View Full Version : Wasted Food


BlueTemplar
Nov 15, 2011, 05:11 PM
What is the mechanic behind it? What are the ways to reduce waste? Why was it implemented when unhealthiness seems to serve the same function?

EldrinFal
Nov 15, 2011, 06:36 PM
What is the mechanic behind it? What are the ways to reduce waste? Why was it implemented when unhealthiness seems to serve the same function?

It was implemented to curb outrageous city growth. Before the food was overhauled we had examples of cities beyond size 100 iirc

nightcreature
Nov 15, 2011, 09:27 PM
does wasted food scale with city size? (eg at size 1 you lose all above +6, at size 2 lose all above +10, etc.)

does building a granary help with wasted food?

Koshling
Nov 16, 2011, 06:39 AM
does wasted food scale with city size? (eg at size 1 you lose all above +6, at size 2 lose all above +10, etc.)

does building a granary help with wasted food?

It doesn't scale with city size but you don't lose (anything like) all above the point it first kicks in. For each food added slightly more is wasted. I think you lose your first at about +8 and get into very diminishing returns above about +30 or so. There's a thread about i somewheer with all the formula and the discussion that lead to it, but right now I can't seem to find it (it's somewheer in the C2C boards though)

BlueTemplar
Nov 16, 2011, 09:41 AM
Wouldn't this system prevent a whip-based production strategy?

EldrinFal
Nov 16, 2011, 03:06 PM
Wouldn't this system prevent a whip-based production strategy?

Well it certainly makes you think twice before using it :mischief: (A fact I hope the AI takes into account)

BlueTemplar
Nov 17, 2011, 05:05 AM
I don't understand, if wasted food is function of extra food (after the citizens have "eaten"), then it doesn't prevent size 100 cities, it only slows down how fast they will grow...

Koshling
Nov 17, 2011, 06:25 AM
I don't understand, if wasted food is function of extra food (after the citizens have "eaten"), then it doesn't prevent size 100 cities, it only slows down how fast they will grow...

which really was the point, since we had size 70 in ancient, 100 by Renaisance

EldrinFal
Nov 17, 2011, 11:47 AM
which really was the point, since we had size 70 in ancient, 100 by Renaisance

Koshling, have you looked at how much food is stored after a city grows? I started a game yesterday and I'm pretty certain that with just the first 10% storage building, my city stored much more than 10% of maximum capacity. (Which is what I assume it is supposed to store, but maybe I'm wrong)

Koshling
Nov 17, 2011, 05:30 PM
Koshling, have you looked at how much food is stored after a city grows? I started a game yesterday and I'm pretty certain that with just the first 10% storage building, my city stored much more than 10% of maximum capacity. (Which is what I assume it is supposed to store, but maybe I'm wrong)

Not recently, and since I am somewhat on a sabbatical currently, not planning to for non super critical issues for the next few weeks. However, I did look at this a onto or so ago and I'm pretty sure it was working ok. Suggest you post a save game if you have one that shows a definate issue, and I can take a look at some point if AIAndy doesn't beat me to it.

nightcreature
Nov 17, 2011, 05:34 PM
Koshling, have you looked at how much food is stored after a city grows? I started a game yesterday and I'm pretty certain that with just the first 10% storage building, my city stored much more than 10% of maximum capacity. (Which is what I assume it is supposed to store, but maybe I'm wrong)

If you had built any of the huts (grass hut, stone hut, etc.) each of those store 1%

EldrinFal
Nov 17, 2011, 10:11 PM
If you had built any of the huts (grass hut, stone hut, etc.) each of those store 1%

This was before I had any huts. I just had the very basic Storage Pit.

I'll be watching the numbers closely when my city hits size 3.

As an example, Koshling, if a city requires 900 food to grow, with 10% storage, what should remain once it does grow? 90 food?

Edit: Posting save in bugs thread.

BlueGenie
Nov 18, 2011, 02:05 AM
Or it's based on food requirement from the next growth. So if you need 900 to grow and 950 for the next growth it might save 95 food and not 90 food.

Cheers

BlueTemplar
Nov 18, 2011, 02:41 AM
Never mind, it looks like wasted food depends on total food, not just extra food...

Koshling
Nov 18, 2011, 06:50 AM
Never mind, it looks like wasted food depends on total food, not just extra food...

No, it's based on extra. If you are seeing different amounts of wastage for the same level of surplass that's a bug.

KingArthur666
Feb 21, 2012, 05:10 PM
Wait, so does this mean my strategy of building all the food buildings in an attempt to get my cities to grow faster is made of fail? Should I just be building research until the cities grow to a larger size?

Koshling
Feb 21, 2012, 05:25 PM
Wait, so does this mean my strategy of building all the food buildings in an attempt to get my cities to grow faster is made of fail? Should I just be building research until the cities grow to a larger size?

Its not a fail strategy. It just has diminishing returns as the excesses build up. Personally I keep building food as a fairly high priority up to 20 or so surplass per turn. Has almost no effect early on, but is more significant from renaissance or so onwards.

Hydromancerx
Feb 21, 2012, 05:29 PM
It was implemented to curb outrageous city growth. Before the food was overhauled we had examples of cities beyond size 100 iirc

You can still get 100+ cities but only around the trans-human era. However this is more understandable.

Epona222
Feb 21, 2012, 10:18 PM
How are you all growing your cities so fast in the first place, even in previous versions? Maybe in my current game I've got bad terrain, but I'm struggling to get any cities to size 6 - in fact I'm having trouble getting a city to size 6 so that I can construct the buildings necessary to build ships better than canoes, the sailing tech is wasted on me because for the last couple of versions I've researched the tech but still not been able to build galleys until a lot later simply because my cities aren't big enough to build sail maker, shipwright etc. I've taken to ignoring the Sailing tech as a result because it's all but useless to me! By the time I research Sailing I don't usually have any city over size 2, maybe 3 if I'm extremely lucky.

Am I missing a trick? I'd noticed that cities are a lot slower to grow in the last couple of versions than they used to be. In any version I've never had a size 100 city, not even when I'm reaching the end of the tech tree. Yet again, the thought occurs to me that I must be playing it different than everyone else :confused:

Hydromancerx
Feb 21, 2012, 10:42 PM
Do you automate workers? Because that's what I do and my cities seem to do fine. I also practically build every building in every city.

Dancing Hoskuld
Feb 21, 2012, 11:56 PM
How are you all growing your cities so fast in the first place, even in previous versions? Maybe in my current game I've got bad terrain, but I'm struggling to get any cities to size 6 - in fact I'm having trouble getting a city to size 6 so that I can construct the buildings necessary to build ships better than canoes, the sailing tech is wasted on me because for the last couple of versions I've researched the tech but still not been able to build galleys until a lot later simply because my cities aren't big enough to build sail maker, shipwright etc. I've taken to ignoring the Sailing tech as a result because it's all but useless to me! By the time I research Sailing I don't usually have any city over size 2, maybe 3 if I'm extremely lucky.

