Autarkic New York City?

[TerraHero]

i guess it would be interesting to ship production resources and Food across your nation. Would ofcourse be more realistic, but at teh same time pose for potential easy to abuse situations.

So in order for something like that to take in effect, perhaps it requieres an extra aspect into teh game, and that is the infrastructural level. So far infrastructure has been very limited to basicly juz building and airport and poof, its all connected.

Couple of roads here and there and bam, there we go. Going deeper into infrastructure, wich basicly a nation is build on, its been that way back to teh ancient world.

Then with a more indepth infrastructure, you could transport food, as you do resources. So, a city producing alot of food, can ship to a city producing less with all sorts of penalties ofcourse. In return, the city that takes it sorta "buys" it and loses in commerce. So that people would have to balance the distribution along with income.

Juz a random idea: City A produces alot of Food and City B wich is surounded by mountains and hills has a hard time mainting a small population.

The player can set up a suply from City A to City B, costs for this (the loss in commerce for City B) would be calculated in the distance and the terain ithas to cross over. Crossing over mountains is quite an enterprize back in teh days of iron swords. Later on, various technological developments, aswell as terain imrpovements can reduce those costs as they make trael easier. Aswell as perhaps create a maximum of food that can be shipped.

Makign such suply chains visible and disruptable by hostile nations to starve other cities creates an extra tactical perspective.

But this is just a random idea.

 

[Chieftess]

Uhm talking about metropolis and countries, I should come to pay you american people a visit . East coast should be very nice ... well, except when struck by tornadoes :|.

That's the mid-west. (Granted, La Plata, Maryland gets a few tornados for some reason...)

Now, why would you want huge "corn field metros" giving food? They'd have so much food, you could make like the previous civs and turn them into specialists rather than send them to the "big cities".

It's funny how some people want things to be precise, like XYZ city must be a certain population, and XYZ nation must declare war when they get XYZ tech. Then it would be Sim Civilization. (Or "Civilization: The Movie")

 

[dc82]

having cities focused on food production goes well w/ the whole idea of specialized cities that i believe was a focus on civ 4 - that certain cities can specialize in different functions - science, production, wealth - y not food?

 

[bman003]

Originally Posted by Herr Doktor
Uhm talking about metropolis and countries, I should come to pay you american people a visit . East coast should be very nice ... well, except when struck by tornadoes :|.

In response to that, storms can and have produced tornadoes in every state in the US. However, the large portion of them are smack dab in the plains. They're pretty sweet to chase, that's my other hobby besides civ. Hopefully this is ok, check out my website w/ a video of a tornado, http://www.untitledimages.com/chase.html

Sorry about the side track I just generally get over excited when people bring up tornadoes. By the way I agree, that about the whole farming issue. I think a good solution would your "city's view" would grow allowing them to produce certain squares, even if on the other side of the continent. However, there'd be restrictions like the requirement of roads, and it being in your borders. I think it would be intresting is if countries could diplomatically share resources. Hence, allowing Canada to get food from america, or something like that. I don't know you guys are pretty good at debating this stuff anyways....

 

[Herr Doktor]

Off topic ->
Nice site indeed.
So, you chase tornadoes ? Isn't a bit risky?
<- Fine off topic

 

[nicae]

spooky storms! more frightening than stacks of doom!

 

[Cheimison]

i think it's also important to note that thie dyanmics have changed over time - ancient and medieval cities dependent on local food production, but as transportation systems improved and the nation-state began to develop, food production continued to move to rural areas, as once farms became urban centers - at one point manhattan was farmland, but as the city grew, the farms kept moving up and away. then, in the past century, suburban development truly moved the farms to distant areas, requiring hefty transportation networks (highways, shipping, ports, etc.) to sustain the large cities we see today.

That's a myth, people have this weird vision of the 'dark ages' or the ancient world as being nothing but big farms and kings and ****. There was vast long distance trade, including food. Rome and many other mediteranean civilizations relied heavily on Egypt for foodstuffs. Carthage, Iran and Greek cities imported grain from what is now Ukraine.

 

[Grey Fox]

The whole strategic point of placing a city would go to waste tho. I like it how it is, cus afterall, its a game.

 

[Philips beard]

The good old city states of ancient times relied on their surrounding agriculture. I guess Rome was the first city changing that, when Rome grew to become a great empire! So it's not hopelessy incorrect in the early stages of the game.... But come on, perhaps another system would kill alot of the charm of CIV?

 

[frekk]

That's a myth, people have this weird vision of the 'dark ages' or the ancient world as being nothing but big farms and kings and ****. There was vast long distance trade, including food. Rome and many other mediteranean civilizations relied heavily on Egypt for foodstuffs. Carthage, Iran and Greek cities imported grain from what is now Ukraine.

True to a degree. But don't forget that large cities still tended to aggregate on fertile land and had to have some degree of local food production, especially for perishables. Also because the more food you have to import, the more expensive it is. You don't have cities in the middle of the Sahara or anything, like Las Vegas. Populations then, as now, tend to occur on fertile land or near good fishing grounds. If you look at the distribution of arable land in the world and the distribution of population, on a global map, you'll see that they bear a very very strong relationship.

Not that some food trading shouldn't be possible, but it should be constrained, so that you're still encouraged to settle in lands with some local food production. When you develop things like trains, internal combustion engines, refrigeration, etc, you should be able to do this better.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I actually believe that what you have described, Frekk, is what they are aiming for in the game-with their food trade and health system. That is to say that city placement will still be fairly important, particularly in the early part of the game, but that means will now exist by which a city can grow in the absence of local food production-thus allowing said city to focus more on specialisation. However, without 'Breadbasket' cities and/or trading food with other nations, then these specialised cities are going to risk starvation (something which could, actually, make embargoes VERY important in Civ4 !)

