| saadmanshahid | Saturday, November 24, 2012 - 10:00 am 
Hello,
Which is the most cost effective education, health and transportation index?
And what exactly is the benefit of having high transport index?
I have the funding to push transport index to 240. But will this be a good idea? |
| Mizore | Tuesday, November 27, 2012 - 03:15 pm
Eh, probably best to keep Transportation and Health at just around 130. There isn't much reason to put them higher because they don't do anything much beyond that. This is basically the point where they put their full effect on the Welfare index.
For education, it does pay to go higher so that you have plenty of workers and such with all your corporations having their effectivity upgraded. I wouldn't go past 200 here, lower indexes may be viable. Just remember that as long as your corps have enough workers and your employment is above 90, this index is probably doing it's job and doesn't need to be raised. |
| Crafty | Tuesday, November 27, 2012 - 05:48 pm
But, in my experience, you will eventually need to raise health well above 130 to keep the population numbers from reducing. The pop now diminishes in countries of 40M, much lower than before.
What you say Scarlet? |
| Gaz | Tuesday, November 27, 2012 - 07:00 pm
It doesnt seem very consistent I've noticed. I have a 70 million pop country with 120 health and pop is growing. My other country with 60 mill pop and a 150 health is declining. Weird |
| Mizore | Wednesday, November 28, 2012 - 07:42 am
What matters for population growth in the long run is the birth rate. As far as I know, higher health indexes do not increase the birthrate so any growth or lack of decline in total population that occurs as a result of higher health indexes is probably only temporary.
What I do not know is the factors that determine birthrate. The whole reporting system regarding that is broken, this is more and more clear as the population increases.
I figure the number to watch is the growth/decline of the "Population Age 0 to 4" group to tell if your settings are good nad if your population will grow/decline in the long run. |
| Crafty | Thursday, November 29, 2012 - 12:02 am
Yeah, but theres normally a larger percentage of deaths in the age group 0 to 4, guessing thats death at birth? dunno.
I've asked for explanations of these pages but got none.
The only thing I can sort of see to explain Gazs experience is the ripple of age groups as larger numbers get older and start to die more rapidly. The infamous population bubble but smaller scale. |
| Gaz | Thursday, November 29, 2012 - 09:15 pm
Yes I thought it was a bubble when I noticed it Crafty. I looked around though and noticed there alot of countries with the same issue.
According to my birth/death rate im loosing 250k pop per year in a 60 million country. |
| Mizore | Thursday, December 13, 2012 - 05:23 am
Using secret population manipulation techniques, I've had 3 out of 7 large countries move from marginal decline to extremely marginal growth.
\o/
Anyway, I wouldn't pay any attention to expected number of births... the expected number of deaths may be accurate, but for sure, the expected number of births is not. |
| Rick | Thursday, December 13, 2012 - 08:48 am
How about this one.
On GR, 7 countries between 125 and 132 million.
Two are slow decline. Five are actually rising a bit.
First time I recall pop increase in a country over one million.
On LU, 2 countries, one 52m, one 71 m. Both increasing.
I only look at the Population Graph.
Birth-Death rate shows me loosing over a million/yr, and that is definitely not happening.
Nothing special about the country indexes or welfare. |
