I *think* it's starting to make some sense now 
I figured that it was probably a question of definitions, rereading your posts I see that you did indeed answer my question already. If I didn't spend too many hours doing similar analyses, I might have to call you a nerd. But since I do, I must commend you for your fine work and dedication to the task.
The big question is what are strategical consequences we should take as a result of your findings. If they're correct (as they seem to be), it would appear that small planets are better for growing colonists, since they have a higher relative growth rate.
As an aside, how about creating a new FAQ/strategy guide? There's plenty information on this forum that isn't documented anywhere else, except possibly in the official strategy guide (which I haven't read). Is it illegal to publically post information that stems from it?
I figured that it was probably a question of definitions, rereading your posts I see that you did indeed answer my question already. If I didn't spend too many hours doing similar analyses, I might have to call you a nerd. But since I do, I must commend you for your fine work and dedication to the task.The big question is what are strategical consequences we should take as a result of your findings. If they're correct (as they seem to be), it would appear that small planets are better for growing colonists, since they have a higher relative growth rate.
As an aside, how about creating a new FAQ/strategy guide? There's plenty information on this forum that isn't documented anywhere else, except possibly in the official strategy guide (which I haven't read). Is it illegal to publically post information that stems from it?