Discussion: food costs

Spiffor · January 29, 2004, 15:55

Since the early times of Civ1, Civ has always known three kinds of resources used to pruduce things: shields, gold and population.

This thread is about the idea of spending food to get things done as well.

Food-spending is an indirect population-spending, which should be used when a population cost would be too drastic, but when you want to avoid unpopulated cities to become production powerhouses.

For example, the intensive production of military units, could cost you a little food (say, 2-4 grains upon completion), reflecting a limited loss of population that is not as drastic as losing a whole citizen, but yet hampers your growth is you use it too much.

Another example, in CtP-ish public works, would be that each public work would cost a little food to reflect for the use of workforce.

I also actually think that pop-rushing should rather be "food rushing", meaning that huge cities can pop-rush big constructions. But I understand some people would disagree with me on this one.

So what do you think?

Are food costs a good idea ?

How do you think about implementing them ?

What are the limits of the idea ?

Maniac · January 29, 2004, 18:08

on units being built costing food.

Fosse · January 29, 2004, 20:46

I don't like this, but not because it's a poor idea... instead because I want to see city growth be no longer dependant on amount of food production, and I want to see populatio measured in numbers instead of "points."

... but to prevent a thread jack... I like your idea because pop rushing has a very "all or nothing" feel to it, but I think a better approach (ignoring my more radical points above) would be to make population rushing and gold rushing available in most governments, and giving the ruler the option of which they wish to use.

joncha · January 29, 2004, 23:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Fosse
... would be to make population rushing and gold rushing available in most governments, and giving the ruler the option of which they wish to use.

Yes! With a shield/food/gold slider for rushing improvements: regular cost, 20 shields. Want it faster? add food/gold to speed up production some or all of the way. They could even include cost variables for government type... ie, cheaper (gold) cost for republic, cheaper (food) "pop-rush" for despotism, etc.

jon.

hexagonian · January 30, 2004, 15:08

Well, food useage/rations are used as a global happiness modifier in CTP, so you know I'd like to have it play a greater role in civ4...

Seriously, using food as part of the cost equation would increase the considerations for a player without necessarily increasing the micromanagement aspect of the game, so I'm all for it. It would probably require a reworking of the amount of food generated.

Kuciwalker · January 30, 2004, 15:46

I don't want military units to cost food; that's ridiculous. It takes forty food to build a regiment of Riflemen? Rather, the military should require some (small) food upkeep.

(In addition, I think the population should stabilize BELOW the maximum, so you don't have to starve people if you want to expand your military a small amount).

wrylachlan · January 30, 2004, 16:05

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
I don't want military units to cost food; that's ridiculous. It takes forty food to build a regiment of Riflemen?

It already does cost food to build units. Every time you pop rush a unit you are spending food to do it. But as currently implemented you're spending food in increments of a full granary. He is merely suggesting to make it more granular.

Kuciwalker · January 30, 2004, 16:10

That's different though - you are using people's LABOR to build units. Indirectly, it is food, but food is NOT used in the construction of rifles

Plus, how often do you pop rush?

wrylachlan · January 30, 2004, 16:52

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
That's different though - you are using people's LABOR to build units. Indirectly, it is food, but food is NOT used in the construction of rifles

No, but rushing a unit means taking a worker out of the fields to put them in the workshop, so the amount of food coming in goes down. Makes perfect sense to me.

Quote:

Plus, how often do you pop rush?

Every single game I pop rush a bunch of temples along my borders.

hexagonian · January 30, 2004, 18:06

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
That's different though - you are using people's LABOR to build units. Indirectly, it is food, but food is NOT used in the construction of rifles

Sure, you don't need food to create the rifles, but you sure need it to feed the people pointing those rifles.

If you are working with the assumption that the turns needed to create a Rifleman is not only for weapon creation but also for (basic) training, then having food as part of the creation process is valid.

Spiffor · January 30, 2004, 19:39

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
That's different though - you are using people's LABOR to build units. Indirectly, it is food, but food is NOT used in the construction of rifles

You are also manning a military unit with people you won't work in the fields / factories anymore.
Think in terms of Civ3: you'll notice the abstract population figure of a city depends on the amount of food more than the amount of citizens (this figure has no gameplay value). A city that has 4 citizens and 0 foos will have "100,000" inhabitants. A city with 4 citizens and 2 reserve food will have "102,000" inhabs or so. If a military unit costs a little food on completion, it will merely show that 2,000 people left their plows for swords.
That's not something unbearable, but I think it is not absurd, and I think it can avoid a player to overuse a small but strategical city to churn out units like there was no tomorrow.

