Simcountry is a multiplayer Internet game in which you are the president, commander in chief, and industrial leader. You have to make the tough decisions about cutting or raising taxes, how to allocate the federal budget, what kind of infrastructure you want, etc..
  Enter the Game

W3C - Population

Topics: General: W3C - Population


Monday, October 1, 2018 - 05:45 pm Click here to edit this post
The population issue is much improved in the past weeks.
The problem is not resolved yet.

We now see more growth, falling average age and increasing number of people in the birth giving ages, but the age distribution is not what it should be, mainly in the highly populated countries.

We expect the situation to be largely resolved within two weeks.


Monday, October 1, 2018 - 06:37 pm Click here to edit this post
Thanks Andy and boys in the back! My empires looking healthy right now and thats good! No more diarrhea! Few other things here and there, but so far things are not looking too bad.


Monday, October 1, 2018 - 10:56 pm Click here to edit this post

Thank you SO much! I have noticed an amazing difference in my larger nations. I greatly and sincerely appreciate the hard work you and the other GM's have made on this!


Tuesday, October 2, 2018 - 03:44 pm Click here to edit this post
Thank you


Monday, October 22, 2018 - 10:51 pm Click here to edit this post
Several weeks after a series of improvements to the population distribution, these changes did make a difference but not enough.

we will continue with small updates that will probably enhance population growth but mainly improve the distribution of the population among the age groups.

a next upgrade will take place later this week or early next week.


Tuesday, October 23, 2018 - 11:01 am Click here to edit this post
Argh, this type of tweak seems to cause chaos in smaller countries. My empire still hasn't recovered from the last population spurt.

Can you at least suspend the welfare penalty for selling population whilst the adjustments take place please?


Tuesday, October 23, 2018 - 03:30 pm Click here to edit this post
They are reproducing like rabbits. Maybe we should create a market for contraceptives.


Wednesday, October 24, 2018 - 12:11 pm Click here to edit this post

I am surprised you see population growth as a problem.

This is a one time opportunity to increase your industry and with it the income long term.

I will look at the effects on smaller countries.


Wednesday, October 24, 2018 - 04:23 pm Click here to edit this post
Rapid growth is not always a good thing. Keeping up with having to develop infrastructure, schools, roads, employment, etc. These indexes drop rapidly when a population grows too quickly and we cannot respond quick enough.


Wednesday, October 24, 2018 - 07:02 pm Click here to edit this post
I do not mind personally, but it like noted; its just that these things (population issue) are not easy to deal with wheather you gain alot OR lose alot; it can be really tricky to work out how to get your workers balanced. Has not been easy but like noted Andy; Though i don't mind the change. My bigger countrys still seeing some massive death rates. Even if old; has an effect on the population indexs.


Wednesday, October 24, 2018 - 10:14 pm Click here to edit this post

Can the GM please investigate the issue of LLW? With the massive population increases I don't think education is keeping up. I have Millions of LLW in my nations despite having great education index's. The huge amounts of workers are causing numerous problems from costs to game levels.

I have nations with 200 education, no other worker types, but 5 million LLW.

If this is a wide spread problem the GM might need to get in front of this before we do another pop increase


Thursday, October 25, 2018 - 03:05 am Click here to edit this post
Super i agree. This is something in the past i have discussed in which i have noted issues with medium level works and high level worker shortages. With such being a massive surplus of low level workers. This is something that needs a little more tuning. As i am still seeing some large rates and gouges between medium and high level workers.


Thursday, October 25, 2018 - 12:30 pm Click here to edit this post
The growth of the population can add mainly to the three workers groups.
It can create a surge in workers but if your education is OK, you will end up with more professionals and a better ability to build corporations.
Numbers depend on the population and the effects are smaller with lower population countries.

we think that most of the correction is behind us.
we do need a higher birth rate but in general we are getting there.

we expect the growth in population to normalize and the next upgrade will create a small increase in the birth rates.

There are too many in the older age groups but it will repair itself and average age will decline.
The growth in workers will stop in the coming two to three days.

Thanks again for alerting us about the population problem.

Ragnar Lothbrok

Thursday, October 25, 2018 - 02:23 pm Click here to edit this post
I don't see high population growth as a problem. It presents challenges, but the benefits long-term are worth it.

Thanks for addressing this area over the past few months, Andy!


Friday, October 26, 2018 - 07:33 pm Click here to edit this post

Thank you for taking the time to investigate this issue.

