• Our Forum Hosts will be doing maintenance sometime in the next 72 hours and you may experience an outage lasting up to 5 minutes.

(31a) Counterproposal: Return Granary Food

Status
Not open for further replies.

DeAnno

King
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
733
Counterproposal to: https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...lancing-mongolia-and-buffing-pastures.679493/

Very simple proposal here.

Re-add +25:c5food: instant yield to the Granary, just as it had in 2.6. Also improve the +1:c5food: base yield to +2:c5food:

The instant food is quite important to get dry cities up past the first couple pop easily, and without it a dry capital especially can present a lot of problems. It's a fiddly bonus that some may have seen as worth less than the code it was printed on, but in its own way it was necessary for the health of the game, and without it and with deer and bison taken from the granary, they are in a sad state and are a very weak building now. The extra base yield is intended to compensate for the loss of those common resources to keep granary at the same balance level as it was before.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

CrazyG

Deity
Joined
Oct 14, 2016
Messages
6,057
Location
Beijing
I strongly agree.

There are a lot of strategies were that 25 food was really important to reach specific population thresholds, most importantly eaching 4 pop for a settler in a reasonable amount of time on low food starts.
 

Stalker0

Baller Magnus
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
9,590
I don't know if we need the +1 food on top. The granary was a rock solid building before, good for pushing those first few early cities into pop, good for food resources, good for your ITRs. I don't think we need to rock the boat in anyway, just revert it right back to where it was, no changes
 

saamohod

Deity
Joined
Jul 22, 2014
Messages
2,068
Location
Unoccupied Ukraine
What was the reason for the change by the way? Never saw it discussed anywhere.
 
Last edited:

DeAnno

King
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
733
I am going to push back a little on the base food at those thinking it doesn't need to be increased. Very often an early granary city will have 1 deer or 1 bison it works. Somewhat less often it'll have 2+, most commonly 2 deer, and you'd build the granaries preferentially quickly in such cities. Losing out on that food is a significant nerf from 2.6 in my mind and one that wasn't warranted for the Granary.

However if after a few days it seems more are on the side of no extra base food I will edit that out before the voting phase.
 

pineappledan

Deity
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
8,427
Location
Alberta, Canada
The backlash to the granary losing its instant food has been heard loud and clear. There were some other shortcomings with the lodge/herbalist/granary implementation that I will work to address.

The implementation of the lodge building was discussed, and trial implemented in a modmod without eliciting much feedback. There was also 2 separate forum discussions (which are now archived) which proceeded from the rice/maize resource additions, and people generally agreed that a single building boosting 6 different resources was bloat. Adding another ancient building also presented an opportunity to unstack the tundra bonuses from Goddess of the Hunt/Stars & Sky.
There are a lot of strategies were that 25 food was really important to reach specific population thresholds, most importantly reaching 4 pop for a settler in a reasonable amount of time on low food starts.
This has been a common sentiment expressed to me by several people over a few different channels. "Low food start" most often translates into a tundra or hill start, which often means camp resources.
As a result I proposed restoring the instant food onto the Lodge, rather than putting it back onto the Granary, so that the resource boosts and instant food would come sooner for these specific circumstances, but that also received significant pushback.

With the resources divided as they are now, Granary's resource boosts are only on the things that are visible from turn 1. If a Granary is going to boost your bonus resources then you are not in a low-food start, because you can immediately see -- and work -- your bonus resources. It probably also means you're on flat land with freshwater access, based on where those farm resources are placed.

Between that resource division and its other two bonuses ( :c5food: ITR unlock and Food kept on birth), I see the potential for the building to bifurcate into either high priority if you have the resources, or low-priority if you don't. You rush it if you have the relevant resources around it, but if you don't see resources around you, you can infer that you have hidden camp or pasture resources nearby and prioritize the relevant techs, then lodge becomes a high priority building for growing in low food starts, while Granary retains its more delayed bonuses. Granary is safely a necessary building because the ITR unlock is major. Granary also shares a tech with Settlers, so it's already on a top priority tech. However, ITR unlock is not relevant until Trade, and Food Kept doesn't translate into good food yields until after 4 :c5citizen:, so the only real help for a low food start is that 25 :c5food: boost, and placing that on the granary only serves to force low food starts to build 2 buildings to come online instead of 1. Thus, a low food start seems like it would be helped more by the 25:c5food: booster being placed on the lodge, not the Granary.

I dunno, that's the way I see it; it makes sense to me.
 
Last edited:

CppMaster

Deity
Joined
Feb 13, 2018
Messages
2,182
Location
Poland
How does it makes sense that it gives instant 25 food? It's like magic that no work in the building has to be made.
 

rkkn

Warlord
Joined
May 28, 2019
Messages
189
big agree that if the reason for the instant food is to help low food starts, it makes much more sense for this instant food to be on the lodge
 

Recursive

Already Looping
Moderator
Joined
Dec 19, 2017
Messages
3,907
Location
Antarctica
I sponsor this proposal.

Proposal Sponsors: Recursive.

(Sponsors have indicated that they are able and willing to perform the code changes required for this proposal if the community votes Aye on it. Other coders are free to sponsor this as well. A proposal without a sponsor will not advance to the Voting Phase.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom