess, so the kids have some purpose in strive to survive (the seemly standard difficulty given it`s multipliers) and forward and not just be a load to the colonies that already were struggling to survive.

Lore speaking idk, there`s no explanation presented as far as i know.

[HunterSilver]

Genetic modification would make sense. Even glitterworlds don't shy away from modifying the fauna and your colonists are likely less genetically similar to modern humans than you think. Gestation periods within the human body have their limits, but externally being able to rapidly grow a child into a working adult has a lot of advantages and the traits necessary to do that have likely become deeply ingrained in most of the population.

I'm sure the inverse is true too. If you can control mental and physical development on a genetic level, there are likely designer babies on planets that age so slowly that they effectively will never grow up, instead acting as forever children for rich parents who want a pet more than a person.

For worker classes though, having a child drain fewer resources and become a productive family member makes economic sense.

[Drakortha]

I play at 100x aging rate for children, because I like children being part of my colony and not just a means to an end (more adult colonists). Also its more time for elderly colonists to get older and pass, making room for a new generation

[conqueror_of_will]

How long do your average colonies last? A couple years at most. What would be the point of adding kids and having them age if it took 18 in game years for them to become adults? Very few people play for that long.

Originally posted by Fruchtgummi:

can somehow find a logical explanation as to why the game

"Why does this game have an illogical mechanic?" Simple, it's a game. If you want a 100% accurate representation of real life, then go outside.

[Jaasrg]

Magic, ain't gotta explain ♥♥♥♥.

[Drakortha]

Originally posted by conqueror_of_will:

How long do your average colonies last? A couple years at most. What would be the point of adding kids and having them age if it took 18 in game years for them to become adults? Very few people play for that long.

Originally posted by Fruchtgummi:

can somehow find a logical explanation as to why the game

"Why does this game have an illogical mechanic?" Simple, it's a game. If you want a 100% accurate representation of real life, then go outside.

My Colony has been going for over 20 years.

[Kazouie]

it's purely a game balance decision so you see kids actually grow up during a normal playthrough.
you could just set adults to the same aging speed as kids, up to 1000% sounds like an interesting challenge and let's your vampires flex their immortality

[The Former]

I've taken to setting everyone to 400%, myself. It's now no longer a game of "how long in vague terms can I last?", and now a question of "how many generations can I last?"

[these people]

Originally posted by Fruchtgummi:

And if it is exactly how I just described can someone tell me a way how I - petty as I am - can somehow find a logical explanation as to why the game tells me that the kid is chronologically only a few years younger than their parents?

Sorry to be a bit pedantic, but they're biologically only a few years younger than their parents, but chronologically will always be 20 years younger than their parents. Rimworld has always had a biological/chronological age split. It was originally used for things like cryosleep, but it makes sense here for children aging faster too.

[Fruchtgummi]

Originally posted by these people:

Originally posted by Fruchtgummi:

And if it is exactly how I just described can someone tell me a way how I - petty as I am - can somehow find a logical explanation as to why the game tells me that the kid is chronologically only a few years younger than their parents?

Sorry to be a bit pedantic, but they're biologically only a few years younger than their parents, but chronologically will always be 20 years younger than their parents. Rimworld has always had a biological/chronological age split. It was originally used for things like cryosleep, but it makes sense here for children aging faster too.

Wait so the game DOES track the children as chronologically younger? I know that age is split into these two parts but I thought the game would just throw this rule out of the window in this special case and just make biological and chronological age the same for children until they are deemed adults.

[Jaasrg]

Originally posted by Fruchtgummi:

Wait so the game DOES track the children as chronologically younger?

https://steamcommunity.com/app/294100/discussions/0/3473990693220558170/

[Fruchtgummi]

Originally posted by Jaasrg:

Originally posted by Fruchtgummi:

Wait so the game DOES track the children as chronologically younger?

https://steamcommunity.com/app/294100/discussions/0/3473990693220558170/

Oh my god that's amazing. That means I can easily explain that stuff and just say my race ages quicker the younger they are. All makes sense and the lore is unharmed. Consider this thread completed!