If you need references you may look at my empire on LU. All my nations have 200 or more education index's and 130 in every other index, but due to the population growth I have millions of LLW and hardly anything else. Also the LLW seem to make up a massive disproportional number of workers. In Metalison I have 35 million people making up the workforce(employed+unemployed) of which 10 million are LLW meaning they make up 33% of my available work force. This has also lead to millions being unemployed killing my employment index.


Monday, October 29, 2018 - 10:01 am Click here to edit this post
The growth in numbers stopped already and if your education works correctly, the numbers of LLWs will decline and you will setup many new corporations.

The end result will be much better than before.
population numbers were declining in populous countries and the trend is strongly reversed for some time, going back to a different normal as we speak.

More is needed but actions will be smaller and will not affect the workers numbers as in that correction period.

There will be an increase in the birth rates later this week but more probably next week.

John Galt

Sunday, November 4, 2018 - 01:58 pm Click here to edit this post
I think I have reached the natural upper limit for population with ~150 health index. I just hit around 97 million people and now am seeing some population decline. That is a big improvement from the 60 million limit it used to be at with similar health index. Also the number of retired people I have has remained exactly the same at 97 mill pop as it was with 60 million pop which means that the decreased life expectancy is taking effect.


Sunday, November 11, 2018 - 09:06 pm Click here to edit this post
please, can you help me?

My country: Death Star (Golden Rainbow).
The country is quiet rich (Assets 272T).

My problem is declining population.
Although I have moved many milion people from slave countries, all indexes are up 100 points.
Birth rate is 2.86, death rate 1.01, migration index 66. It means yearly increase 450 000 citizens.

But in fact, I am loosing population (cca 35000/month).

Do you know, how it is possible? It looks like a bug.


John Galt

Monday, November 12, 2018 - 06:06 pm Click here to edit this post
Hi Simcountry888. Are you a free player or premium member? Free players can only have up to 20 million in a country, which could explain why your population is declining (assuming you are a free player of course).


Monday, November 12, 2018 - 10:15 pm Click here to edit this post
Hi John,
yes, I am.
Thank you for explanation. I didn't know it.

Imperial Soldier

Friday, November 23, 2018 - 07:05 am Click here to edit this post
Who is SuperSoldier,whats so important about him and not others, this is unfair to most gamers where one gets more respected than others.


Saturday, November 24, 2018 - 09:39 pm Click here to edit this post

I think the word you meant to use is Favoritism not Respected.
---Favoritism is when they preference one player over another.
---Respected is showing approval as a result of their abilities, qualities, or achievements.

The GM does NOT show favoritism among the player base. I've been here almost 10 years and I well known as mentor and teacher figure to new players. You see me constantly asking Andy a variety of questions because I'm always trying to assess where the game is so I can make sure to help new players to the best of my abilities. The GM is merely responding to my question. If you have a question you can always ask them and they will respond.

Its best to state something along the lines of

(ask your question)

To which he will respond.

I also suggest since you've only been here 10 days to make friends not enemies. Coming into any game with barely of week of being active and calling out other players will not make you friends, but enemies.


Saturday, November 24, 2018 - 10:05 pm Click here to edit this post
While it is true that 10 days is too early to suggest favoritism, I myself, would hesitate to say that there isn't any favoritism. That is my own observation.


Sunday, November 25, 2018 - 01:33 am Click here to edit this post
There is favoritism, over the past 10 years khome and i have witnessed it. I admire this character that comes on and in no time picks fights with established characters, and not cheating while doing it. It takes real balls, balls the game masters are weary of. People who criticize the GM(there arent enough of them) need to be held to a high regard. Games are made great by criticism

Imperial Soldier

Sunday, November 25, 2018 - 02:35 am Click here to edit this post
Thanks guys I understand now.

Daniel Iceling

Sunday, November 25, 2018 - 11:00 am Click here to edit this post
SuperSoldierRCP has been around so long, and helps so many people learn the game, that he is basically an unofficial part of the game's tutorial system.

Additionally, he uses the fact the he has multiple countries, on multiple worlds, to use them to try out different settings and give feedback on the games overall balance. So he's kind of an honorary/unofficial balance and quality control assistant, for the GMs.


It depends on the nature of the criticism. If it's "I've observed this problem, here is how you can reproduce it, and here is a possible and relatively easy to implement fix" Then it can be helpful, and improve a game.

However, if it's "I hate this, it's broken, fix it now" then it really doesn't help anyone.

Signed President of DanNation on LU


Sunday, November 25, 2018 - 08:27 pm Click here to edit this post
Sounds to me that the first example is the case here. Whuch is a good thing.

