Trade Food URGENT

[Rigotti]

I just can't understand the reason of this.
My city A produces 15 food in a turn, and uses only 10
My city B produces 10 food in a turn, and demands 12.

Since A and B are connected (by road, harbor, airport), why can I trade food between this two cities? Correct me if I am worng, butta I thing this was allowed in CivII – and I miss this "rule" very much, especially later in a game, when I have cities with 28, 30 pop.

 

[TheNiceOne]

Check out this thread, where this topic has been heavily discussed. Some want the feature, and some (including) me don't want it, mainly because it lessens the strategic importance of correct city placement/planning, which IMHO is on of the most important and interesting parts of CIV3.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Although I'm still a staunch supporter of the food trading system-not just between cities in your Civ, but as part of a commodity trading system between Civs-it would be good if these new 'treasure' units could be modded such that they can cost food to build, and produce this same amount of food when brought into a city! Either that or, when they produce food, you lose an equivalent amount of food from the city which created it-much like the old Civ2 caravans!! If this were done, then you would still need to have good city placement, as Niceone points out, but you could still help cities who, often from no fault of your own, are currently starving!! In addition, they will be vulnerable to capture or destruction by hostile forces along the route, this allowing for the simulation of a Siege-type system!! With some good, old fashioned unit trading, you could also trade these 'food' and 'treasure' units to other civs, as part of the commodity trade I alluded to above !!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[warpstorm]

Aussie, there should be a loss in creation of these food units. There is friction in any system.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I agree wholeheartedly WS-if you create a food unit that gives a city 5-10 food units, for instance, then the city that built it should likewise lose 5-10 food units, from surplus food-a cost which should be borne the moment the unit is built!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[warpstorm]

I meant that not only should there be a loss in the home city, but there should be a loss in creation. A simple way would be to lose 20% right off the bat. A food 'unit' that adds 4 food to a target city would cost 5 food to create. This is what I meant by friction in the system.

The other concept that could be added is spoilage. Every turn that the unit exists, it could lose a food.

This way you could make up for a bad location but at cost.

I am definitely against any changes that make city location unimportant.

 

[Akka]

I think that food should be globalized, exactly like unit support. All excess food would be put in a poll, then redistributed to cities (by default, equally divided between all cities, and you could alter the distribution to favor/limit some).

 

[warpstorm]

I really dislike the idea of a globalized food pool. That is the kind of change that makes city placement unimportant.

In real life, food needs to be distributed and at a cost. Until modern era, this transport meant spoilage.

Any system of inter-city food distribution would need to model spoilage, friction (by this I mean that distribution shouldn't be free), and take into account the transport network.

 

[warpstorm]

double post

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by warpstorm
I really dislike the idea of a globalized food pool. That is the kind of change that makes city placement unimportant.

Well, no, as the city placement determine which tiles will be worked. But it makes so some cities would grow much more easily in hostile settings, that's right.

In real life, food needs to be distributed and at a cost. Until modern era, this transport meant spoilage.

Any system of inter-city food distribution would need to model spoilage, friction (by this I mean that distribution shouldn't be free), and take into account the transport network.

Yup, I think that this could be simply simulated : food received through redistribution would be subject to corruption, just like shields.

A thing that makes me like the globalized food is that we would be able to make units cost food. These thousands of men need to eat too, and being able to support an army on the field is something that is not present at the moment. Moreover, the farther the units are, the more corruption (=> food lost) there is, so sending huge expeditionnary forces would be much harder than it is now, which would be somehow something good

 

[Rigotti]

Some of my considerations...

1 - I don't think at all that the globalized food will make cities placement unimportant. After all, even with the globalized food, everbody likes to see the cities growing....and you still have to place your cities in a right place, because they would have to produce food for them and for the other cities as well.

2 - I think civIII is a strategy game AND a SIMULATOR. So, it must be as close to reality as possible. And many cities in the past eras grew up with the help (yeah, food) of other cities. And, it's completely possible you trade food with another city - it must be inside the game rules.

 

[TheNiceOne]

Originally posted by Rigotti
Some of my considerations...

1 - I don't think at all that the globalized food will make cities placement unimportant. After all, even with the globalized food, everbody likes to see the cities growing....and you still have to place your cities in a right place, because they would have to produce food for them and for the other cities as well.

I disagree. Find yourself some flood plain squares, and you'll get enough food to make all hill cities powerhouses. Today it's balanced - build a city where it produces many shields (hills, mountains), and it will grow slowly.

2 - I think civIII is a strategy game AND a SIMULATOR. So, it must be as close to reality as possible. And many cities in the past eras grew up with the help (yeah, food) of other cities. And, it's completely possible you trade food with another city - it must be inside the game rules.

CIV is nowhere near a simulator. I don't see a single thing in CIV3 that's even close to simulating real life. And that's good, bacause otherwise it would be a terrible game. I enjoy war games that try to be realistic, but playing them with CIV3's scope would be a nightmare.

 

[Rigotti]

Originally posted by TheNiceOne

I disagree. Find yourself some flood plain squares, and you'll get enough food to make all hill cities powerhouses. Today it's balanced - build a city where it produces many shields (hills, mountains), and it will grow slowly.

That's not correct for most players, who like to build 20, 30 cities. Besides, I already do that in terms of production. One of my strategies is build a city which produces many many shields (I use this as an military strategy, near a enemy civ's border). If I could build a city who produces many many food, I could use that as a strategy to colonize some hostile part of the map.

CIV is nowhere near a simulator. I don't see a single thing in CIV3 that's even close to simulating real life. And that's good, bacause otherwise it would be a terrible game. I enjoy war games that try to be realistic, but playing them with CIV3's scope would be a nightmare.

Well, butta it's close to reality, historically and logically. By commom sense, I know my army of panzers won't be defeated by a group of spearman, because won't be logically. So, I think it's very possible do trade food, since I'm not talking 'bout carry food from one city to another in a spaceship or by magic. I say again, it must be a strategy on the game.

 

[Rigotti]

sorry, my 1rs paragraph looked like a quote. my mistake. sorry for that.

I fixed it for you. --Padma

 

[WildWeazel]

By commom sense, I know my army of panzers won't be defeated by a group of spearman, because won't be logically.[/B]

REALLY!? You can't be so sure about that you know...

 

[Metacomet]

I like the idea, but we need to talk about the best system. And must be different in 4000 BC than in the year 2003.

We need to consider the era and the distances.

 

[Rigotti]

Thanx, Padma
;o)

 

[Rigotti]

I agree with that. As your tech is more and more advanced, the food trade between cities became more easy.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Thats always been my belief too! The higher the tech, the more that should be movable between Cities! One way to simulate this idea is to have a road connecting your city to your trade network, give you a bonus shields, food and commerce-based on the number of cities in your civ-with the total bonus increasing when you upgrade it to RR!! In addition, when you start, you might get a bonus only every 16 cities, this might go down to 12 when you hit the Middle Ages, and level out at 10 in the industrial and modern ages. RR's might start at a bonus for every 10 cities, then dropping down to 8 in the modern age! I know that something like this already occurs in the game, with each railroad granting you a bonus in that tile! I think this is a BAD way to do it, 'cause it does not take into account the size of your empire (which should dictate how much material you can shift around your empire) and, worse still, it leads to that ugly RR sprawl!! I feel that my idea eliminates the micromanagement of physically shifting shields and food around (either by caravan or through the city screen), retains the importance of city placement (lets face it-a bonus of 1 food, once your empire is 16 cities strong, won't help you if you have -2 food in that city!), but still reflects the ability of large empires to move surplus food and other goods around it's trade network!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.