Am I missing a trick? I'd noticed that cities are a lot slower to grow in the last couple of versions than they used to be. In any version I've never had a size 100 city, not even when I'm reaching the end of the tech tree. Yet again, the thought occurs to me that I must be playing it different than everyone else :confused:

Just to ask the obvious questions, you are playing with a prehistoric start and a slow game speed eg snail? You are switching to the agriculture civics that mean you cities need less to grow and building food producing buildings?

Koshling
Feb 22, 2012, 06:51 AM
Am I missing a trick? I'd noticed that cities are a lot slower to grow in the last couple of versions than they used to be. In any version I've never had a size 100 city, not even when I'm reaching the end of the tech tree. Yet again, the thought occurs to me that I must be playing it different than everyone else :confused:

Butcheries, Fishmongers, Shamanism if possible (and then shaman temples and invocation hits). Switch out of penalty-to-grow civics as priority when you can.

The early prehistoric is a period of extremely slow growth, but my capital generally reaches size 6 around the end of prehistoric (huge map, eternity). I tend to rush shamanism, though druidism also works well (but is harder to get as the AI seems to like that path a lot).

Epona222
Feb 22, 2012, 09:37 AM
Do you automate workers? Because that's what I do and my cities seem to do fine. I also practically build every building in every city.

I don't automate anything, I'm a bit of a control frea... I mean I like to micromanage :blush: Having seen this thread though it's no longer a mystery why my cities aren't growing, in earlier versions I'd got used to buildings providing enough food for early population boom and concentrating my workers on getting hammers (mines, lumberjacks etc). Now I know what has changed I am adopting a more aggressive farm-building and deforestation tactic with my workers, (not as many forest preserves later in the game now I need more farmland :( ) but I should at least be hitting size 6 soon.

Obviously the increased food wastage had passed me by, it just goes to show that what works well for me in one version may not in the next - still it's good that you're keeping me on my toes :lol: I suppose I found it problematic because I never went all out for massive cities in the first place, so I wasn't experiencing that huge population growth that others were but now I know what has changed it's all good :goodjob:

Epona222
Feb 22, 2012, 10:50 AM
Butcheries, Fishmongers, Shamanism if possible (and then shaman temples and invocation hits). Switch out of penalty-to-grow civics as priority when you can.

The early prehistoric is a period of extremely slow growth, but my capital generally reaches size 6 around the end of prehistoric (huge map, eternity). I tend to rush shamanism, though druidism also works well (but is harder to get as the AI seems to like that path a lot).

Hmmm... perhaps if reliance for food is from religion, and I don't tend to use those religions and am now struggling when I wasn't before (and I wasn't growing massive prehistoric cities previously) - I might be going out on a limb here but just maybe those religious buildings are providing too much food and it should be those that are rebalanced rather than food wastage as a whole?

It's counterintuitive to "rush shamanism", or any purely religion tech, in order to gain enough food to have a size 6 city before I hit Classical era - I should be able to do it by rushing livestock domestication or agriculture (or one of the earlier food related techs, of which there are plenty), not going down a religious route - so perhaps those food bonus buildings are causing imbalance, if people were exploiting a religion to grow massive cities and it is now (with increased food wastage) necessary to use that tactic to grow normal sized cities. I'd rather get food from a pasture on a pig resource and a pig farm building than have to implore the spirits to leave it as offerings in my pig temples to top up my population growth to a normal level ;)

Edit to add: Don't get me wrong, I like the religions in the game and I do use them - but their primary benefits ought to be culture, happiness, and stability related - not a major means of subsistence!

TowerWizard
Feb 22, 2012, 11:09 AM
if people were exploiting a religion to grow massive cities and it is now (with increased food wastage) necessary to use that tactic to grow normal sized cities.

I would think it is not the religion that Koshling was rushing after, but rather the Shaman hut building. The religion is just icing on the cake, I think. The Shaman hut stores 25% of the food needed to grow (though the reason for why it does this eludes me), and that is nice in the beginning of the game. By rushing agriculture you get access to the Granary, which is even better, and the civic "Subsistence Agriculture" which reduces the cities need for food by 25%.

So, if you want to grow cities ASAP, go for the shaman hut first, then beeline agriculture, picking up Animal Husbandry along the way (as I think it is needed for Agriculture?).

Edit: Sorry, I was wrong about the Shaman hut lowering the need for food. Updated the post. The conclusion still stands, though.

Epona222
Feb 22, 2012, 11:13 AM
I would think it is not the religion that Koshling was rushing after, but rather the Shaman hut building. The religion is just icing on the cake, I think. The Shaman hut lowers the cities need for food by 25% (though the reason for why it does this eludes me), and that is huge in the beginning of the game. By rushing agriculture you get access to the Granary, which is almost as good, and the civic "Subsistence Agriculture" which also reduces the cities need for food by 25%.

So, if you want to grow cities ASAP, go for the shaman hut first, then beeline agriculture, picking up Animal Husbandry along the way (as I think it is needed for Agriculture?).

Yes yes, I understand that this is the way it is, what I am questioning is WHY it is the best tactic for population growth, and whether it SHOULD be that way - because it makes absolutely no sense. If you want food, you gather or grow it. Building a shaman hut should neither decrease your cities need for food, nor make it magically appear - at least not to the extent that it becomes a necessary subsistence tactic in order to get a reasonable size city. Subsistence technologies should be the ones providing buildings with this extent of food benefit, not religious ones.

Koshling
Feb 22, 2012, 11:14 AM
Hmmm... perhaps if reliance for food is from religion, and I don't tend to use those religions and am now struggling when I wasn't before (and I wasn't growing massive prehistoric cities previously) - I might be going out on a limb here but just maybe those religious buildings are providing too much food and it should be those that are rebalanced rather than food wastage as a whole?

It's counterintuitive to "rush shamanism", or any purely religion tech, in order to gain enough food to have a size 6 city before I hit Classical era - I should be able to do it by rushing livestock domestication or agriculture (or one of the earlier food related techs, of which there are plenty), not going down a religious route - so perhaps those food bonus buildings are causing imbalance, if people were exploiting a religion to grow massive cities and it is now (with increased food wastage) necessary to use that tactic to grow normal sized cities. I'd rather get food from a pasture on a pig resource and a pig farm building than have to implore the spirits to leave it as offerings in my pig temples to top up my population growth to a normal level ;)

Edit to add: Don't get me wrong, I like the religions in the game and I do use them - but their primary benefits ought to be culture, happiness, and stability related - not a major means of subsistence!

It was intended as a tip, not a must-do. Rushing to things like livestock domestication also works, and it's not necessary (shamanism/druidism that is) in order to reach size 6 around the end of prehistoric. Also food wastage as a mechanic has almost zero effect on small cities in the prehistoric era. It was put in mostly to prevent runaway growth much later (rebnaissance-ish and later). If you're not reaching size 6 then you cannot possibly have enough food for the wastage mechanic to really be a significant factor - I think (can't remember exactly) there is zero wastage before 8 food excess and it doesn't get bad before at least 15 or so.

BlueGenie
Feb 22, 2012, 11:54 AM
Shaman's hut acts as a storage pit, saving 25% food after growth. Id doesn't in itself make it so that the city requires less food to grow.
Granary is better, with it's 30% stored, but even better at Agri (I think, haven't got the game up) is the Civic that changes your required food to grow. Sustenance Agriculture I think.
Tribal Civic, at Tribalism, I think does the same, reduces your food needed to grow.

