The reason expansion is so valuable is the bonus nutrient the first pop (who's never seen) gets from the base. What if we made this pop need food? In other words making the base square produce no food. Then we simply remove the food penalty for despotism.

Walla, a game less about expansion, more about development. It would certainly play differently.

Coudn't you just increase the number of Shields needed to produce a Settler?

That wouldn't remove the expansion advantage. That would just make it harder to expand. Not the same thing at all.

I want expansion to be a strategic decisions (this land is better then that land or has X resource we want) instead of a necessity for winning.

Anyways, the two changes in my suggestion aren't that complicated right? Both would be easy to implement...right? Or is it hard to change how much food the base square gives?

Got anything against the ideas themselves?

The food from the base is, IIRC, base production of the tile (incl irrigation if applicable) or the food consumption for one citizen, whichever is more. +1 for Agr civs (except despotic cities without fresh water). This is hardcoded.

No, base production is 2. It ignores the terrian under the city.

Commerce under city is not ignored,(roads are though) production under city is ignored till size 7,(mines are never applicable to said production) food production of city square is ignored no matter city size afaik. Which is why you never want to put cities on wheat bonuses etc.

If you didn't know that, then I question your knowledge of how hard coded city food base production is. Assuming your right that it is hard coded, anyone able to hex edit this small game number please?

As this is your first time attempting to mod Civ3 and probably your first time in the creation and customization department, I wouldn't go disregarding someone's knowledge solely because they don't remember some trivial detail.
He's right; it is hardcoded. And in the second part of his sentence, he says "or the food consumption for one citizen, whichever is more." That's 2, in the normal game, although the amount a citizen consumes can be edited, which is why he took the time to type the first part of that sentence.
If lowering the food output of a base city square beyond the amount 1 citizens consumes was possible, you'd have cities that could starve themselves to death. This might lend itself to some unforeseen problems, so while it would be nice to have the option of lowering base-output, I can understand why the developers did not make it possible.
But about your original question, believe it or not, you're not the first one to try to shift the focus of the game away from breakneck expansion. There are a number of workarounds to seriously reduce the benifits of unchecked growth, and if you're interested you should check out some of the mods here. I recommend Rhye's.

I would also recommend Rhye's of Civilization. Mid to late game expansion is very rare. Even early expansion can be a hassle.

Rhye's of Civilization (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=111977)

If the base production of the tile is more then the amount a pop would use, you still get only 2 food for base tile Thats what the manual says, thats what i've experienced when planting cities on bonus food squares. Irrigation doesn't matter either.

It doesn't matter if I'm new to moding or a old hand. Its not even a mod issue. Anyways I know what I know.

If lowering the food output of a base city square beyond the amount 1 citizens consumes was possible, you'd have cities that could starve themselves to death.

If you lowered the base production of food to zero, pops wouldn't starve to death. The base pop (who doesn't even appear for a head count but does work the square) doesn't eat, which is why expansion is so important. its the free food of pops that don't eat.

Does anyone here know hex editing that they might edit the base square food production #?

Rhye's mod just makes it harder to expand right? Still have the expansion advantage of 2 free food per city right? I appreciate the tip though, I'll give it a shot.

Does anyone here know hex editing? Even if it is "hard coded", that doesn't mean it can't be changed.

I'm not convinced there's any such thing as "base pop". I think that if a city claims to have two population, for example, that means that there are two units of population, each of which works a tile. The resources etc that you get from the city base tile is a free bonus, perhaps worked by the families of the two population units! You couldn't have a city that had no population but retained this base bonus, that is, a city of zero population. You need a positive amount of population (ie, a city at all) in order to get the base tile bonus. So I suspect that Bungus' reasoning is right.

perhaps worked by the families of the two population units!
Family is people=population. Maybe you want to disown family as people, not me :p Family needs to eat too, except maybe in civ3.

Anyways, no city will "starve to death" if the net food is is 2 per worker. Eliminating the two free food per city would help alot with the expansion issue. Increasing settler costs in production or population are just awkward ways around a problem that has much simpler (albeit "hard coding") solution.