However, I have grown tired of criticizing on my part. After a few years ones spark tends to burn out and start to feel a little cynical.

*Shrugs* (now I have a better understanding of past vets).


Sunday, November 25, 2018 - 10:32 pm Click here to edit this post

Its tiresome and you do feel a little cynical. Hell Andy and I have been in heated debates to the point,
-I've been forum banned multiple times.
-Jokes have been made about how he has a voodoo doll of me that he stabs.
-One time I gave him praise and he said he was going to print it out and stare at it on bad days in the office.

After a certain point you learn to be constructive with your knowledge. If I could go back and speak to my mentors throughout my time in the game (Blueserpent, Wildeyes, Keto, Serpent, even Wendy) I'd apologize for being super critical.

There is stages of progression in Simcountry.

-New players who come in an criticize all the minor details while proposing every idea that pops into their head with no thought of what it means(How many times as merging nations question been asked). They are so important because they offer the newest ideas and suggestions or innovation, but we have to remember that they are only speaking about issues at face value and have no idea of what past issues that the community has faced.

-The mid-level players who are more constructive and critical of the GM. By critical I don't mean slug-out convo's, but those who challenge old updates and tweaks, but are able to speak from experience on issues. While New players have the BEST intentions they cannot argue against older changes or mechanics because they never knew them. Mid levels have been around along enough to have a knowledge of most mechanics and can see why the GM does certain things that have left others scratching their heads. These are the players we are lacking. There are several older players still around and plenty of young guns, but SC truly lacks this mid-level player who can still think like a new player with ideas, but experienced enough to pick their battles.

-"Veterans". Aries is a great example. He had a massive wealth of experience, long gaming history, and did what I'm doing now. Tested all the updates, checked the data logs, taught new players, offered gaming support, asked the GM critical questions when necessary... Maybe the GM might be quick to answer the "Vets", but that's not favoritism. In some cases I think its because they know that info being spread. In my youth I was always mad at Tom(the guy Andy replaced) would regularly answer Blueserpent on the forums when asked and I thought it was favoritism. However, Blue was also talking to players. Telling us the newest updates, strategies, helping new players. Andy was seemly quick to answer Aries or other vets, but what ever he learned you knew it would be shared with the community.


Monday, November 26, 2018 - 05:48 pm Click here to edit this post
Aries was a wealth of info, no doubt. I wonder how he is doing btw.

Those are all good points, a lot of those players you mentioned were before my time, except for maybe Serpent. So even with my length of time, there was a lot of history I had missed. Hopefully some long term player base remains, such as yourself. Helps me see the bigger picture.


Tuesday, November 27, 2018 - 07:22 am Click here to edit this post
Ive been around off and on, with various names, since 2007. my longest run of playing went from 2012-2016.. I remember GMs promising new features, they only delivered on one, the space game(if you could call it that.) I guess seeing this game shrink, and changes that seem to target large empires(such as automation when the option is turned off mentioned in another thread on here, unproportionate amount of disasters affecting large players etc), has made me bitter and biased against the GMs. Khome and i have been SC buddies since 2013, and we both share in this feeling of being targeted by game mechanics just because we have a large empire. I still love SC though which is why im here..
I remember Wendy, i remember she liked to stir the pot a bit.


Tuesday, November 27, 2018 - 03:47 pm Click here to edit this post
2013, when you say it like that it seems like a long time. lol

Lord Mndz

Tuesday, November 27, 2018 - 06:04 pm Click here to edit this post
Economy/war shrinking is the main problem right now and I never understood GMS reasons behind that. Good profits allow players to do so much more and today so many players are near bankruptcy that any error can cause them to leave the game.

If your country has negative assets you cannot build new corporation so what the hell you should do to get out of this situation?? This is silly.. (Buy cash is not the right answer)

Michael The King

Tuesday, November 27, 2018 - 08:19 pm Click here to edit this post
Awesome thread guys and thanks Andy for the updates, i really appreciated it.


Tuesday, November 27, 2018 - 10:45 pm Click here to edit this post
The economy is not shrinking by any means. Over the last few years income has dramatically increased. The problem with the war game is a very complex issue.
In the past many players(myself included) blamed the war levels, but its not just the levels. I think the levels happen to be the climax of the debate and it accidentally became the "Issue".
The biggest issue the game faces is a lack of forced communication, high cost of goods for the war game, and lack military structure.

Right now for example using the GM default blueprints you need 6000 Anti Air missiles. Based you have 150 forts that's 900,000 missiles. Assuming you ONLY pay the base price($1.78M) for the missiles that's $1.6T, 330Q missiles will run you $5.3T. Factor in civilian targets, increased ammo numbers, all the other defensive missiles needed and weapons, a player is looking at 10's of trillions of dollars on the low ends.