The waste that comes up is really only what goes bad before it's eaten. Pop doesn't grow simply because there is extra food available, they have to make babies too, and they can't make more than a certain amount of babies.
Thus the growth factor is cut somewhere around +20 to +22 food per turn acting towards making more pop. Up to about +10-12 food per turn you don't waste much, at 60+ you waste around 2/3's of the food, and higher yet it's just not worth having as you lose out basically everything over those 60 (which translates to about +20 to 22 food per turn).

The main factor is babies. You can only have a finite number of them so growing with 60+ food per turn is just unrealistic.

Cheers

Dancing Hoskuld
Feb 22, 2012, 02:39 PM
The extra food from Shaman, Druid and to a lesser extent Ngai is about science. These religions include study of their special resources and passing on that information as knowledge. Which is why most of these extra buildings are obsolete before Education.

KingArthur666
Feb 22, 2012, 06:21 PM
It was intended as a tip, not a must-do. Rushing to things like livestock domestication also works, and it's not necessary (shamanism/druidism that is) in order to reach size 6 around the end of prehistoric. Also food wastage as a mechanic has almost zero effect on small cities in the prehistoric era. It was put in mostly to prevent runaway growth much later (rebnaissance-ish and later). If you're not reaching size 6 then you cannot possibly have enough food for the wastage mechanic to really be a significant factor - I think (can't remember exactly) there is zero wastage before 8 food excess and it doesn't get bad before at least 15 or so.

I must be doing something wrong. I'm in the middle of the Classical Era and my only size 6 city is my capital. I've just noticed how much food is being wasted (more than +20 in my older cities) but it still takes ages for my cities to grow.

Hydromancerx
Feb 22, 2012, 06:27 PM
I must be doing something wrong. I'm in the middle of the Classical Era and my only size 6 city is my capital. I've just noticed how much food is being wasted (more than +20 in my older cities) but it still takes ages for my cities to grow.

What civics do you use? This may be a factor as well. For instance if you use Slavery it takes 25% more food to grow your cities.

KingArthur666
Feb 22, 2012, 06:35 PM
What civics do you use? This may be a factor as well. Fo instance if you use Slavery it takes 25% more food to grow your cities.

Monarchy, Junta, Caste, Slavery, Banditry, Prophets, Charity, Garbage Anywhere, No Borders, Written Tradition, Interpreters, and Subsistence Agriculture.

My two newest cities have built all the hammer boosting buildings, most of the food buildings, and have started in on the culture and commerce buildings, still size 1. Plenty of wasted food though.

Hydromancerx
Feb 22, 2012, 06:49 PM
Well along with Slavery the Garbage Anywhere will keep your cities from growing. With both of those your cities will grow 50% Slower (Slavery 25% and Garbage Anywhere 25%).

I recommend Barter (or Coinage if you can get it yet) and Waste to Sea if you want some faster city growth.

KingArthur666
Feb 22, 2012, 07:10 PM
Well along with Slavery the Garbage Anywhere will keep your cities from growing. With both of those your cities will grow 50% Slower (Slavery 25% and Garbage Anywhere 25%).

I recommend Barter (or Coinage if you can get it yet) and Waste to Sea if you want some faster city growth.

I had Barter before slavery, it seemed weaker but maybe I'll give it another look. I don't have Coinage or Waste to Sea yet. I'll look at the tech tree and see about getting them, I'm researching new techs at an amazing rate right now.
The computer opponents are falling behind at such a staggering rate, I might have to quit and start a new game pretty soon.

Koshling
Feb 22, 2012, 07:52 PM
I had Barter before slavery, it seemed weaker but maybe I'll give it another look. I don't have Coinage or Waste to Sea yet. I'll look at the tech tree and see about getting them, I'm researching new techs at an amazing rate right now.
The computer opponents are falling behind at such a staggering rate, I might have to quit and start a new game pretty soon.

Can you give an example of a city with a lot of waste? In particular whatcare it's values of food surplus and of waste?

KingArthur666
Feb 22, 2012, 08:26 PM
Can you give an example of a city with a lot of waste? In particular whatcare it's values of food surplus and of waste?

I've got two examples for you.
Rostov
Size 1
Food 14 (4 from tiles worked 10 from buildings if it matters)
Eaten 3
Wasted 2
That leaves 9 for growth. As Rostov needs 466 food to grow it is going to take a while. It was founded more than 50 turns ago, so it's getting close. It's managed to build plenty of buildings though.

Memphis
Size 5
Food 57 (36 from tiles worked 22 from buildings -1 from a slave)
Eaten 15
Wasted 17
That leaves 25 for growth. Wait. That's odd. Let me get a picture. Okay, the tool tip shows 25 for growth but you can see the city screen is showing 49-32=17??? I don't know what is going on there.
Okay, I just checked my other cities. All my cities with size larger than 1 have this problem except for my capital (which is by far my largest city).

charlesb96
Feb 23, 2012, 03:10 PM
Looking at storage of food after growth, that might be the cause of super cities. Modern Granary stores 50% of food after growth. Colony arcology stores another 40%, and the launch arcology stores 50%. So combining the two building, a city stores 100% of food after growth? Is this correct or am I wrong here? Cause this means a city will grow 1 population every single turn till there is no more food coming in.

BlueGenie
Feb 23, 2012, 03:27 PM
They only add the extra percent on what's left after the others have been added. So if you have 50%+40%+50% it gives:
50% stored from the first.
40% of the remaining 50% stored, or +20% to 70% stored.
50% of the remaining 30% stored, or +15% to 85% stored.

Cheers

Hydromancerx
Feb 23, 2012, 10:57 PM
The arcologies also replace each other.

Epona222
Feb 24, 2012, 10:41 PM
Well I managed to get some cities to size 6 just after I hit the Classical Era - one thing I found helped massively was that I had the rabbit resource available so built Cree culture and sent out 15 Cree Trackers hunting - with the new butchery button for subdued animals (which btw is absoblinkinglutely brilliant, thank you!) I was sending several food back to at least one of my cities per turn and all those one-off +1 or +2 foods make a big difference over the course of a couple of hundred years! Plus I was bringing back a lot of herd type animals that I subdued near my borders to build their herd buildings.

Koshling
Feb 25, 2012, 06:52 AM
Well I managed to get some cities to size 6 just after I hit the Classical Era - one thing I found helped massively was that I had the rabbit resource available so built Cree culture and sent out 15 Cree Trackers hunting - with the new butchery button for subdued animals (which btw is absoblinkinglutely brilliant, thank you!) I was sending several food back to at least one of my cities per turn and all those one-off +1 or +2 foods make a big difference over the course of a couple of hundred years! Plus I was bringing back a lot of herd type animals that I subdued near my borders to build their herd buildings.

Ah yes. Early game (prehistoric especially) well over 50% of my food and hammers comes from hunting. I forgot to mention that. BTW, I intend to try to track down the display inconsistency in the food next. If you could post a save game that has such an inconsistency (I have one in my game but it seems to have a different source than your image) that would be appreciated.

