can't it simply be an imaginative tech that allows smaller planets to be on par with the bigger planets so that when you calculate the total "dominace" over the universe, one will not have to sorry about "size" ?

The problem is that the current CP2 makes what is supposed to be a bad dice roll (systems with lots of small planets) better than a good one, not just equal. I haven't seen any arguments against equality, since that's clearly what the trait is about, it just wasn't meticulously balanced with all planet classes in mind.



Again, there are really only two solutions to this - boost larges as well in CP2, or remove or repurpose the second level entirely. I don't expect Amplitude to do either (I'd be impressed if they even boost the pop of large/huge low-class planets, which is only half the solution), so really, which method you use is up to modding and personal preference.

In case anyone is wondering who Mikey is talking to, I originally has a sentence in suggesting overpop happiness reduction or +1 on large planets as an alternative CP2, but then I decided I didn't want to make any specific suggestions for a replacement so I edited it out before anyone saw it (or so I thought!).



What I like about CP2 is that it's most useful to players who get a bad start. If you roll lots of small or tiny planets it's as good as rolling mediums, if you rolled mainly big planets anyway it's not much of a boost. It's a catch up mechanic, reducing the swingyness of a bad start.



A +1 to Large planets is improving an already good planet, making it more useful on good starts and less useful on bad starts, so it lacks the main neat thing about CP2. It'd be nice if the replacement (if there was one) had a similar effect on gameplay.

Well, there are already two improvements that reduce overpop approval by -40% apiece, leaving only 20% left for something else to reduce. CP2 would step on the toes of those improvements pretty heavily if you added an overpop approval bonus.



It could, as you say, be changed to just +1 on Large at level 2 (+1/1/1/1/0), and made a 15 point trait. This would keep tiny/small/medium equal, and large and huge +1 (high quality planets notwithstanding). But I think those are the only three options - remove it, nerf it and reduce the cost, or buff it and increase the cost. I can't think of any other pop-related bonuses to put on this trait that won't interfere with or obsolete something else.

Well, once again a timeout ate my post, if anyone could tell me how to enable "keep me logged in" or increase the timeout time it would be much appreciated. Short version because not going to type that all out again:



It doesn't seem unreasonable that certain pop increasing techniques might not scale well. For example: It may be very dependent on a centralised control system which falls apart when it's trying to cover too large an area. It could be a logistics issue or other such technobabble. But since there's three other size-independent pop increasing technologies it's not unreasonable that one may not scale too well. Similarly there's many reasons why Overcrowded Planets 1 might not work above medium, since it could be a poorly scaling faction technology, or it may be a purely psychological thing where they're willing to pull together and double-bunk when space is scarce but refuse to do so when it isn't.

Mikey wrote:
Hm, do the math again? Or are you not including a change to Crowded Planets, which would also be necessary?



If Class 5 planets (asteroid and gas giants) have 1/2/3/4/5 base max population at tiny/small/medium/large/huge instead of 1/2/3/3/4, then Endothermic Structures brings this to 3/3/3/4/5, and Crowded Planets I brings it to 4/4/4/4/5. Of course the current Crowded Planets II screws this up, as it does with all planet types, by bringing it to 5/5/4/4/5. The only way to 'fix' Crowded Planets is to remove its second level, or buff the second level and make it cost additional trait points. Say you buff it as I outlined (+2/2/2/1/0 from +2/2/1/0/0) and increase the point cost, you then get 5/5/5/5/5 on Class 5 planets.



FWIW, Class 4 planets (barren/lava) would need their Huge population increased by 1 as well, as their default is 1/2/3/4/4.

Changing the class 4/class 5 planets to 1/2/3/4/5 just sounds like a good idea to me in general.



If this was done and CP1 and ES left alone then, ignoring CP2, everything seems reasonable, both realismwise, balancewise and gameplaywise. So at that point the only real problem is CP2.



The thing that CP2 does well is that it doesn't make you "better than the best". It only increases the two worst size catagory planets, making it more like an insurance mechanism. Someone with CP2 and lots of good planets isn't actually better off than someone who just rolled well.



What could replace it that has a similar game effect, boosting the underdogs without boosting the people who got lucky on their planet rolls?

Mikey wrote:
Hm, do the math again? Or are you not including a change to Crowded Planets, which would also be necessary?



If Class 5 planets (asteroid and gas giants) have 1/2/3/4/5 base max population at tiny/small/medium/large/huge instead of 1/2/3/3/4, then Endothermic Structures brings this to 3/3/3/4/5, and Crowded Planets I brings it to 4/4/4/4/5. Of course the current Crowded Planets II screws this up, as it does with all planet types, by bringing it to 5/5/4/4/5. The only way to 'fix' Crowded Planets is to remove its second level, or buff the second level and make it cost additional trait points. Say you buff it as I outlined (+2/2/2/1/0 from +2/2/1/0/0) and increase the point cost, you then get 5/5/5/5/5 on Class 5 planets.



FWIW, Class 4 planets (barren/lava) would need their Huge population increased by 1 as well, as their default is 1/2/3/4/4.

Yeah, now I can agree with that, propably overlooked the part with the first proposed changes to the base values.





Though the end result would still at best be total equalization which is quite stupid, not to mention ravity isn't a factor on asteroid belts, they would have to be treated yet again different making things more complicated.

Equalization is fine (at a cost), and that's what the above proposal would do. Making smaller planets just plain better is somewhat silly, though.

The reasoning behind it if for balancing, preventing a player with smaller planets being eternally penalized for it.



