[Vote] (7-24) Supply Cap Penalty Rework

[Yngwie]

Current:
Exceeding supply cap limit effect Production and Growth

Proposal:
Exceeding supply cap limit effect Production and Food directly

Rationale:
So, if you have more soldiers than you can afford, some of your hammers are spent on their weapons and armor. That part is logical.
It should work the same way with Food instead of Growth for three reasons:

• Growth already affected by Approval rating.
• If you are over supply limit then soldiers start to eat provision of ordinary Citizens, therefore Supply Cap should affect Food directly, not potential Growth
• Hunger is always part of militaristic society. Many soldiers - population is starving.

 

[azum4roll]

Reducing food is a negative spiral (starvation is another unhappiness source). AI cannot handle those as it only focuses on the current state (no prevention).

 

[CppMaster]

Reducing food is a negative spiral (starvation is another unhappiness source). AI cannot handle those as it only focuses on the current state (no prevention).

Maybe because it isn't needed currently. Yet it's very easy to fix oversupply, because units can be dismissed, which AI has usually plenty anyway.

 

[N.Core]

Reducing food is a negative spiral (starvation is another unhappiness source). AI cannot handle those as it only focuses on the current state (no prevention).

This is kinda thematic since you have to send some of your ordinary citizen's resources to people in the war which will make your population have to ration their food, therefore leading to starvation.

The only prevention for this is to make the AI disband some of their extra units, which is what they can already do.

 

[N.Core]

Also, exceeding supply affecting growth will make cities with surplus food also crippled. That doesn't make sense since they are supplying the war resources but still have some stock left over for the general population. Their growth should be fine if the government takes some of their surplus food for war supply. +100 Food cities should not cripple like +10 Food cities would if you exceed the supply cap limit. This will also give some benefits to tall players as well.

 

[Yngwie]

So, if i get it correctly - the main problem is not about "affecting food directly". Main issue is huge % of food taken per Unit over Supply Cap? Probably, the possible solultion would be to change current % scaler to some X yields per Unit scaler?

 

[Recursive]

Reducing food is a negative spiral (starvation is another unhappiness source). AI cannot handle those as it only focuses on the current state (no prevention).

This is incorrect, the AI does disband units if they are oversupply.

 

[Stalker0]

MAGI: @Yngwie its not clear to me what you mean by "food directly" in your proposal. Do you mean that it reduces food by the same% as it currently does growth?"
@axatin @Recursive

 

[Recursive]

MAGI: @Yngwie its not clear to me what you mean by "food directly" in your proposal. Do you mean that it reduces food by the same% as it currently does growth?"
@axatin @Recursive

That's what I read it as.

 

[Yngwie]

MAGI: @Yngwie its not clear to me what you mean by "food directly" in your proposal. Do you mean that it reduces food by the same% as it currently does growth?"
@axatin @Recursive

Yes

 

[Recursive]

Last minute sponsored.

 

[azum4roll]

Let's have some example numbers to show what this will do.

A random image found on Discord shows a 19-pop city with 75.8 base food, +10% food modifier, and +51% growth modifier. No specialists are worked, but there are 7 laborers.

Resultant growth = [75.8 * (1 + 10%) - 19 * 2] * (1 + 51%) = 68.52

Now assume this empire is 5 over supply cap. The growth/food penalty would be -25%.
Current version: Growth = [75.8 * (1 + 10%) - 19 * 2] * (1 + 51% - 25%) = 57.18
Proposed version: Growth = [75.8 * (1 + 10% - 25%) - 19 * 2] * (1 + 51%) = 39.91

Now assume those 7 laborers are specialists instead. This is Industrial era, so each specialist costs 5 food.
Growth without supply penalty = [75.8 * (1 + 10%) - 12 * 2 - 7 * 5] * (1 + 51%) = 36.81

With -25% growth/food penalty,
Current version: Growth = [75.8 * (1 + 10%) - 12 * 2 - 7 * 5] * (1 + 51% - 25%) = 30.72
Proposed version: Growth = [75.8 * (1 + 10% - 25%) - 12 * 2 - 7 * 5] * (1 + 51%) = 8.20

In graph form, where x-axis is oversupply and y-axis is growth, red is current version and blue is proposed version:

Spoiler No specialists worked :

Spoiler 7 specialists worked :

At higher food consumption (= lower base growth), the difference is more pronounced. The city starts to starve earlier and you'll have to unwork specialists and work more farms, OR disband units. Unless you're the AI who receives handicap food to slightly alleviate this.

 

[dostillevi]

I’m voting no on this, but I’d vote yes if the food penalty was based on something other than a direct 5% additive penalty. Maybe something like the percent of units over cap is the food penalty. Eg if the cap is 15 and there are 20 units than (20/15)-1= 33% penalty to food. This makes having more supply an important factor in how much you can exceed the cap. It’s also a buff to war mongers which is needed currently.

 

[varis78]

I’m voting no on this, but I’d vote yes if the food penalty was based on something other than a direct 5% additive penalty. Maybe something like the percent of units over cap is the food penalty. Eg if the cap is 15 and there are 20 units than (20/15)-1= 33% penalty to food. This makes having more supply an important factor in how much you can exceed the cap. It’s also a buff to war mongers which is needed currently.

I am also voting no, but I like this counter-proposal and would vote yes to it.

 

[Recursive]

Timestamp post to arrange all the threads in a neat order.