KingArthur666
Feb 25, 2012, 01:07 PM
Ah yes. Early game (prehistoric especially) well over 50% of my food and hammers comes from hunting. I forgot to mention that. BTW, I intend to try to track down the display inconsistency in the food next. If you could post a save game that has such an inconsistency (I have one in my game but it seems to have a different source than your image) that would be appreciated.

Now that you mention it that is probably why my capital is so much bigger than any of my other cities. It was the only city around while I was doing most of my hunting. It likely got every herd possible (based on the animals I was catching) plus all that food and production from hunting. Once I started getting additional cities things started spreading out and there weren't as many animals to capture.

JosEPh_II
Feb 25, 2012, 09:44 PM
You can only build 1 herd of each type in a city. You can't build 2 Bison or 2 deer, etc. And on many maps you will only get the opportunity to capture early game a % of the Herd animal types. So you are only going to add a limited amount of food from herds. They are vital though for early growth. That's why I dislike it when my early wanderer/hunter units kill instead of subdue, cause it seems my luck is they kill 80% of the time and only subdue 20%.

And it's because of these game mechanics, "wasted food" and "slower city growth rates", that I keep harping about City Limits being redundant now and unnecessary for limiting that "dreaded" (Oh God save us from it! :p :rolleyes: ) city spam.

JosEPh :)

Koshling
Mar 01, 2012, 09:37 AM
Ok, time to re-evaluate!

It's pretty clear that:


This is a not-entirely popular feature ;)
The original runaway growth that caused its introduction is greatly tamed now anyway


For that reason I am thinking of taming wastage somewhat.

I **don't** want to entirely remove it because I don't want to get into the situation where you can have 70% storage of food plus literally several hundred food per turn, leading to growth almost immediately in some eras/city sizes.

However, I don't think the current system scales well enough. Currently wastage is dependent only on the surplass food (and independent of city size or growth thresholds). This seems wrong. Thinking about modeling reality it's certainly true that one person (or one unit of population however many you want to view that as being) can't make use of enough food for 100 people. Equally 100 people CAN.

Hence I am thinking of changing the wastage formula so that it scales with population, and the threshold is increased (i.e. - the wastage curve moves out to the right with surplass food being the horizontal axis) the smaller the proportion of the food-required-to-grow your food-per-turn is.

The effects would be:

Early cities wouldn't see much wastage at all because their growth rates are so low that the surplas would always be a small proportion of the growth threshold
Large cities wouldn't see wastage until significantly higher food surplass exists than is currently the case (more population can use more surplass without wasting it)
High-tech cities with huge surplasses and large storage-after-growth percentages would still see some wastage (though likely less than now)

Hydromancerx
Mar 01, 2012, 05:21 PM
I would like to just speak out and say that I think the system you have in place should not be changed. Having super growing cities in the prehistoric era isn unrealistic. Likewise once you change your civics to growing ones they the game balances out again. And even unbalances itself by the trans-human era.

I would like to give a big NO to changing it. In short just because its not popular doesn't mean its not balanced. If anything the challenge of small cities are good since you actually have something to work up to.

To those who can't get their cities to grow just have poor city management. There buildings are there to grow your cities VERY fast if you just build the right buildings.

AIAndy
Mar 01, 2012, 05:33 PM
Ok, time to re-evaluate!

It's pretty clear that:


This is a not-entirely popular feature ;)
The original runaway growth that caused its introduction is greatly tamed now anyway


For that reason I am thinking of taming wastage somewhat.

I **don't** want to entirely remove it because I don't want to get into the situation where you can have 70% storage of food plus literally several hundred food per turn, leading to growth almost immediately in some eras/city sizes.

However, I don't think the current system scales well enough. Currently wastage is dependent only on the surplass food (and independent of city size or growth thresholds). This seems wrong. Thinking about modeling reality it's certainly true that one person (or one unit of population however many you want to view that as being) can't make use of enough food for 100 people. Equally 100 people CAN.

Hence I am thinking of changing the wastage formula so that it scales with population, and the threshold is increased (i.e. - the wastage curve moves out to the right with surplass food being the horizontal axis) the smaller the proportion of the food-required-to-grow your food-per-turn is.

The effects would be:

Early cities wouldn't see much wastage at all because their growth rates are so low that the surplas would always be a small proportion of the growth threshold
Large cities wouldn't see wastage until significantly higher food surplass exists than is currently the case (more population can use more surplass without wasting it)
High-tech cities with huge surplasses and large storage-after-growth percentages would still see some wastage (though likely less than now)

I like this. It is quite realistic and will still prevent too fast growth. At least this allows to balance it better than the old version.

Hydromancerx
Mar 01, 2012, 05:39 PM
Ok maybe I am missunderstanding. So this still keeps early game cities small right? Or no?

Koshling
Mar 01, 2012, 06:08 PM
Ok maybe I am missunderstanding. So this still keeps early game cities small right? Or no?

For most people it won't make much difference early on because uless you get Druidism and shamanism etc. You typically don't run very large surpluses then anyway. The civic growth thresholds are the main brake on early growth. A most I'd guess this will be a ten percent or so change in that era.

KingArthur666
Mar 01, 2012, 06:16 PM
I'm actually liking this now that I'm getting it figured out. It wasn't so much the wasted food that was preventing my cities from growing, it was more poor civic choices. I was using just about every civic possible to increase the amount of food required to grow a city, which was leading to cities that remained size 1 for about 100 turns. Now that I've played into the medieval age using a Spiritual leader (allowing me to change my civics without 10+ turns of anarchy) I can really see the difference those food multipliers make in the civics. I'd be willing to check out the new system Koshling has in mind, but it might be less balanced than what is currently in place. When I changed to my current set of civics, the food changes being Tribal to Bourgeois for a 50% savings, No Borders to Open Borders for a -15% required food, and No Agriculture to Subsistence Agriculture a reduction from 50% to only 25% my cities exploded. I would say some of my oldest cities are growing unrealistically for the time period. I couldn't say for certain though. Are size 20 cities normal around 100 A.D.? My biggest city just hit influential culture and is now working the 3rd city ring, so I expect more speedy growth from this city.
I thought the metro admin building was required to work the 3rd ring?

Koshling
Mar 01, 2012, 06:20 PM
I'm actually liking this now that I'm getting it figured out. It wasn't so much the wasted food that was preventing my cities from growing, it was more poor civic choices. I was using just about every civic possible to increase the amount of food required to grow a city, which was leading to cities that remained size 1 for about 100 turns. Now that I've played into the medieval age using a Spiritual leader (allowing me to change my civics without 10+ turns of anarchy) I can really see the difference those food multipliers make in the civics. I'd be willing to check out the new system Koshling has in mind, but it might be less balanced than what is currently in place. When I changed to my current set of civics, the food changes being Tribal to Bourgeois for a 50% savings, No Borders to Open Borders for a -15% required food, and No Agriculture to Subsistence Agriculture a reduction from 50% to only 25% my cities exploded. I would say some of my oldest cities are growing unrealistically for the time period. I couldn't say for certain though. Are size 20 cities normal around 100 A.D.? My biggest city just hit influential culture and is now working the 3rd city ring, so I expect more speedy growth from this city.
I thought the metro admin building was required to work the 3rd ring?