Besides, lighter gravity is easy to build on.

Hm, do the math again? Or are you not including a change to Crowded Planets, which would also be necessary?



If Class 5 planets (asteroid and gas giants) have 1/2/3/4/5 base max population at tiny/small/medium/large/huge instead of 1/2/3/3/4, then Endothermic Structures brings this to 3/3/3/4/5, and Crowded Planets I brings it to 4/4/4/4/5. Of course the current Crowded Planets II screws this up, as it does with all planet types, by bringing it to 5/5/4/4/5. The only way to 'fix' Crowded Planets is to remove its second level, or buff the second level and make it cost additional trait points. Say you buff it as I outlined (+2/2/2/1/0 from +2/2/1/0/0) and increase the point cost, you then get 5/5/5/5/5 on Class 5 planets.



FWIW, Class 4 planets (barren/lava) would need their Huge population increased by 1 as well, as their default is 1/2/3/4/4.

Mikey wrote:
+1 base pop to Large and Huge asteroids and gas giants more or less solves this, until you bring Crowded Planets into the mix. Crowded Planets II needs to cost 25-30 points instead of 20, and should give +2 to tiny/small/med and +1 to large instead of +2 to tiny/small and +1 to med. This way you never end up with a situation where a tiny planet is better than a medium, large, or even huge, and large/huge high-quality planets are still significantly better than their tiny/small/med counterparts.

I have the maths in the thread I linked above and for asteroid belts this changes would result in all sizes being the same, except for large and huge having 1opulation: less than the other 3 sizes, still as bad as before. To really address this problem a mod is necessery because the suggestion of changing this in the game has been rejected by the devs already. I now made a thread for the mod I'm planning to develop: [WIP] Population Mod

+1 base pop to Large and Huge asteroids and gas giants more or less solves this, until you bring Crowded Planets into the mix. Crowded Planets II needs to cost 25-30 points instead of 20, and should give +2 to tiny/small/med and +1 to large instead of +2 to tiny/small and +1 to med. This way you never end up with a situation where a tiny planet is better than a medium, large, or even huge, and large/huge high-quality planets are still significantly better than their tiny/small/med counterparts.

Though the tried is 3 weeks old I want to dig it out a moment to leave some more input here.



First of all, I already made a more detailed thread about this in the suggestions section a while ago, it was rejected however. Here the link is anyway: [Suggestions/Feedback] Population size / Planet size



As I stated in the thread I'll have to add that for asteroids and gas giants this really weird (and in my opinion terribly borked) game mechanic causes smaller objects to be actually more valuable. I'm soon going to start a modding project because this is really gamebreaking for me, never seen small planets being more valuable in other games and it really bugs me to see it in ES from all possible games.

With all population technologies available to build, it does seem a little odd - especially because tiny and small planets surpass medium by the end game. I think, however, that the important thing to remember is the amount of time you have to invest to first, get those technologies, and second, build those improvements. One of the advantages of medium and large planets is that you do not need to worry about building any population increasing structures, and can instead focus on more useful improvements or fleets.

It is a bit silly. Larger planets should logically benefit more from special structures and the like.

I think that there is a problem with the relation of planet size to possible population. There are several ways of enhancing your planet population limit, but as there are more buildings for tiny and small planets, or planets with moon, small/tiny terran planets can come up with the same/almost the same population as big or huge terran planets. I do not really understand this. Why does the buidling "endothermic buildings" (I hope I translated it correctly from the German ) have no effect on planets other than tiny and small? And why is the effect for tiny planets bigger (+2) than for small planets (+3)? In my opinion, it should be the other way round. As there is more space on small planets than on tiny ones, they should receive the +2 advantage. Furthermore, average, big and huge planets have so much more space, it should be possible to build this improvement on them and they should receive a bonus, as well. Right now, terran/jungle/water planets can have (with all enhancements) the following population numbers in the endgame:



tiny: 10

small: 10

average: 9

big: 10

huge: 12



It is completely strange that the same number of people can live on a tiny planet as on a big one. If you calculated the available surface, the big planet should have at least three times as much habitable space, thus at least MORE inhabitants than tiny, small or average planets. It would be nice if this could be changed. My suggestion would be:



tiny: 9

small: 10

average: 12

big: 14

huge: 16



Buildings and abilities would have to bee adjusted, of course. "Crowded Planets" should be adjusted to have an effect on all planet sizes. If small panets can be crowded, big ones can be as well. The same is true for all buildings enhancing population numbers.

Yeah something about this bugs me too, but I am not entirely sure of the solution :/

If they don't increase the cap on the larger ones late game, maybe give a larger happiness penalty for overcrowding or something on the smaller ones (or a bonus on the larger whichever).

NewHorizon wrote:
I would say its just a planet equalizer later in the game

This.

Spero42 wrote:
Only problem is, smaller planets don't necessarily have less gravity. Gravity is dependent on mass, not volume. A small, dense planet can have the same gravity as a huge, less-dense one...

Neutron star: twice as massive as the sun. The same size as Brooklyn.

Theodotus wrote:
This makes sense for me. Such a justification seems logical. Build taller, pack 'em in.

Only problem is, smaller planets don't necessarily have less gravity. Gravity is dependent on mass, not volume. A small, dense planet can have the same gravity as a huge, less-dense one...

I would say its just a planet equalizer later in the game, a lot of game mechanics are meant in this way and not meant to make sense lore wise.



Also, I'm not sure how but once i had a 14 population planet.

True.....it could be a balance for races that lost the initial planet rush.