Population Control proposed Fix

[Poppy]

We can do a reducing port contract as well (for the record). but I think transport immigrants using fleet takes the sting out of it.

[PhoenixKnight]

I am not against the proposed implementation. It is a given that will limit treasury growth and reduce discrepancy in the nation chances of being targeted in missions. It is a hassle for smaller population ports.
I understand CJ's wanting to make it fair but I am a proponent of having either a reduction scale or a hardline cutoff.
Example:
Reduction scale
1.8B-2.1B ->210M
1.5B-1.8B->200M
1.2B-1.5B -> 190M
1B-1.2B ->180M
750M-1B-> 170M
500M-250M->160M
250M-500M ->150M
140M-250M ->140M
all else stay as is.

Hardline cutoff: 210M. If you are higher you are reduced. Lower you stay as is

To compensate high investment. Reduce the population growth equation to prevent any new addition, adjust mission population reduction to target higher than the limit, allow pay outs on current population for the next 30 days before implementing the new limits fully

[Vane]

If i read this right I disagree... small nations had to invest greatly to put them on par in any form with the larger nations who lazily leave their populations low.

If a reduction is done on any, it should be on all and then every nation must put fourth the work to rebuild.

[Poppy]

i actually think PK suggestion has something to everyone.
+1 for the thoughtfulness and agree-ability factor

[PhoenixKnight]

If i read this right I disagree... small nations had to invest greatly to put them on par in any form with the larger nations who lazily leave their populations low.

If a reduction is done on any, it should be on all and then every nation must put fourth the work to rebuild.

Some nations choose to keep their ports under a certain limit for a reason. I empathize with those who brought single ports to max but that shouldn't be the sole reason to kill other nations efforts as well.

I believe my suggestion would allow a transition period and a decent reduction scale.

[Vane]

Yet still an unfair one. Why should the small nations take a large loss while the larger nations scoot by on cheaper ends, surely the multiple port nations can afford the recovery, even more so than the 1 porters.

[DezNutz]

I agree with Vane on this. If there is going to be a reduction, it needs to be applied across the board.

[PhoenixKnight]

A reply to that is that if a country was greedy enough to put such a large population into one port then a hardline is the way to go. If you are above that line then tough luck. Notice that I am not recommending that approach. I am recommending a scale which is very reasonable. If a country can get to the max easily and maintain it then they surely can keep a lower limit with ease.
To reciprocate the argument larger nations will still have harder time with multiple ports than smaller nations

[Stan Rogers]

I think a ports population should be based on its ability to feed the populace via food stocks it is able to generate through fishing or importation.
Not enough food being supplied, a percentage of the population dies each reset until the food vs. pops equalize.


Still would like also to reduce port pops through port attacks by other ways besides voodoo such as ship cannon fire on ports.

[Vane]

I think a ports population should be based on its ability to feed the populace via food stocks it is able to generate through fishing or importation.
Not enough food being supplied, a percentage of the population dies each reset until the food vs. pops equalize.


Still would like also to reduce port pops through port attacks by other ways besides voodoo such as ship cannon fire on ports.

+1 to adding alternative ways of increasing / decreasing populations.