If you use e game option 'larger cities' then you do NOT need the metro admin building. The game option enables the third tier of tiles automatically at influential. Without the game option you can still work the third tier but you DO require the metro admin building first (which becomes available at influential). I keep meaning to clarify the hover text for tha game option, but not getting round to it!

Hydromancerx
Mar 01, 2012, 06:26 PM
If you use e game option 'larger cities' then you do NOT need the metro admin building. The game option enables the third tier of tiles automatically at influential. Without the game option you can still work the third tier but you DO require the metro admin building first (which becomes available at influential). I keep meaning to clarify the hover text for tha game option, but not getting round to it!

Yeah that clarification for the hover text is LONG over due.

Epona222
Mar 01, 2012, 08:50 PM
I too am now liking it now that I understand it and have tried a few different tactics for city growth to see what makes a difference.

I only didn't like it initially because I didn't change the way I played back from several versions back, and was therefore struggling - I tend to get a bit set in my ways! On this particular game that I am on now I am not finding it an issue, having a Spiritual leader trait certainly helps because on the slowest game speeds there is a real reluctance to switch civics too often as it gives the impression that you're in anarchy and stagnant for absolutely ages, even though it is appropriate for the game speed!

JosEPh_II
Mar 01, 2012, 08:59 PM
I'm actually liking this now that I'm getting it figured out. It wasn't so much the wasted food that was preventing my cities from growing, it was more poor civic choices. I was using just about every civic possible to increase the amount of food required to grow a city, which was leading to cities that remained size 1 for about 100 turns. Now that I've played into the medieval age using a Spiritual leader (allowing me to change my civics without 10+ turns of anarchy) I can really see the difference those food multipliers make in the civics. I'd be willing to check out the new system Koshling has in mind, but it might be less balanced than what is currently in place. When I changed to my current set of civics, the food changes being Tribal to Bourgeois for a 50% savings, No Borders to Open Borders for a -15% required food, and No Agriculture to Subsistence Agriculture a reduction from 50% to only 25% my cities exploded. I would say some of my oldest cities are growing unrealistically for the time period. I couldn't say for certain though. Are size 20 cities normal around 100 A.D.? My biggest city just hit influential culture and is now working the 3rd city ring, so I expect more speedy growth from this city.
I thought the metro admin building was required to work the 3rd ring?

My current v21 game is at 1969AD and my Largest city is a size 43. I have 71 cities and only my capital and my 3rd built city is at that 43 size, on a Giant map, 7AI, Archipelago map. And only 1 AI has been eliminated. (One of the other AI did that. Although I did give him the tech to make him have an edge over the AI he defeated.) ;)

I just got Food factory in the last 3 turns and only have 1 built so far. I don't consciously use the 3rd ring, as I don't leave that much room between my cities. Archipelago maps make you very city placement conscious as you need to make your borders solid by the time you can navigate the seas/oceans.

Earlier versions, circa v14, I could have size 50+ and sometimes size 60 by this time frame.

I play on Epic level so my eXperiences Are different than a player that uses Snail. On Epic level City Limits are unnecessary as are fixed borders. The Pop growth restrictions coupled with the food wasteage modifiers make it so that you have to really push to exceed the Number of cities that City Limits set. So for Epic games they become redundant and not needed. And I AM a city spammer. I will push my economy to the breaking point to place a city I deem necessary for resources or border locking. Then I backfill like mad.

The AI in my games on Epic don't get trapped as long in lesser Civic choices either. And if a Leaders favorite Gov't Civic happens to be Despotism it doesn't go into a Death spiral by using it, like those games that use City Limits and Rev do. I also never use REV. It implodes strong opponents into weak pickings imho.

As for the changes proposed, I'd use them, hehe. :D But I have learned to adapt my play for the current system. With the above noted differences or Options Not used. Of course C2C changes so much with each version that you are in a constant state of adaptation. So you Must learn to adapt and give up your old regular BtS ways of playing. And for some of you the ways that you exploited or cheated the AI with. ;)

JosEPh

Dancing Hoskuld
Mar 01, 2012, 10:42 PM
Ok, time to re-evaluate!

It's pretty clear that:


This is a not-entirely popular feature ;)
The original runaway growth that caused its introduction is greatly tamed now anyway


For that reason I am thinking of taming wastage somewhat.

I **don't** want to entirely remove it because I don't want to get into the situation where you can have 70% storage of food plus literally several hundred food per turn, leading to growth almost immediately in some eras/city sizes.

However, I don't think the current system scales well enough. Currently wastage is dependent only on the surplass food (and independent of city size or growth thresholds). This seems wrong. Thinking about modeling reality it's certainly true that one person (or one unit of population however many you want to view that as being) can't make use of enough food for 100 people. Equally 100 people CAN.

Hence I am thinking of changing the wastage formula so that it scales with population, and the threshold is increased (i.e. - the wastage curve moves out to the right with surplass food being the horizontal axis) the smaller the proportion of the food-required-to-grow your food-per-turn is.

The effects would be:

Early cities wouldn't see much wastage at all because their growth rates are so low that the surplas would always be a small proportion of the growth threshold
Large cities wouldn't see wastage until significantly higher food surplass exists than is currently the case (more population can use more surplass without wasting it)
High-tech cities with huge surplasses and large storage-after-growth percentages would still see some wastage (though likely less than now)


I like.:goodjob:

One of the reasons I was not worried about dropping the idea of some diseases was because the affect I wanted was being done in in the food wastage system better than I could via a disease system. Changing it to this would indeed be more realistic but would mean that those diseases would now need to be introduced.

Malaria for example should have an affect that increases with population increasing food and hammer wastage until you can mitigate its effects. I suppose that is what AIAndy's properties are all about. ;)

Hydromancerx
Mar 02, 2012, 12:39 AM
Its nice that the game can be played in so many different play styles. This is one of the best parts of C2C. It actually has some wiggle room so there is no "right" choice because there are so many possible paths you can follow when playing the game.

So much so that even playing the same map over (I suspect) would lead to different choices. I mean do people that play say GEM map play the same game over and over? I don't think so.

BlueGenie
Mar 02, 2012, 07:52 AM
I've adjusted to and like the food wastage. Granted, I liked it already from start. *laugh*

Though on the matter of food and growth: is the third ring = +50% or so food needed to grow really necessary with the Food Wastage System in play?
That's really all that bums me out with the food and growth atm.

Cheers

Koshling
Mar 02, 2012, 11:35 AM
I've adjusted to and like the food wastage. Granted, I liked it already from start. *laugh*

Though on the matter of food and growth: is the third ring = +50% or so food needed to grow really necessary with the Food Wastage System in play?
That's really all that bums me out with the food and growth atm.

Cheers

IMO no. Frankly I didn't even know that mechanic existed!

Edit - is there any consensus. I'm getting the impression there isn't in which case maybe my time is better spent on AI work currently, and just leave this be for now...?

BlueGenie
Mar 02, 2012, 12:37 PM
I don't know or remember if it increases required food to grow when using the Larger Cities Option and reaching Influential Culture. I do know it drastically increases food required to grow when reaching the third ring via Metropolitan admin building AND Capital admin building.

