My People are dying & it's not our Fault. /People Of The Realm

:angry: … Growth Range : -1ºC to +45ºC, … that is meaning [included], seems a bit Advanced Mathematics, … while with -6ºC, Growth was -372/h, but with -1ºC became some why -300 while shall be positive already …
*land mass allows for 32.5K … mistake!

Hmm could be but I wonder about two things.

  1. The land mass is listed in RED so its a dangerous amount that might influence it. Landmasses or Temp in RED cause damage to the growth rates
  2. Same comment on the Temp. -1 c on a planet with a 50% landmass MIGHT just might not cause a pop drop but that’s what they mean -1 to +45 under otherwise ideal conditions may be just survivable.

I agree with Mental it looks like a bug but it might just be poor documentation as well.

1 Like

That is the growth range at optimal water to landmass ratio.

The further you get away from 50%, the further the ratio has an impact on the growth modifier of temperature.

1 Like

Ah thats what I thought so it might be poor documentation then. IE the combo of ultra low landmass plus borderline temp screwing him over despite the theoretical survivability?

Yep, pretty sure that is what is happening.

If you play around with the temp/landmass ratio, you will notice that temp has a much larger effect, and landmass ratio has a greater effect the closer you are to your optimum temp.

Weighing in to agree with @Cheatle - this is not a bug, but a feature, albeit a poorly-explained one.

With the planet’s land mass at only 2%, a long way from the PR’s optimum of 50%, growth will still be negative even though the temperature is tolerable. From my experience, the turnover point is somewhere in the region of +6 degrees C for cases like this. If you’re in the mood for some “advanced mathematics”, I’ve just completed an update of the Populations page, which lays out how the growth rate equation is related to temperature, happiness and land mass.

The in-game help window will only say something along the lines of “This planet is too hot/cold”, and doesn’t mention any hydro adjustment that might be needed. It’s been an issue several times in the past, and definitely needs to be improved in future.

This is what I was gonna write until I read the populations page. I dont agree that the landmass should in effect make the temperature un-palletable…

This should never go negative when neither are catastrophically high or low… Even 1% of available land at a survivable temperature would allow the creation of at least 1 new colonist…

Reported this earlier to joe. temperature and landmass work independently… from what I remember. It may have changed I dont know, I’m not playing much per se.

The landmass is in tollerance and what is quoted as the temperature range… so the growth should be positive.

So landmass affects the max pop… and temp affects the growth… if you are over max pop then you wlll lose people and if you are outside the temp ranges also…

therefore this is a bug…

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

not true … tested on previous colonies … there is misconception about -1ºC

try get experience & after out of - doing any comments … o/
*you have original avatar …

picture n.2 …
is yellow & the problem is made by programer(s) …

more …

even +4ºC is too cold … this absolutely CONTRADICT to “Growth Range -1ºC … +45ºC” …
… while -1ºC … +4ºC is since - no growth range …
growth range starts from +1 per hour … that’s it … & while -1ºC there can be such as zero per hour, … this can occur, but not dying population …

Growth rate is based on temp and landmass. When both are optimal you reach peak growth rate. The further you get from optimal the larger the decrease in growth, and eventually it leads to population loss.

As others have said, it’s poorly explained, but that’s how it works.

Use climate and hydro stations to adjust temp and landmass. Problem solved.

Yeah, I can’t quite follow what you are on about.

Nothing I said is wrong.

I almost agreed with you. Then thinking about it, if a race required not only space to exist on, but “food” and “water” to continue to survive, then only a 1% land mass might physically house them, but would it be also able to feed them. Syntis are robots, they don’t need “food”, maybe 1 of them could survive alone indefinitely. Anything organic should not.

Good instinct, and right for the in practice game mechanics that we need but, this is why we should NOT use absolute physics in a game. Its great if the game provides some internal identifiable logic, (Outscape never has in my opinion which is why it has so many balance issues) But in this case just no: Consider.

Using Earth as a comparison I dead recon 1% landmass of a 20 KKm world to be out to be about 210 Thousand square miles of land.

Assuming say 10% is habitable that;s 20 Thousand square miles to support how many thousand people? Lets assume half the land mass is for living in and half for food shall we? So 10K square miles

Well quoting from here:

Conventional Farming

According to this source, the highest caloric density food is sweet potatoes, which provide 70,000 kcal/ha/day. (with potatoes providing 54,000 which is roughly in line with what ArtOfCode calculated.) This involves fairly intensive farming, so we’ll need to let the land lie fallow for about a third of the time, reducing our long-term average to around 47,000 kcal/ha/day for our most dense food crop (in terms of kcal.ha/day). This is achievable with fairly primitive technology. This corresponds to 4,700,000 kcal/km2/day, which can feed 2350 people on a 2000 kcal/day diet of pure sweet potatoes

So about 26 thousand citizens on 1% is feedable using current (Primitive tech) before needing to build hydroponics…

No all thats unhelpful baloney.

The OP’s original point that it SEEMS to be a bug is valid.

The game needs in this incidence to simply things and say “Hostile Marginal Viable” only the internal precise calculations it can keep to itself giving us the fun of doing the balancing act of Hydro & Climate stations.

The game giving exact figures like -1 to +45 growth range, when they have shown they don’t follow exact figures in every case just leads to new player confusion.

And that I submit is a major “No no”

Sorry for techno babble really feeling quite ill today. I shut up now.

Thats what farms are for… 1% of Earth is 5.1 million km² which is 2200 Km wide and long… thats still a lot of planet for to manufacture an extra colonists on the way to max pop…

If you cant make 1 then it makes a mockery of the landmass/max pop idea…

I can live with whatever mechanics we have, so long as the UI is very clear… a tailored curved graph as per @SternguardJake added to the wiki would be a nice way to show this and it would fully explain what the user is seeing…

1 Like

@Morri @DeicidE @Zathabar @Archo @SternguardJake

As per the 1% debate, current Hydroponics is around 30-50% faster growth rates, higher yields, larger veggies/fruits, and you don’t have to change fields. Furthermore, while they do need slightly more space than when grown in dirt, they can be stacked quite high. One hydroponics farm could yield 7-10x the amount of food as a planted field in that same spot.

We talk a lot about scifi and the possibilities, but honestly hydroponics is what is going to allow us to survive long term in space.

As for the description on how temperature works.

IF it says we can survive at -1 C, then we should survive at -1 C, even if the growth rate is ZERO. I don’t mind this bell curve when it comes to landmass modifying the temperature’s growth rate, but we do need some kind of chart to look at.

As for 1% landmass, another thing you might take into consideration is humidity and atmospheric conditions on a planet that is 99% water. Also we have to look at the water cycle, and how much water vapor there is, how much fresh water is available, and if we need to produce fresh water out of the air or sea. A lot of new technology now a days about getting fresh water right out of the air.


Just because 1% landmass is still land, that doesn’t mean that land is hospitable. It could be volcanic, it could be on a pole, it could be a thosands of 5m x 5m islands, or a single mountain peak. Add in what you could expect in terms of catastrophic natural disasters (hurricanes, tsunamis, etc), and it’s fair to presume that a population would suffer.

The end goal here is for each race to have a target planet type. Anything outside that is a hostile environment.

We don’t get into atmosphere, gravity, radiation, or a host of other things that similar galactic expansion games have. Let’s not dumb things down by removing one of the two factors we have.