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[dc82]

That's a myth, people have this weird vision of the 'dark ages' or the ancient world as being nothing but big farms and kings and ****. There was vast long distance trade, including food. Rome and many other mediteranean civilizations relied heavily on Egypt for foodstuffs. Carthage, Iran and Greek cities imported grain from what is now Ukraine.

Many ancient cities when founded were dependent on immediate food sources - there's a good reason why almost every civilization has been founded near rivers, lakes, and other bodies of water. Rome itself was founded on pastoral settlements on the Palatine Hill. As the population and city grows, the food production obviously moves out further to outlying areas.

No one's arguing the Rome was a giant farm - at the same time though, much of its food production was still in the immediate areas surrounding the city - true, there was an extensive trade network - but the type and amount of food is proportionately much smaller than the type of food-city relationship today. Most of New York's food comes from hundreds of miles away - we're not just talking about spices and a few exotic items, but everything from grains, meats, fish, etc. But either way, the argument remains, there should be a system that allows considerable amount of food to be transfered over from a food producing city to other cities in your nation.

 

[remconius]

It does seem to be possible to feed "low-food cities" from other "farm cities".

If this is true, you could build cities into hills with no grassland nearby. If you would then feed them from your farm cities you will be able to create uber production cities working only hills and mountains...

It seems we will have to make a lot more choices in civ4.

 

[Grey Fox]

It does seem to be possible to feed "low-food cities" from other "farm cities".

If this is true, you could build cities into hills with no grassland nearby. If you would then feed them from your farm cities you will be able to create uber production cities working only hills and mountains...

It seems we will have to make a lot more choices in civ4.

If your talking about how it is in Civ4, then you are wrong. The Food resources only increases Health in the cities. (Health is the new pollution)

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Grey Fox, Health is not the new pollution. Pollution is now simply one of those factors which reduce a city's health. We know that each additional food source a city has access to (either local or via trade) will boost the health of a city. We also know that certain things (like improvements, access to fresh water etc) also boost a city's health-wheras apparently overcrowding, unhappiness and pollution all reduce health. How health directly relates to population growth, however, is still unknown.
Anyway, if true, then this means that it will be possible to create 'uber-specialised' cities (which is what they seem to want to encourage, to some degree, if you believe the interviews), but only if you have sufficient access to enough 'health boosting' items, like multiple food groups et al-whether directly or by trade.
Now for the flip side. If gaining food through trade allows you to produce an 'uber-production' city, what happens if an enemy lays siege to that city, effectively cutting it off from all of that city's food trade? Well first of all it will lose any income it might be recieving for all this trade but-even worse-it will result in a massive loss of health which-in turn-will probably result in massive depopulation. So, having some local production will still be a good idea !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Grey Fox]

Grey Fox, Health is not the new pollution. Pollution is now simply one of those factors which reduce a city's health.

I know, thats what I meant. But I wanted to keep it short.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Sorry Grey Fox, now that I read your post again, I realise that that is what you are trying to say-it was just your last sentance which was confusing. I guess my point is that access to health giving food via trade could-up to a point-substitute for a lack of locally grown produce for a particular city, and this in itself could lead to interesting possibilities. Now, if only we could shift around 'food units' (those bread symbols from Civ3) around too, then I truly WOULD be completely happy with the new system (we of course don't know if we can't yet!)

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Melendwyr]

Anyway, if true, then this means that it will be possible to create 'uber-specialised' cities (which is what they seem to want to encourage, to some degree, if you believe the interviews), but only if you have sufficient access to enough 'health boosting' items, like multiple food groups et al-whether directly or by trade.
Now for the flip side. If gaining food through trade allows you to produce an 'uber-production' city, what happens if an enemy lays siege to that city, effectively cutting it off from all of that city's food trade? Well first of all it will lose any income it might be recieving for all this trade but-even worse-it will result in a massive loss of health which-in turn-will probably result in massive depopulation. So, having some local production will still be a good idea

You're confusing health with food production. It doesn't matter how many health-bonus resources a city has access to if it doesn't produce enough food to feed more than a few people. Depopulation from disease and depopulation from starvation may have virtually identical consequences in-game, but they have very different causes. If there is no mechanic that permits transportation of food production from one city to another, the ultimate size of a city will be limited both by the civ's total access to health resources and local food production.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I am not confusing the two-I perfectly understand the difference. What I am saying is that-if a deficit in 'food units', for a given city population, leads to negative health (and, therefore, population decline) it may be possible to find ways in which this negative health can be overcome, and even reversed-both through the construction fo improvements and access to different types of food (lamb, beef, rice, wheat etc). They key is how much each contributes to city health.
Lets see if I can illustrate it, based on a number of caveats and assumptions.
Say you have a city with a population of 10 and requires 30 food units to maintain a static population. However, this city only has 28 food units.
Now, lets assume that each food unit (in excess or deficit) is equal to 1 health. This means that the city has a health of -2 (population decline).
However, as a result of its connections to a bread basket region (an area which combined produces pigs, wheat, rice and barley) it gains access to 4 different types of food, giving a +3 health bonus (+1 health for each additional food source). This means that, far from being in decline, this city's population will be growing. Access to fresh water and presence of certain improvements could boost this health bonus even further, thus allowing the city to get away with an even greater deficit of food units (local food production) before the city is thrown into population decline.
Hope that makes sense.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[mitsho]

Aussie_Lurker, the system you describe sounds good but there are two questions:
1) Does Firaxis really have this system for civIV or is this your impression only?
2) resources need to be perishable and have a capacity. A single resource of pig should only be able to be traded to 4,5 cities. Otherways (if a single source of pig supplys all cities), it will help the snowball effect, something we certainly do not want.

m