If the GM wants to increase the war game I can offer some insight and personal opinion. These are my and some opinions of others over the last few years.

---First, is a sense of forced communication.
I'm sorry, but the fact is that a player should be vulnerable to war once they hit war level 1. I know the GM doesn't like that statement, but its true. On LU only 12 people are war level 3 or above. Changing the rules so those low level players are now vulnerable to attack would add 100 plus players to the mix and would FORCE them to find federations, seek out allies, and build some form of military. Back when I joined you had 21 days before you where able to be attacked and you had to find people. That's what a lot of vets complained about and I think that the message that got lost. Its not about the war levels as much as the now dramatically limited interactions. Less interactions lead to less engagement, less engagement leads to a smaller community. If the game is to continue to grow, the lower levels must be vulnerable to attack. Sure more can be done to protect them, Lets limit the range of war levels that can attack them, maybe add a new function where winning against a similar level moves you up, increase time before war. Fact is those we can change, but removing them from the game entirely did more hard them good. To see the game grow and increased social activity they must become vulnerable.

---Second, is costs of goods overall must be decreased.
***Andy, If you reading you guys have done amazing work lately please dont think it hasn't been noticed!***
Honestly the cost of military needs to be a fraction of what it is. I have a few ideas here me out.
---Double the production of all weapons corporations while cutting the base price in half and triple all ammunition corporations cutting the price to 1/3 its base value.
Here's my Logic, upgrade them in large increments of 20% increases at a time. Since they are so small in employee count they would be easily correctable for the GM. C3's could close them in large numbers and build other corps. Same with players and wouldn't overall kill the markets while the corps still retain profitability. Once we are half way though the process we allow war level 2 into the war game, give it some time then level one. This allows these newly introduced players to buy huge amounts of assets and much cheaper costs simulating the game and market.


Wednesday, November 28, 2018 - 12:17 am Click here to edit this post
I completely agree with you on forced communication Super Solider. Like you said in the old days you had 21 days, indeed that did force me to find a federation and I made new friends, had a great time!
Youre also right, the cost of war is outrageous, as is being forced up the war levels, making it more and more costly and almost IMPOSSIBLE to practice war on C3s as the cost outweighs the benefits.

I was surprised by how much weapon/ammo cost went up when i returned 6 months ago. Almost went broke. Just to beat a c3.
I really miss the old days when 'raiding' was a viable way to maintain HUGE war like empires. when the gm did away with raiding by forcing people up war levels, a mass exodus happened within my federation at the time(soviet federation on KB)
People lost interest, and it killed activity. Long standing players/empires left. The democratic system the(at the time) 1000 year old Soviet Federation had, complete with parties, elections, a council, a premier, council meetings, legislation, and a constitution, with 4 previous constitutions, DIED. Never to return. Activity on KB has been 'dead' since. Flickers of small scale drama here and there but nothing fun or interesting. Change the war game, and i feel some of the old player base will return. If they find out about the changes that is, which is where marketing would help, like supersolider pointed out in another thread

On a positive note, i do feel the recent changes the GM has made to population have actually helped my countries. Ive never had a more profitable empire at any point in the past 11ish years of playing. The market here on KB tho is still very unstable..


Wednesday, November 28, 2018 - 03:39 am Click here to edit this post
Also, the lack of communication between GMs and the people PAYING them for their product is a huge turn off with me. I know they have lives, I know they are busy but It doesn't take long to check these forums once a day and type a message, esp with how inactive the forum is now. I work 50-60 hour weeks, maintain a house, and a reptile collection and I still check this space everyday, sometimes twice. It takes 5 minutes at most. they should at least interact with people on here more, especially the ones who have paid them a lot of money, quite a few hundred over the years from me. If they cant do that, why are we paying so much for their game? This is in the top 5 of the most expensive online games ive played.

I love the game, I love the product the GMS have built, but they could be doing a hell of a lot better when it comes to community engagement esp in posts like these, and giving players what they actually want, which is new features, and improved older features. I don't care to much about new features so much, I care more about them stepping up and interacting with us a bit more. Update posts are good, but they rarely interact with it after the first few initial posts.

Im not quick to give them praise or thanks anymore, and there are reasons for it.

Daniel Iceling

Wednesday, November 28, 2018 - 05:09 am Click here to edit this post
I'm not sure forcing the war game down people's throats is the right answer. I've played games like that before. In the end, I quit them all. It just isn't an enjoyable feeling to be randomly attacked, and have your progress destroyed by some bored person that wants nothing more than to hit you, just the fun of destroying you.

