I have experimented with high health and low health. In this, I have found a few things. One, Borg Queen is right about ignoring the birth/death numbers. They are useless. Look at the ticker and see if you are gaining or losing pop.
Next thing I found was the issue with high health. It works, for awhile. It is definitely a key factor in growth. However, high levels of it seems to influence the other key factor, which is average age (or, at least, average age is a derivative of various pop group ages which have the real effect).
My current theory is that natural growth is at least primarily, and perhaps totally, dependent on those two things, health and average age. Specifically, how high health is and how low average age is. I have found a high health index, 170-180+, will raise average age and, eventually, eliminate natural growth and start a mild decline in population over time.
I am currently testing a mid-range, 1
hektor you need to have equal numbers for your schools highschools and university indexes... the overall index trends no IS your lowest of the 3 so your just wasting money on all the universities and highschools that take you above 125 index
I am about to make my education index equal, raise the social security index and build more hospitals. Already now, my population index goes up, the deaths decrease, but births are still going down.
Ill wait and see.
Thanks guys
In countries with very large population, birth and death numbers are indeed incorrect and we need to fix them.
The numbers used to be what is showing, but then we have made a change, long time ago, to stop the decline of the population that was very severe in countries with population larger than 50 or 60M.
(and worse when the population was at 150M).
The population can decline a bit, as there are death numbers in the younger groups too and these continue.
A high health index does reduce death cases in all age groups but don't expect the population to grow in you are at 150M.