Man I hate civ's food=population system. I do hope they come up with a much smarter system for civ4.

The "base population" isn't population as far as the game is concerned. It doesn't matter if you visualize it as the families of the labourers putting in a hand or manna falling from the sky.

Eliminating the free food would make cities basically impossible in some terrains.

I don't know what's wrong with food=population. It's pretty accurate for pre-Industrial societies.

You show me a person who gets pregnant or otherwise produces a person just by eating enough and I'll show you a divine/super strange... miracle. Its not accurate, its not even remotely realistic. No population has grown faster from having more food then is needed for surviving. They just get fatter.

Also note the second part of this is removing the food cap for dictatorship.

Eliminating the free food would make cities basically impossible in some terrains.
In a few circumstances it might mean the difference between a city existing with only 1 or 2 pop instead of not at all. Otherwise not much of a difference. Most terrain is set to average 2 food, which is everything except tundra, which is next to water that produces 2 a tile. Anyways there is such a thing as terrain people can't inhabit.

Oh right, I remember hearing in history that tribes use to split up their population for free food... Ok, sorry about the sarcasm. My point is, the free food on base tile is both illogical and ruins the game by making population grow faster the more they divide/ making the game too much about expansion.

Furthermore I don't see why you view the idea of reducing base city tile food output as the one and only real solution to the problem. Its not even the cause, but just one more straw on the camels back. One that is superglued. But there are other solutions (besides settler cost) and they aren't particularly awkward. For example, ever hear of Optimal City Number? Corruption? These two directly control the amount of cities a civilization can realistically control. The biggest question is not how can we make rapid expansion unbeneficial , but how can we convince the AI rapid expansion is unbeneficial ? And settler cost remains the most effective answer (but again, not the only one. Ex.=settler producing wonders/improv.)

You show me a person who gets pregnant or otherwise produces a person just by eating enough and I'll show you a divine/super strange... miracle. Its not accurate, its not even remotely realistic. Also note the second part of this is removing the food cap for dictatorship.
Getting pregnant isn't normally the limiting factor in population growth. Among pre-Industrial societies, about the only circumstance that would be the case would be peoples who get too little fat, but otherwise enough calories and nutrients (this can happen to tropical hunter-gatherers who live of very low-fat vegetables and meat).

In a few circumstances it might mean the difference between a city existing with only 1 or 2 pop instead of not at all. Otherwise not much of a difference. Most terrain is set to average 2 food, which is everything except tundra, which is next to water that produces 2 a tile. Anyways there is such a thing as terrain people can't inhabit.Um. Specials aside, Grassland and Flood Plains the only terrain types with a base production of two or more food.

Plains can be irrigated to 2. Grassland is 3 when irrigated and very common and often pared with hills (which produce 1) Desert and floodplains go together. Lots of bonus tile that give addition food. Only mountain and tundra areas fail to average as 2 food and tundra tends to be by the water which does produce 2, with harbor.

Getting pregnant isn't normally the limiting factor in population growth. Among pre-Industrial societies, about the only circumstance that would be the case would be peoples who get too little fat, but otherwise enough calories and nutrients (this can happen to tropical hunter-gatherers who live of very low-fat vegetables and meat).

Well surviving pregnancy was. Now having a little extra food increasing population speed a little and lack of, slowing things down, is understandable. But the direct food to people method is simply absurd. Shows a complete lack of creative/innovative thought from the programmers in this regard.

You're simply wrong. The limiting factor on pre-industrial society's population growth was normally food supply. But I can't be arsed to discuss this any longer.

Back to the original question, the bottom line is, no, you can't get city tiles to produce less food, short of cracking the game.

If you look, the "City Size" is not the population of the city, just a way to visualize it for game play.

@switchblade
Doesn't matter, still doesn't make sense to get two free food per city. Nor is it good for gameplay IMO.

Dude, just shutup. You're talking Crap.

Calm down.