However, I insist the food costs for military units should be minimal, once they have been normally built with shields. The loss of 40 food upon completion is absurd: you'll basically never want to build military units in ancient age, and you'll be very cautious about it even in modern age. Food costs should make the game more interesting, not more tedious.

VetLegion · January 30, 2004, 19:58

I like the initial suggestion! May need some working but has a right ring to it

Spiffor · January 30, 2004, 20:33

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
Plus, how often do you pop rush?

In this game, I'm playing a communist empire, and most AI countries are fascists. Pop rush galore!

hexagonian · January 30, 2004, 20:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
However, I insist the food costs for military units should be minimal, once they have been normally built with shields. The loss of 40 food upon completion is absurd: you'll basically never want to build military units in ancient age, and you'll be very cautious about it even in modern age. Food costs should make the game more interesting, not more tedious.

The key, as you said, is to keep it a small hit rather than a large one.

And the system is partially in place in CTP2...In CTP2, population is measured incrementally - your population is indicated down to the man. (Babylon - pop. 25,386) So your setup could work, since it is food that causes the city to grow in size.

Having a loss of a couple hundred men upon completion of a unit would not break the city either - it would nicely simulate the lost food element of the equation. City growth could be retarded for a turn or two whenever you build a unit.

I would like to see a national food pool for your military units that are in the field too. It could be every unit you field, every unit outside a friendly city radius or outside your borders. (TBD)

Kuciwalker · January 30, 2004, 22:09

Quote:

Originally posted by hexagonian

Sure, you don't need food to create the rifles, but you sure need it to feed the people pointing those rifles.

Yeah, duh - that's why I suggested UPKEEP. You aren't feeding them just once, are you?

Kuciwalker · January 30, 2004, 22:10

Quote:

Originally posted by wrylachlan
No, but rushing a unit means taking a worker out of the fields to put them in the workshop, so the amount of food coming in goes down. Makes perfect sense to me.

And that's how it works in the game - if you poprush, you lose some pop (duh) and so you produce less.

wrylachlan · January 31, 2004, 10:26

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker

Quote:

Originally posted by wrylachlan
No, but rushing a unit means taking a worker out of the fields to put them in the workshop, so the amount of food coming in goes down. Makes perfect sense to me.

And that's how it works in the game - if you poprush, you lose some pop (duh) and so you produce less.

Yes, but as it is now, you permanently loose pop... to me that doesn't make as much sense as loosing food. Why don't those workers go back to the fields after they're done building that temple? Also, since the pop is integral, in the early game you can loose half a cities pop to build one temple... what he's proposing is that instead of automatically loosing pop, you take them off the fields, and into the workshop. If that puts you in negative pop growth, then you loose a pop just like now, but its much more granular.

hexagonian · January 31, 2004, 10:50

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker

Quote:

Originally posted by hexagonian
Sure, you don't need food to create the rifles, but you sure need it to feed the people pointing those rifles.

Yeah, duh - that's why I suggested UPKEEP. You aren't feeding them just once, are you?

No, but you are suggesting that upkeep only happens after the unit is finished. I'm making the suggestion that upkeep is also part of the creation/training process, as well as when the unit is ready to take the field. (Try telling raw recruits that the US Army is not going to feed/pay them until they are ready to take the field...)

Reread my post - I want both elements to be part of the equation.

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
And that's how it works in the game - if you poprush, you lose some pop (duh) and so you produce less.

I think everyone can agree that poprushing takes away production/food/commerce - the argument is for making the loss of population (or food useage, since food translates into population) to be a regular cost of unit creation.

It adds a level of realism to the system without adding undue layers of micromanagement.

Kuciwalker · January 31, 2004, 10:51

Quote:

Originally posted by wrylachlan
Yes, but as it is now, you permanently loose pop... to me that doesn't make as much sense as loosing food. Why don't those workers go back to the fields after they're done building that temple? Also, since the pop is integral, in the early game you can loose half a cities pop to build one temple... what he's proposing is that instead of automatically loosing pop, you take them off the fields, and into the workshop. If that puts you in negative pop growth, then you loose a pop just like now, but its much more granular.