Cheers

JosEPh_II
Mar 02, 2012, 04:49 PM
IMO no. Frankly I didn't even know that mechanic existed!

Edit - is there any consensus. I'm getting the impression there isn't in which case maybe my time is better spent on AI work currently, and just leave this be for now...?

Well DH and I said "We" would use it. :D

But AI work Is very important too!

Dang! Mixed signals again! :lol:

JosEPh ;)

Dancing Hoskuld
Mar 02, 2012, 04:55 PM
IMO no. Frankly I didn't even know that mechanic existed!

Edit - is there any consensus. I'm getting the impression there isn't in which case maybe my time is better spent on AI work currently, and just leave this be for now...?

Well DH and I said "We" would use it. :D

But AI work Is very important too!

Dang! Mixed signals again! :lol:

JosEPh ;)

If we could get the "malaria" style diseases in the game then I think your changes would be great but maybe we need to hold off until they are in. Now since I said I would not be working on them for C2C does not mean I will not be working on them (diseases) for my mod. Since I do stuff in modules anyway it should be fairly easy to merge back into C2C when I get them done

JosEPh_II
Mar 02, 2012, 05:11 PM
I wish I had some of your modding skills DH.

I would Mod RoM1.03 and take it in a different direction that RoM eventual went to. Adding in the base K-Mod would be starters. No BBAI or REV would be in it. But the new DCM would. And your Subdued critters would be a must have. Although it might be trimmed a wee bit. ;)

JosEPh

MMX5000
Mar 03, 2012, 09:14 PM
Well not sure about anyone else of course but personally I like the changes you propose to wasted food. It does make more sense that 100 ppl can make more use of food than 10 ppl plus if you say that early cities wont have much of a difference it looks like it still solves the original problem it was meant to.

You know between this mod and AND, I'm just never gonna get a chance to go back to Civ5.

BlueTemplar
Mar 04, 2012, 03:31 PM
I play on Epic level so my eXperiences Are different than a player that uses Snail. On Epic level City Limits are unnecessary as are fixed borders. The Pop growth restrictions coupled with the food wasteage modifiers make it so that you have to really push to exceed the Number of cities that City Limits set. So for Epic games they become redundant and not needed. And I AM a city spammer. I will push my economy to the breaking point to place a city I deem necessary for resources or border locking. Then I backfill like mad.
I don't understand what you are talking about. Neither pop growth restrictions, nor the food wastage affect the building of settlers, so these settings should encourage you to spam even more cities... especially since close-placed cities will allow you to use all the food from farms without much wastage.

Its nice that the game can be played in so many different play styles. This is one of the best parts of C2C. It actually has some wiggle room so there is no "right" choice because there are so many possible paths you can follow when playing the game.
On the contrary, that's my main gripe with food wastage : it makes cities harder to grow fast, so strategies based on food and fast city growth are hindered. It also means that :hammers: rule all, partly because of the numerous production bonuses available.
Whipping, Drafting, and farm cities filled with specialists fade before the power of the Mine (a whopping 7-10 :hammers: with forest, road, Caste and Slavery) supported with a few farms, just enough to get 32 extra :food: (half wasted) after which the waste becomes too crippling to add more farms.
Furthermore you need Guilds to get rid with Agricultural Guilds of the last significant hindrance to growth , and Slavery carries a growth penalty too, so early whipping is even more hindered.
A cottage economy doesn't seem that great either because :
- By the point cottages start to grow you'll have Conscription which nicely makes use of all the extra farms you have. Canal systems is not far.
- You could remove forests to place cottages but Lumbermill is not that far away. Let's see: Lumbermill + Caste/Proletariat is +3 :hammers:, but you'll have around +95% production at that point so that makes +5.85 :hammers: (and EVEN MORE for buildings and especially military units) that you can ALSO convert to 5.85 :espionage: or 4.68 :science: / :gold: / :culture:. Village + Coinage is +1 :food: +5 :commerce: but villages need to GROW first, unlike lumbermills which you can just build; bonuses for :commerce:, :science: and :gold: are fewer and mainly limited to your capital, furthermore converting :gold: to :hammers: is a LOT more expensive than the other way around. For rush-building something you have the supply trains and the like that provide a better bargain.
- I don't know how is it in C2C, but in late game in AND towns (unlike in regular Civ 4) are not worth it compared to farms and factories, so why bother with cottages at all?
It's true that I haven't tried to play in a different way (and only went until the start of middle ages so far), since it's my first game I just went the path of the least resistance and did what seemed more effective. I'm going to try these other strategies if I get around to finishing this game and see how it goes...

Epona222
Mar 04, 2012, 09:15 PM
You know between this mod and AND, I'm just never gonna get a chance to go back to Civ5.

You say that like it is a bad thing :lol: I only came to AND and then C2C because Civ 5 was such a disappointment to me :( Thanks to C2C it's as if I have a new version of Civ every month :D

Back on the topic of food (and specifically early pop growth) - although I have now got to grips with growing cities in the early game, I am not sure whether the AI is prioritising it (or building tribes to settle new cities for that matter) as their cities seem to be growing a lot slower. I am keen to take out Arabia because I want Middle Eastern culture (a new reason to go to war in CIV :lol: ) but their only city has been at size 1 forever and if I go against them now it will just be razed, I have enough espionage points against them to see they are building a bandits hideout rather than food buildings/gatherers - they have a lot of terrain and even resources with no improvements at all - so wondering if the AI needs tweaking to take account of how much slower it is to grow now we need a lot of extra food required to grow cities with the various different early civics.

Hydromancerx
Mar 04, 2012, 09:47 PM
Thanks to C2C it's as if I have a new version of Civ every month :D

That should be our slogan...

"Caveman to Cosmos: A new version of Civ every month."

Koshling
Mar 05, 2012, 06:46 AM
I don't understand what you are talking about. Neither pop growth restrictions, nor the food wastage affect the building of settlers, so these settings should encourage you to spam even more cities... especially since close-placed cities will allow you to use all the food from farms without much wastage.


On the contrary, that's my main gripe with food wastage : it makes cities harder to grow fast, so strategies based on food and fast city growth are hindered. It also means that :hammers: rule all, partly because of the numerous production bonuses available.
Whipping, Drafting, and farm cities filled with specialists fade before the power of the Mine (a whopping 7-10 :hammers: with forest, road, Caste and Slavery) supported with a few farms, just enough to get 32 extra :food: (half wasted) after which the waste becomes too crippling to add more farms.
Furthermore you need Guilds to get rid with Agricultural Guilds of the last significant hindrance to growth , and Slavery carries a growth penalty too, so early whipping is even more hindered.
A cottage economy doesn't seem that great either because :
- By the point cottages start to grow you'll have Conscription which nicely makes use of all the extra farms you have. Canal systems is not far.
- You could remove forests to place cottages but Lumbermill is not that far away. Let's see: Lumbermill + Caste/Proletariat is +3 :hammers:, but you'll have around +95% production at that point so that makes +5.85 :hammers: (and EVEN MORE for buildings and especially military units) that you can ALSO convert to 5.85 :espionage: or 4.68 :science: / :gold: / :culture:. Village + Coinage is +1 :food: +5 :commerce: but villages need to GROW first, unlike lumbermills which you can just build; bonuses for :commerce:, :science: and :gold: are fewer and mainly limited to your capital, furthermore converting :gold: to :hammers: is a LOT more expensive than the other way around. For rush-building something you have the supply trains and the like that provide a better bargain.
- I don't know how is it in C2C, but in late game in AND towns (unlike in regular Civ 4) are not worth it compared to farms and factories, so why bother with cottages at all?
It's true that I haven't tried to play in a different way (and only went until the start of middle ages so far), since it's my first game I just went the path of the least resistance and did what seemed more effective. I'm going to try these other strategies if I get around to finishing this game and see how it goes...

