(9-07a) Food/Farm/Specialist Tweaks (Alt)

[azum4roll]

This proposal is exactly the same as (9-08) Food/Farm/Specialist Tweaks:

Thread '(9-07) Food/Farm/Specialist Tweaks'

Jan 1, 2026

Motivation
After early game, food and farms fall off in value. This pushes the current meta to spam lots of lower pop cities with little to no farms and using avoid growth which gets repetitive. Cities then often focus on working a few tiles and specialists and outside of your capital are very uniform with little variation. The current happiness system is a factor in this but changing it significantly is probably out of scope of this balance focused congress. There are 2 main issues that this is trying to tackle:

1. How can we make food matter more in mid and late game?
2. How...

• redrum68
• Replies: 33
• Forum: Failed Proposals

• 

Except the following points:

Current Specialist Food Consumption

• Ancient to Information: 3-3-3-4-5-6-7-8

(9-08) Proposed Specialist Food Consumption

• Ancient to Information: 4-4-5-6-7-8-9-10

(9-08b) Proposed Specialist Food Consumption

• Ancient to Information: 3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10

Ancient Era specialist food cost is just fine. Food is actually in shortage so working specialists already has a reasonable cost.

No change to Farm yields on Aqueduct and Grocer. Instead, change Aqueduct as follows:

• Food: +1
• +15% Food is carried over when City grows
• -1 Unhappiness from Poverty
• +2 to Oasis
• +2 to Lake Tiles
• When a Citizen is born in this City: gain Production equal to 60% of City output

Harappan Reservoir is also changed accordingly.
Instead of adding more Food, we encourage growth. Assuming you grow every 15 turns, it's effectively a +4% Production (post-modifiers).
The convention of one building boost per normal improvement is preserved.
Grocer is already good enough as a happiness building.

The +2 Food from the base proposal is added to techs instead, if the adjacency proposal doesn't pass.
Mathematics: +1 Food to Farms
Fertilizer: +2 Food to Farms (up from +1)

Also counterproposal to:

Thread '(9-07c) Farms On Hills With Fresh Water'

Jan 6, 2026

This proposal is exactly the same as (9-08) Food/Farm/Specialist Tweaks:


Except we also allow farms to be built on hills with freshwater.

Motivation: I love that we are making farms important again, and this makes it easier (and relies on less map RNG) to group farms together.

Spoiler ImprovementChanges.sql :

UPDATE Improvements
SET RequiresFlatlands = 0, RequiresFlatlandsOrFreshWater = 1
WHERE Type = 'IMPROVEMENT_FARM';

Magi note: This is a separate proposal since it is just base+addition

• usadefcon1
• Replies: 7
• Forum: Failed Proposals

• 

Referenced:

P

Thread '(9-07b) Gradually Increase Farm Adjacency Bonus Throughout The Game'

Jan 4, 2026

Motivation: Farm adjacency bonus is a fun and unique mechanic which mostly doesn't matter due to it becoming too low as the game goes on, and due to Food itself becoming less and less valuable. There's little value in building "Farm triangles" even in the early game, as the bonus quickly becomes too low and you stop needing Farms at all, replacing them with Villages and GPTIs. Tradition doesn't need Farms practically at all, especially in the Capital. Food Internal Trade Routes are much more efficient at growing cities than assigning 3-5 citizens to work Farms.

Any direct Farm buffs, like...

• paul_soryu
• Replies: 43
• Forum: Failed Proposals

• 

Update 1: added conditional tech boosts to farms if the adjacency proposal doesn't pass.

 

[redrum68]

So this wouldn't buff non-resource farms at all then?

Also, the aqueduct production on growth is so low that it doesn't really matter (this is a pretty early game building so 4% is nothing). Honestly we could just remove that even with this increase.

 

[azum4roll]

So this wouldn't buff non-resource farms at all then?

Also, the aqueduct production on growth is so low that it doesn't really matter (this is a pretty early game building so 4% is nothing). Honestly we could just remove that even with this increase.

No buff to farms. I'm kinda relying on the adjacency proposal to pass.

 

[paul_soryu]

No buff to farms. I'm kinda relying on the adjacency proposal to pass.

Okay I just amended my proposal without noticing you proposed this one. I removed +1 Food to Farms from Civil Service and Fertilizer to balance out bonus Food from original 9-08.

I've seperated this removal into another proposal now.

 

[azum4roll]

Updated proposal to conditionally add tech buffs to farms if the adjacency proposal doesn't pass.

 

[redrum68]

Updated proposal to conditionally add tech buffs to farms if the adjacency proposal doesn't pass.

Any reason you prefer tech buffs instead of buffing the aqueduct line? I originally had tech buffs but moved them to buildings as I thought that made it so cities want to prioritize them more especially if they have lots of farms.

 

[azum4roll]

Tech boosts for Farms are very underwhelming compared to Mines, another Ancient base improvement. This would set them equal (4 techs with +1/+1/+2/+3 boosts).

Also the one building boost per improvement thing that I want to keep as much as possible.

 

[paul_soryu]

I like Food boosts to Farms on techs more as well, because it would be a consistent gradual mechanic, while +1 Food to Aqueduct and Grocery will suddenly end at early Renaissance. There's a lot of boosts to Mines and Quarries as well, some back to back.

 

[redrum68]

Tech boosts for Farms are very underwhelming compared to Mines, another Ancient base improvement. This would set them equal (4 techs with +1/+1/+2/+3 boosts).

Also the one building boost per improvement thing that I want to keep as much as possible.

Yeah that is what I looked at as well. Just moved the boosts to buildings instead to make it more of an active choice and less you just get it. To your point, maybe some of the other improvement boosts should be moved to buildings as well. Factories for example could buff mines instead of just a tech.

 

[hokath]

Somethings gone a bit squiffy

The +2 Food from (9-09) is added to techs instead, if the adjacency proposal doesn't pass.
Mathematics: +1 Food to Farms
Fertilizer: +2 Food to Farms (up from +1)

The 9-09 is not to do with Farms. Which one was it?
In the linked one there, I don't see this +2 Food you mention. What's going on there? Did it change, or?

 

[paul_soryu]

I think azum meant 9-08, +2 Food from Aqueduct and Grocery

 

[hokath]

Ah yes, the base proposal, must be.
Edited for clarity.

 

[hokath]

Is the specialist food values already a define?

 

[FPXI]

Assuming specialist food calculations work the way I think they do, this would be marginally cleaner to implement than the original. It's still a dll change.

 

[Recursive]

    if (MOD_BALANCE_VP)
    {
        iFoodPerSpec = max((int)GET_PLAYER(getOwner()).GetCurrentEra(), /*2*/ GD_INT_GET(FOOD_CONSUMPTION_PER_POPULATION)) + 1;
        iFoodPerSpec = min(iFoodPerSpec, 10) * 100;
    }
    else
    {
        iFoodPerSpec = /*2*/ GD_INT_GET(FOOD_CONSUMPTION_PER_POPULATION) * 100;
    }

Currently it's hardcoded. Cleanest way to implement this would be as a column in the Eras table, but that's complex.

 

[FPXI]

Looked for any special logic around the AI and specialist food that this change might impact and I didn't find any.

I can sponsor this.

 

[Recursive]

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