| Monday, September 1, 2014 - 06:01 pm |
Looking at my Main on KB I see this:
Taking Total Pop of Unimatrix 01= 171,881,265
Substract Children 0-4 Years = 161,914,352
Substract Pop still in Education= 125,085,505
Substract Retired Pop = 100,956,678
Substract Employed Pop = 20,192,196
Substract Unemployed Pop = 17,286,448
So this is roughly 10% of Pop thats left and that should be Housewifes and Disabled Workers. with a fully operational Back to Work Program for both which says that the max of both groups is back to work. This 10% hold true for smaller Countries in my empire as well, so no big-pop effect.
When I compare this number to C3s and other Countries that dont have enough CEO Corps to have a fully running Back to Work Program for those two groups guess what I see: 10% of the Pop is Disabled+Housewifes.
Sooo...guess this is seriously broken mechanic?
| Monday, September 1, 2014 - 09:40 pm |
I picked a few random C3s to compare on Kebir Blue. You don't have to do the subtraction thing because the numbers of disabled and retired are listed on the population page.
Total Population 171,881,265
Number of Housewives 12,293,764 (7.15%)
Number of Disabled People 4,940,826 (2.87%)
Number of Retired People 24,128,827 (14.00%)
The Kingdom of Midbara (C3)
Total Population 11,115,013
Number of Housewives 1,024,100 (9.21%)
Number of Disabled People 407,910 (3.67%)
Number of Retired People 630,124 (5.67%)
The Grand State of Sagoki (C3)
Total Population 11,155,271
Number of Housewives 1,024,199 (9.18%)
Number of Disabled People 408,040 (3.66%)
Number of Retired People 630,868 (5.66%)
Looks about right to me. I added the retired people to demonstrate one of the reasons I abandoned a high health index. You have about the same number of retired people as my 287 million pop main does (24,324,620 vs 24,128,827).
| Tuesday, September 2, 2014 - 12:09 am |
One of the questions still would be if C3s do Back to Work Programs?
If C3s dont do them then we can consider ~3,66% like in C3s is 100% Disabled quota.
50% should be rehabilitable so we should get to about ~1,8% total Disabled?
Likewise ~9,2% Housewifes C3s *0,6 = ~5.5% at max Cap?
| Tuesday, September 2, 2014 - 01:19 am |
I think I found your answer. I will use Housewives as the example but it works with disabled too. The way it works appears to be like this.
Say you start with 9.2% of you population as Housewives, which appears to be the norm, and say this works out to 1,000,000 Housewives to have a round number to start with. This means you can return 500,000 Housewives to the workforce, assuming you have the required number of workers in CEO corps, correct? The answer is no.
This is why. As you start training Housewives, the number of housewives goes down. After you train 100,000 of them, the numbers look like this, all else being equal.
Number of Housewives 900,000
Number of Housewives that can return to Labor Market 450,000
Number of Housewives currently at work 100,000
And after 300,000 trained you have almost hit the cap.
Number of Housewives 700,000
Number of Housewives that can return to Labor Market 350,000
Number of Housewives currently at work 300,000
The rub with it is that the trained Housewives that go back to work are no longer counted in "Number of Housewives" and instead are "Number of Housewives currently at work".
I also suspect that the percentage of starting Housewives goes up as the average age goes up. If I compare my "Number of Housewives" + "Number of Housewives currently at work" as a percentage with the average age in a range of my countries, I get this:
Average Age: 30.56
Average Age: 32.19
Average Age: 33.29
Average Age: 34.09
The C3 countries with average ages of less than 30 run at 9.2%. I am going to guess your percentage with an average age of 37.68 is higher than 11.20%. If you trained to the max you are somewhere around 12,293,764 + 12,293,764/171,881,265 = 14.30% .
Another reason to dislike the high health index btw.
| Tuesday, September 2, 2014 - 10:11 am |
Well, cant avoid high health index as a econ Player if you want to aim for higher game Levels.
So your guess would be instead of lets say 50% disabled from the number to start with it is 50% of the disabled after the disabled that gone through rehab? So it would be more like 1/3 can be rehabed then 1/2?
If your guess is right maybe Andy can clarify?