Totally agree with you on cottage line. IMO it needs boosting. I also agree that whipping (in slavery) isn't really of much use, though even without wastage I don't think it would be, just because the growth rate at the time slavery is a good option is just so low anyway (so wastage makes that situation worse, but isn't really the root of it, unless you are still usin slavery in the industtrial era!). Personally:

1) I'd definately like to see the cottage line get boosts from various techs (in line with the amount of boosting farms get)

2) I'm wondering if we should consider a change to the whipping mechanic that, instead of using population directly, uses an amount of stored food, killing a pop each time that amount takes you through 0, and that killed pop itself counting (for hurry purposes) as a fixed amount of stored food. That way a small hurry would (usually assuming you hadn't just grown with low stored food after growth) typically just cost you a bunch of stored food, whereas laregr ones would cost that as well as some population.

Koshling
Mar 05, 2012, 07:41 AM
By the way, to answer some general questions:

1) The specific formula for food wastage is (use a spreadsheet to model this if you want to see the effect in a tabular manner):

Waste(0)=0
Waste(S) = Waste(S-1) + ((float)1 - ((float)0.05 + pow((float)0.95, surplass))/(float)1.05)

where S is the raw surplass

2) It doesn't address the same need as unhealth for 2 reasons:
2.1) Unhealth sets an effective limit on population size, wastage on growth rate. They are not the same thing
2.2) Unhealth is pretty seriously unbalanced in C2C. You can basically ignore it from mid prehistoric (cooking or so) until sometime in the industrial period. IMO this needs some attention, but that's a different matter (and happyness even more so)

Here is what I am going to do, which I hope will satisfy everyone:

I am going to move the food wastage parameters into XML (global defines). I wil define 2 values:

i) Percentage of consumption at which waste starts (currently 0 but I think I'm going to change it to 100). This means the zero point of wastage can be moved from 0 surplass to some multiple of the city's consumption (which is for most purposes 3 * population). With a default of 100 this will effectively be saying 'the population can handle a surplass that equals what they need to get by without wastage, but after that they start to waste). Setting this param to a large number will effectively turn waste off. I'll also allow -1 as an explicit off switch.

ii) Wastage growth factor - this is the 0.05 (and impicit 0.05 in the 0.95 and 1.05) in the above formula. Default will be left at 0.05. Larger numbers cause wastage to grow faster with more surplass, lower ones less.

AIAndy
Mar 05, 2012, 08:11 AM
Totally agree with you on cottage line. IMO it needs boosting. I also agree that whipping (in slavery) isn't really of much use, though even without wastage I don't think it would be, just because the growth rate at the time slavery is a good option is just so low anyway (so wastage makes that situation worse, but isn't really the root of it, unless you are still usin slavery in the industtrial era!). Personally:

1) I'd definately like to see the cottage line get boosts from various techs (in line with the amount of boosting farms get)

2) I'm wondering if we should consider a change to the whipping mechanic that, instead of using population directly, uses an amount of stored food, killing a pop each time that amount takes you through 0, and that killed pop itself counting (for hurry purposes) as a fixed amount of stored food. That way a small hurry would (usually assuming you hadn't just grown with low stored food after growth) typically just cost you a bunch of stored food, whereas laregr ones would cost that as well as some population.
That is certainly a viable option.
An alternative: What about if whipping would force you to use X population as slave specialists and weakens it by Y hammers, both for Z turns.

Koshling
Mar 05, 2012, 09:50 AM
Parameterised version pushed to SVN. Parameters may be found in assets\xml\A_New_Dawn_GlobalDefines.xml:

WASTAGE_START_CONSUMPTION_PERCENT - integer, sets the percentage of consumption that the surplass must reach before ANY wastage starts (i.e. - the start of the curve). I was going to set this to 100 (previous unparameterised version was 0 effectively) but I hated the results on my current game (all my large cities were going to grow every 2-3 turns for some time), so I compromised on 50. If set negative all wastage is turned off.

WASTAGE_GROWTH_FACTOR - float, set to 0.05. Changing this will change the steepness of the curve (lower numbers will lead to a flatter curve)

JosEPh_II
Mar 05, 2012, 10:42 AM
This sounds good. Will start a new game this evening to test.

JosEPh

BlueTemplar
Mar 05, 2012, 12:59 PM
2) I'm wondering if we should consider a change to the whipping mechanic that, instead of using population directly, uses an amount of stored food, killing a pop each time that amount takes you through 0, and that killed pop itself counting (for hurry purposes) as a fixed amount of stored food. That way a small hurry would (usually assuming you hadn't just grown with low stored food after growth) typically just cost you a bunch of stored food, whereas laregr ones would cost that as well as some population.
That's a great idea! Use directly food instead of population, and like I suggested for :gold: allow the player to choose the amount of :food: to spend with the default being just enough to finish building the item accounting for the city :hammers: production.

Waste(0)=0
Waste(S) = Waste(S-1) + ((float)1 - ((float)0.05 + pow((float)0.95, surplass))/(float)1.05)

Why an iterative formula? I guess pow(...) means 0.95^S ?

2.2) Unhealth is pretty seriously unbalanced in C2C. You can basically ignore it from mid prehistoric (cooking or so) until sometime in the industrial period. IMO this needs some attention, but that's a different matter (and happyness even more so)
I was going to make a thread about that. Health and happiness have too many possible positive enhancements and too few negative ones. One consequence is that city limits can be almost ignored until you get about the double of cities, and that cities grow too fast.
Think also about :food: and :health: : in basic Civ 4 you need 2 :food: per citizen, plus one :food: will be wasted by :yuck: if you don't have enough :health:. An irrigated farm on a plains/tundra gives 2 :food: (until Biology). There are NO civics that give extra food from farms. (The city itself provides 2 :food:.) So you need 1 :health: per citizen, and all citizens except the first one working farms just not to starve the city, unless you have extra food from grasslands, flood plains or food resources. With so few extra food health is important.
In C2C at Guilds/Crop Rotation a plains/tundra/marsh/muddy irrigated farm with Caste and Slavery produces a whopping 10 :food:! And with the many :health: bonuses, you won't have any :yuck: in your cities, and I guess :yuck: wouldn't really matter anyway because how food wastage is calculated... (- :food: from :yuck: is subtracted BEFORE the food wastage is calculated, right?). A citizen consumes 3 :food:. So the result is a farm-working citizen produces 7 (!) extra :food: instead of consuming 1 extra :food: like in basic Civ4. And you're wondering that cities are growing too fast! (I'm not even counting all the :food:-producing buildings...) Why even bother with health when you've got so much extra food?