They are always building the temple, but this time you forced them into hard labor and they died.

Kuciwalker · January 31, 2004, 10:53

Quote:

Originally posted by hexagonian
No, but you are suggesting that upkeep only happens after the unit is finished. I'm making the suggestion that upkeep is also part of the creation/training process, as well as when the unit is ready to take the field. (Try telling raw recruits that the US Army is not going to feed/pay them until they are ready to take the field...)

Reread my post - I want both elements to be part of the equation.

Should they also require gold to build?

hexagonian · January 31, 2004, 11:26

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
Should they also require gold to build?

That can be part of the consideration.

Look at it this way - if the civ model takes ALL economic elements of the game (shield production, food production, commerce production, as well as production cost, unit upkeep, etc.) and multiplies it by 2, 3, or 5, suddenly, you have a little more flexibility in your model. So a normal grassland tile may produce 10 food/5 shields instead of 2 food/1 shield if multipled by 5. At the same time you can multiply the requirements for city growth/unit and building production etc. by 5.

You may ask, 'What's the purpose of this?' You are not actually changing anything. After all, a spearman will still take 5 turns to complete.' But by adding a greater range of numbers to work with (1-10 Food/1-5 Shields, as opposed to 2 Food/1 Shield), then elements such as food requirements for unit production can be used because these requirements can incrementally take up your resources - as it stands now with the current civ3 system, it probably would be hard to balance the system because you have such a small margin to play with.

Your basic resources (shields/food/gold) end up playing a greater role in this setup because they can potentially be needed for everything. Sure it would have to be balanced, but it is definitely workable - and more realistic.

MrBaggins · January 31, 2004, 11:50

I've already suggested a food/production/gold upkeep model for the CtP2 source project, and suggested the same for Tile Improvements.

Also... there has been unit updating in CTP2 for a long while... the Updater & Updater2 mods...

I've also suggested that there be Gold AND/OR PW costs for unit upgrading. PW had an unforseen benefit in its implementation... storage of production, that could be spent for more than just tile improvements.

These are all really easy to implement in that system, since food, production and commerce are highly granular values.

hexagonian · January 31, 2004, 13:04

(Gasp) But that would mean that civ4 would start resembling CTP...

...and we wouldn't want that! There are no good ideas in CTP

wrylachlan · January 31, 2004, 14:10

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
They are always building the temple, but this time you forced them into hard labor and they died.

Allright, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If the ones who are working on the temple die, why does the guy out in the fields go away? Obviously in the current system of pop rushing, you have pulled a worker out of the fields to build the temple, and then worked him to death. What he is suggesting is an in-between step. You can build it at normal speed. Or you can add some workers to the job, taking away from your food production, or you can take those workers away from food production, and work them till they die.

MrBaggins · January 31, 2004, 14:35

FWIW, regarding the discussion, I think that shields alone should build a unit, Food AND/OR Shields AND/OR Gold be required to maintain/support it, and Shields AND/OR Gold be required to upgrade it. (Possibly quantities of specific strategic resources too, in all cases)

Essentially, it doesn't make sense that there NOT be significant gold requirements maintaining modern technological units... and nuclear units, or some kind of food requirement for provisioning and reinforcing early manpower intensive units.

DarkCloud · March 27, 2004, 18:13

Hmm... I agree with Baggins-

Shields to build... and Food/Gold for support makes more sens- beceause shields represents production wehreas Food represents feeding the unit and gold represents supplying it in the field since supply costs money.

although an argument can be made for Gold+Shields for Productions and Gold+Food for maintenance.

That would add realism and strategy without taking away too much from the game, I believe!

LzPrst · March 27, 2004, 19:18

I made a big post on having not population points and having a number of people like fosse. since this can easily be implemented I'd rather see the death of population points since it adds far more realism to the game to actually draft 1000 people out of the total when making a spearman, than drafting "bread"...
Just my opinon...

LzPrst · March 27, 2004, 19:19

maybe bread would be subtracted for maintenance...
maybe there should be a national or citybased "food pool" supplying your troops with food...