Seriously, get a grip. For one, food IS the limiting factor for growth, in pre-industrial times and now. Getting pregnant is easy. Providing food for three people when you only had to provide for one before is hard.

Altering the hard-coded 'this city can actually survive and possibly expand at size 1' food would break the game horribly. Only Agricultural civs or civs that got an extremely lucky cow + flood plain start would have any chance at all of winning the game because only they could produce enough food to expand their first city to size 3 in any reasonable time frame.

Doesn't matter, still doesn't make sense to get two free food per city. Nor is it good for gameplay IMO.

You're missing the point of the game. This is not SimCity (CivCity, or what have you) it is Civilization. It is about empire building and conflict.

Getting some nominal amount of food is not only good for game play, it is absolutely essential.

If all you want to do is build 1 city, try one of the other games... There are a couple of city building sims, just can't recall their names because they pale in comparison to Civ.

Anarki, if you dispute my reasoning, the most effective method to refute it is to use sound reasoning of your own. "Shutup, your talking crap" doesn't even get close.

Ah, more on page two.

Issue one, the system of population growth where food directly turns into people

Getting pregnant is easy.
Surviving pregnancy (either mother or child) isn't. Thats why modern day women go to the hospital.


For one, food IS the limiting factor for growth, in pre-industrial times

Not having enough food is a limiting factor on population growth. Suddenly having more then the population can reasonably eat has never causes a population growth spurt from what I've heard. Being freed from hard work might cause a population increase, but thats not how it works in civ.

It is about empire building and conflict.

What does that have to do with creating a more realistic population growth model? Somehow food not directly turning into people would make empire building and conflict impossible? Your going to have to justify such a position

--------------------------------

Second issue, eliminating the magically free food for each city in the currently unrealistic food turns directly into people system


Altering the hard-coded 'this city can actually survive and possibly expand at size 1' food would break the game horribly. Only Agricultural civs or civs that got an extremely lucky cow + flood plain start would have any chance at all of winning the game because only they could produce enough food to expand their first city to size 3 in any reasonable time frame.

Oh yeah, finding grass or flood plains to irrigate is sooo hard. [/sarcasm]

We are talking 2 food less a city, how do you figure that would make a cow+floodplain start mandatory for getting to size 3 in a reasonable time frame?

Getting some nominal amount of food is not only good for game play, it is absolutely essential.
You think by suggesting that civ use a more realistic population growth system that I'm suggesting populations not need to eat? If you think thats what I mean by "more realistic" then you have no concept of my position at all.

In case you refer to the issue of free food for each city, your going to have to justify that position with some actual reasoning. Saying its so doesn't demonstrate its so with words.

If all you want to do is build 1 city
Once again you show a clear lack of understanding of of my position. A more realistic growth system wouldn't mean you wouldn't want to expand. Resources of other land and city population size limits are two reasons off the top of my head. One doesn't need magically free food as a reason to expand.

--------------------------------

Without free food, cites will need to be placed smarter. Not necessarily just expanding and filling in every spot as fast as you can. Such a game would require good amount of strategic thinking. I think it would be challenging and fun. You guys have said nothing that clearly refutes that. Certainly not by making lame comparisons to simcity.

Oh yeah, finding grass or flood plains to irrigate is sooo hard. [/sarcasm]

We are talking 2 food less a city, how do you figure that would make a cow+floodplain start mandatory for getting to size 3 in a reasonable time frame?

A size 1 city typically has 4 food in the current game. 2 from base square, 2 from a grasslands. Until you develop monarchy or another more advanced government, irrigation does you no good whatsoever. So, 4 food - 2 'free' food = 2 food. Enough to feed exactly 1 citizen - which just so happens to be the number you already have. That means you're stuck with a size 1 city unless you're agricultural or get a very lucky start. Heaven forbid you don't start adjacent to a grassland, fresh water lake, or flood plains square, because if you don't your city will starve out of existence on the 2nd turn.