To me, one of the great things about Simcountry, is that it doesn't have war at the heart of it's simulation. You are able to grow, learn, build, and play. All without having some enemy kicking down the door and trying to destroy everything.

If I were forced into war, I'd probably stay around for a while. But in the end, I'd get sick of constantly having to rush to my computer, to make sure everything I had built hadn't just been blown to hell, over nothing. Long term, I'd probably leave the game to avoid the needless stress.

Ultimately, the goal should be to enable people to enjoy the game in their own way. Not to force a single play style on everyone.

Signed President of DanNation on LU


Wednesday, November 28, 2018 - 08:06 am Click here to edit this post

That's why we have war level 0 and secure mode. Plus the addition of War protection.

I've been an advocate that says new player nations should NOT have military assets inside of them and you start the game at war level 0. Should you take the time to spend the few trillion needed to expand your military that's your choice and should you declare war a notice should appear.

"WARNING, upon successful completion of your first war you will be moved into war level 1 which will make your empire vulnerable to attacks from other players... Do you wish to continue?.. Yes/Declare war .... No/Cancel War"

After buying the weapons, prepping, and reading the message, if a player says "I didn't know" that's not much of a defense.
Point is War used to excite the game. Hell players who ever warred where called "Bean Counters" and in most cases where just as important to the war as the war players, because you needed someone to keep the economies going as everything around you was exploding.

Lord Mndz

Wednesday, November 28, 2018 - 06:17 pm Click here to edit this post
Super, you say that "The economy is not shrinking" and then few sentences after you add that war is too expensive by all means. This is the same thing I pointed out and it means that you do not have enough profits in your countries to support active armies and buy goods for a war or to repair war damage. The cost of army even when it is fully inactive is so high nobody wants to keep it active.

I do not know now what is the point of war? you will not get cash as money will be moved out from the country. I imagine that if countries have big enough profits and cannot save cash without an army then this is the interest to defend and to seek after.


Wednesday, November 28, 2018 - 07:17 pm Click here to edit this post
---On one hand you have the immediate costs or starting costs of a military: Buying weapons/ammo, assets, materials. Those are very expensive and need to be reduced. That's where the 10's of Trillion of dollars come into play and something that needs attention. That's one very real issue I'm attempting to address.

---On the other hand you have the economic military game. Having an economy large enough to support the monthly costs and material requirements. Many players lobbied for this to be reduced and were successful. When I say the economy is growing and progress is being made, I am referring to the monthly cost.

In the past it was not uncommon for nations to lose 10's or 100's of billions per month due to the monthly costs of running a military. With recent changes to military consumption, new maintenance products, and increased corporation hiring/profitability. Players can now run countries with a decent economy capable of dramatically reducing costs. Sure it can be reduced, but this area has made very significant reductions over the last while.

Like I said war is a very complex issue. That's probably one reason I think there is so many issues. You can only patch a patch so many time before you need a rework and I believe that there might need to be one in the future.

Michael The King

Wednesday, November 28, 2018 - 08:13 pm Click here to edit this post
Thank you SuperSoldier, I understand now how you work with the game.


Thursday, November 29, 2018 - 01:02 am Click here to edit this post
Hi SuperSoldierRCP

Is Wendy still around? I enjoyed her :)

My 3rd time back over about 10-15 years...whatever the exact years I cant remember. Enjoying it and intend sticking around.


Thursday, November 29, 2018 - 01:14 am Click here to edit this post
Wendy left a long time ago. I enjoyed her too.

Michael The King

Friday, November 30, 2018 - 04:09 pm Click here to edit this post
LMAO Holy Shit thanks guys.

Natural Adder

Friday, December 7, 2018 - 01:08 pm Click here to edit this post
Not going to go there; ill just write that why crimson was a flop is because it was more bug then world, and it cost 100 gold coins to go flop into a beetle den. Like really? Most players even like so wanted A FREE oppurtunity to fight, and develop. Crimson one should have been free and encouraged brand new players to fight there. All that gold coin gimmick junk drowned crimson belly flop to its doom and it was non more. Perhaps no fee, join for free and plenty of resource to build an army and allow people to fight! Oh and make sure the world is not bug infested.

Simcountry seems to be doing better though. It been about dead around here for 10 years; as in no intense war and vets ruling the place. So simcountry could see some new life in time. I am enjoying how the game is, but could use some more life!

Add a Message