Colonisation population seems too dependant on Rainfall

[zgrssd]

According to this thread:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... =&#4831752

If you get the Rainfall per year high enough - in the meters/year, making the whole planet a tropical rain forrest - you can get colonisation populations in the Billions.

With that data (3.6 meter rainfall/year, 3.2 bi years, 40°C, 23% Oxygen from sea life), I could get a planet of 1484 millions (1.4 Billions) within 3 Colonisation rolls
Another 6 or so rolls and I got 3.5 Billion. Another 3 got me 4.6 Billion.

Oddly the really extreme values (several Billions) seem to end up with 0% Farming Industry. So it is not like it was the abundance of local food that caused those values - it just seems entirely based on rainfall. And possibly the population density block out hexes for farming during generation.

This does not seem very intentional. Both the total population size being way out of scale and the lack of any local farming seem to conflict, producing a inflated amount of ruins with no internal logic.

[GodwinW]

But why is this a bug or a problem?

I rather like high populations like 20 billion being possible but very rare.

And the manual text itself says trade and non-self-sustaining planets (as in: depending very much on trade) were just a characteristic of the Galactic Republic (efficiency was key, robustness was not)

[zgrssd]

ORIGINAL: GodwinW

But why is this a bug or a problem?

I rather like high populations like 20 billion being possible but very rare.

And the manual text itself says trade and non-self-sustaining planets (as in: depending very much on trade) were just a characteristic of the Galactic Republic (efficiency was key, robustness was not)

It is one thing for a moon, planetoid or lava planet with nothing but Agricultural Domes to rely on imports.

But a planet with continents of arrable land, meters of rain every year and billions of people imports 100% of it's food? That is not a mater of being robust, that is a mater of being plain stupidly inefficient!

And I think it is not even intentional. My guess is that hexes get split between the the various uses: population/Service industry (only a fraction of that leaving ruins), mining, agriculture. And because the population is much above what was anticipated, there simply is no hexes left to put a mine or farm on during colonisation.

[Kamelpov]

well in stellaris you can have a earth like planet and go full commercial zone.

[zgrssd]

ORIGINAL: Kamelpov

well in stellaris you can have a earth like planet and go full commercial zone.

In Stellaris, Food is based on districts while Commercial zones are building. While you need some city districts to run those zones, you should still build enough farms (well, or mines) to feed them. Local food independance is usually one goal I have in the game.

[Vic]

Nice catch. In fact it was the reverse... low rain was excessively reducing natural pop growth over time.

Will be improved in next Open Beta.

Oh... and remember that it is very possible in the old Galactic Empire days that a Planet just had more lucrative economic activities than doing agriculture. Bulk-transport in these times was cheap. They might have also chosen for producing Food in a synthetic way.

Best wishes,
Vic