Then we simply remove the food penalty for despotism.Also note the second part of this is removing the food cap for dictatorship.
Silly me, I thought saying it twice would have made my point. :p

Settlers don't require food, so moving it to a place that has one square that produces at least 2 food to give your worker time to irrigate would be a option though I get what your saying. The very first would be the hardest unless your lucky, just not impossible.

If you stopped refering to Despotism as Dictatorship, we might look more kindly at you for bashing other's trivial errors. :p

As I stated before,
If you look, the "City Size" is not the population of the city, just a way to visualize it for game play.

You could have a "City Size" of 2 and have 64,000 Population (don't know the actual numbers off the top of my head). Also, unless you have changed it in the game, a settler costs 2 "population" (decreasing the city size by 2) to build and when they settle there are 2 tiles being worked, the base and one other.

Also, you can think of it as a market or grainry (I know they are buildings you can build) or some other "food structure" in the earlier stages of the game and canneries and food processing plants later on to allow for a "stockpiling" of food if you will that would not occour if it was just one family out in the wilderness.

It seems quite realistic to me and good for gameplay. I still can't see why it is such a problem for you. :confused:

It does have one somewhat perverse effect; 20k people in two size-1 cities produce more food than 30k in one size-2 city, assuming that they're working the same terrain. This is one of the reasons ICS is so powerful.

The realism issues are rather immaterial, in any case - you can't change it.

Settlers don't require food, so moving it to a place that has one square that produces at least 2 food to give your worker time to irrigate would be a option though I get what your saying. The very first would be the hardest unless your lucky, just not impossible.

This would still make getting your first size 3 city very slow unless you had some bonus food (agri or floodplain/bonus resource). +1 food per turn makes for very slow gameplay. EDIT: It would also ruin the 30 to 40% of starts that don't have access to fresh water for irrigation.

Anyway, as it's been said, it's impossible to change. Get over it.

Killing the 2 free food bonus is quite a bad idea. Every time the capital is founded on a low-food position, without access to at least one 2-food tile, the game will crash (Vanilla/PTW) or result in a conquest victory (C3C) right after turn 1 ends. Killing the despotism penalty won't make any difference.

If we want to ignore this occurrence, it's a bad idea anyway. Too unbalancing, even without despotism penalty. The reasons have been already explained above.

Wow, this thread is way over-flowing here. This can't be done. It's called hard-code. If you change hard-code it causes problems in other aspects of the game and eventually it creates a domino effect and you have to keep making adjustments. More trouble than it's worth. This is unneccessary to change anyway. Try some other route to limit expansion, the settler producing palace works just fine. It allows all civs to have an equal number of civs at whatever rate you wish.

How would you know if hex editing that single number would effect any other aspects of the game?

Its not about limiting expansion/making expansion hard, its about removing or at least reducing the expansion advantage, so expansion becomes a strategic decision instead of a obligatory one.

Anyways, if starts were the issue, one could use it only on premade maps and not random ones. Perhaps the cap structure could be made to produce 2 food, then starts wouldn't be a big deal.

Having the Palace produce food would also require cracking ...

... why am I reminded of tjedge1's comment about further adjustments?

Well I didn't know palace producing food would require hex editing. It would still work in custom maps.

If we don't have anyone skilled enough or willing enough then thats perfectly fine. But its not impossible.

I think if any issue was worth hex editing, this one would be. Especially since its the adjustment of a single value and not of a whole system. Unless the value was in the .exe itself or something. Worth it imho for all the previously stated reasons.

Anyways, thankyou guys for your feedback. Its been a interesting discussion, even if to never happen, its been nice to consider the possibilities and potential impacts as a thought exercise. Theres always civ4 and its unknown potential.

Is it such that noone has made changes to civ3 outside of default editor options?

Some have hacked the editor itself and posted that version, but it still doesn't have what you want. Like you said, maybe in Civ4.

May I please get a link to the hacked editor? Is there only one? Any other nonstandard changes to civ3?

It's in the Utilities sub-forum. Go look overthere.

It is in the forum Supa mentioned somewhere. I don't go there much so I'm not sure what page it's on. Other than that, I'm not really sure.