Koshling
Mar 05, 2012, 01:14 PM
That's a great idea! Use directly food instead of population, and like I suggested for :gold: allow the player to choose the amount of :food: to spend with the default being just enough to finish building the item accounting for the city :hammers: production.


Why an iterative formula? I guess pow(...) means 0.95^S ?


I was going to make a thread about that. Health and happiness have too many possible positive enhancements and too few negative ones. One consequence is that city limits can be almost ignored until you get about the double of cities, and that cities grow too fast.
Think also about :food: and :health: : in basic Civ 4 you need 2 :food: per citizen, plus one :food: will be wasted by :yuck: if you don't have enough :health:. An irrigated farm on a plains/tundra gives 2 :food: (until Biology). There are NO civics that give extra food from farms. (The city itself provides 2 :food:.) So you need 1 :health: per citizen, and all citizens except the first one working farms just not to starve the city, unless you have extra food from grasslands, flood plains or food resources. With so few extra food health is important.
In C2C at Guilds/Crop Rotation a plains/tundra/marsh/muddy irrigated farm with Caste and Slavery produces a whopping 10 :food:! And with the many :health: bonuses, you won't have any :yuck: in your cities, and I guess :yuck: wouldn't really matter anyway because how food wastage is calculated... (- :food: from :yuck: is subtracted BEFORE the food wastage is calculated, right?). A citizen consumes 3 :food:. So the result is a farm-working citizen produces 7 (!) extra :food: instead of consuming 1 extra :food: like in basic Civ4. And you're wondering that cities are growing too fast! (I'm not even counting all the :food:-producing buildings...) Why even bother with health when you've got so much extra food?

I think the health/happyness balance issues should be moved to another thread. I will start one...

PS - iterative formula just because it was the simplest way I found to give the asymptotic behaviour I wanted. Just pragmatism is all.

BlueTemplar
Mar 06, 2012, 03:23 AM
Yeah, it's interesting because it IS asymptotic, but the further you go, the more time it takes to get there, so you're at 90% wasted food at 333 extra food, but only 93% wasted food at 1000 extra food!

Koshling
Mar 06, 2012, 06:36 AM
Yeah, it's interesting because it IS asymptotic, but the further you go, the more time it takes to get there, so you're at 90% wasted food at 333 extra food, but only 93% wasted food at 1000 extra food!

That's deliberate. I wanted diminishing returns, but never NO return.

DRJ
Mar 06, 2012, 06:50 AM
Why even bother with health when you've got so much extra food?


I would like to see having that having :yuck: gives more instability to the empire - so ignoring it and having like -10 :yuck: in a city in industrial age would produce :mad: as well as less :hammers:

These effects should begin to kick in at late renaissance, like with Invention because in early game unhealthyness is balanced ok, I think...

Btw. interesting twist to overcome the unhappyness by unhealthyness would be to be able to produce :health: for whole nation, like if you set 1 city with minimum of size 25 to producing :health: all other cities in the empire will get 1 :health:/turn as long as the size-25-city continues to produce :health:/turn

What you guys think of that? Producing :health: could be enabled by medicine, mabye, as it is around that time the factories' :yuck: start to kick in...

BlueTemplar
Mar 06, 2012, 08:12 AM
IIRC there's already a city :yuck:-generated instability, but it's effect isn't that great (in AND)... :mad: would come from eventual revolts, but why less :hammers:?

IMHO :health: is broken by mid-Classical. Otherwise I'm about to research invention and the median :health: of my cities is +33!

DRJ
Mar 06, 2012, 08:22 AM
IIRC there's already a city :yuck:-generated instability, but it's effect isn't that great (in AND)... :mad: would come from eventual revolts, but why less :hammers:?


Yes, but the effects of :yuck: instability must become more visible (instability created by :yuck:=10-times higher?), not from beginning of game but with certain techs like Invention, which shows the people of your empire that their :yuck: doesn't really have to be - if the ruling class would spend more for their wellbeing.

Less :hammers: of course because ill people tend to work less often and less effective
even if they are slaves and whiped. So a city with 10 :yuck: should lose at least 10% :hammers:, in my opinion.


IMHO :health: is broken by mid-Classical.

You may be right but the unhealthiness=unhappyness should not kick in then, I think, maybe for this time the unhealthyness=unproductivity could solve the balancing issues... as long as giving many classical civics more :yuck: based on city size maybe... as I think you want to say there is too much health around, which of course is not true for every game, especially for deity players starting on england, for example ;-)

Koshling
Mar 06, 2012, 11:58 AM
Yes, but the effects of :yuck: instability must become more visible (instability created by :yuck:=10-times higher?), not from beginning of game but with certain techs like Invention, which shows the people of your empire that their :yuck: doesn't really have to be - if the ruling class would spend more for their wellbeing.

Less :hammers: of course because ill people tend to work less often and less effective
even if they are slaves and whiped. So a city with 10 :yuck: should lose at least 10% :hammers:, in my opinion.



You may be right but the unhealthiness=unhappyness should not kick in then, I think, maybe for this time the unhealthyness=unproductivity could solve the balancing issues... as long as giving many classical civics more :yuck: based on city size maybe... as I think you want to say there is too much health around, which of course is not true for every game, especially for deity players starting on england, for example ;-)

Not offering a value-judgement on whether we WANT to have a health->instablity mechanic, but two observations on it:

1) It would only be meaningful with REV on, which is a game option

2) I think any such instability should arise not from absolute values of unhealth, but from divergence of unhealth from the national average (normalised for pop in each city) feeding into local instability; and by divergence of your national average from the worlwdide average (leading to national instability)

That seems more natural (people don't know it's bad for them unless they see someone else better off), and also allows the mechanic to flow both ways (we are way more healthy than those goes so it makes us like the status quo better), though we'd probably want to equilibrium point to be set on the negative side slightly.

Dancing Hoskuld
Mar 06, 2012, 12:36 PM
Having a disease system that actually reduces your population if you get to much unhealthiness might be an answer. Should be possible with the new property system if I could just get my head around the "jargon". :)

BlueTemplar
Mar 06, 2012, 12:58 PM
I think he wants to add a new kind of "instability" completely different from REV.

Also I'm currently at deity.

Why england would have less health?

DRJ
Mar 06, 2012, 01:30 PM
Why england would have less health?

Cause on GEM it has not so many :health: resources. I think it has apples, cow, sheep and fish and maybe some crab, after all, it isn't sufficient for huge cities ;-)

+ deity gives extra :yuck: (or better: gives less starting :health: )and slows down the availibility to techs with more :health: so that's that + eternity speed and your London city feels like a stinking moloch for centuries ;-)

lunfa_reo
Mar 16, 2012, 02:04 PM
I'm playing with the version that still does not have the wasted food parameters implemented. When I first learned about the wasted food feature I was like "OMG, I'm going to hate this". But after playing my current game, I have to say it's not bad, actually I find it effective to prevent the unrealistic massive cities I got in my previous game. My biggest city is my capital at size 30 in Renaissance, which I think is not bad, in fact it's more than what I was able to get by the same era in regular BtS.

Anyway this feature has now been parameterized (great), but I just wanted to give you this feedback.

Bye!