Difference between flat food bonus and +% growth.

[Karmah]

Disclaimer : Thread useless for most technician around , but apparently usefull for some others

When reading discussion , I see a lot of confusion whren talking about ToA and fertility rites , it feels like growth is a misunderstood concept for some.

What growth is : the food left after your population eats his lot.
What growth isn't : a straigth multiplier of your food.

A straight flat food bonus , like +2 (like the +2 from granary) is applied , well , to your food gain

In fact +% growth increases your food AND the food eaten by your population , strange uh ?

Some math ? Growth = FOOD (with all + flat food bonus ) - FOOD EATEN BY POP(twice the pop)

If you increase the growth by k% , it goes like this :

1,k*growth = 1,k*(FOOD-FOOD EATEN) = 1,k*FOOD-1,k*FOOD EATEN

It does behave by multiplying both factors
Hopefully this is limited to positive growth , so +% growth only applies if growth is positive !

tl;dr:
What it also does it that if you have a 25 producing food cities of population 12 with a +10% growth , you don t gain 2,5 , you only get 10% of 25- 12*2 , so that's + 0,1 ... that s why people tends to say that +% growth is usually recommanded for super tall civs.

Some people still use it in wide , but you need to be a micromanager surgeon getting all of your cities to gain pop at the same time , and there one turn can be a nice difference.

 

[joncnunn]

Easyist explanation is highlight over the food of any city that includes a percentage bonus. (City must NOT be building a settler to see)

Hovering over the food surplus on the city screen section brings up a new section that shows
1. Raw food produced (including that by buildings)
2. Food consumed
3. Net surplus (or shortfall)
4. It will note all percentage growth appliers, and the total new food from that.
5. It will then note the total food surplus (or shortfall)

(If the city is producing a settler then it will also show the 0% growth penalty for producing a settler)

You can also hover over hammers, where it will note both net hammers and all bonus multipliers.

 

[Browd]

The mouse hover on food in the City View UI does give some misleading information, since it lumps food bonuses with growth bonuses, but if you work your way manually through the food numbers, it foots.

Regarding the arithmetic concerns expressed by the OP, Temple of Artemis and Floating Gardens increase raw food production, while every other food modifier (Landed Elite, Tradition Finisher, Fertility Rites, Swords into Plowshares, WLKD, etc.) applies to food surplus (raw food production from tiles and buildings, plus ToA and Floating Gardens food, minus food consumed by citizens and specialists).

So, let's say you have a 6-pop capital with a granary, ToA, Landed Elite, the Tradition finisher and Fertility Rites that is producing 12 raw food from worked tiles plus 2 food each from the granary and Landed Elite, for a total of 16 raw food production. The UI will display that you have "Base" food that reads as follows: 6.4 (16-12). The game isn't incapable of doing basic arithmetic; it has lumped the ToA bonus into the raw food total, which makes the actual raw food production 18.4 (ToA 1.15 x 16). And 18.4 minus 12 (food consumed by citizens) is 6.4. QED.

The UI then shows all of the modifiers in the next set of lines, including the ToA bonus (even though the ToA bonus has already been applied, so that's needlessly confusing) and Landed Elite (10%), Tradition finisher (15%) and Religion modifier (i.e., Fertility Rites) (10%). Here, the actual "growth" modifiers total to 35% (10% + 15% + 10%), even though the UI would lead you to believe that the growth modifiers total 50% (since ToA is misleadingly presented). So, your "Total" food (the excess that drives population growth) would be 8.64 (6.4 x 1.35).

Circling back to the example given by the OP, yes, if you have a 12 pop city (24 food consumed) that is only producing 25 raw food (so only 1 food surplus) and the only growth multiplier is a 10% multiplier (such as Fertility Rites), then that city will only have 1.1 "total" food (1.10 x 1). Slow way to grow a city.

 

[Qoma]

Soooo... what is the takeaway for us non-mathemagicians? Is +% growth not as powerful...?

 

[Browd]

Percentage food multipliers need something substantial to be multiplied against. If your cities are scraping along at minimal food surpluses (perhaps you're at the end of your happiness rope, so you're managing city growth, or you are more focused on churning out units and buildings than growing), then percentage food multipliers are well nigh worthless. If, on the other hand, you are running decent food surpluses (say at least 6 food), the percentage multipliers can be very worthwhile.

For example, if you're running an 8 food surplus and have Monarchy (+10% in capital) and the Tradition finisher (+15% in every city), and you get a +25% We Love the King Day in your capital, that cumulative 50% "growth" boost in your capital will amount to an additional 4 food, helping you grow all the more quickly and allowing you to work two more specialist slots for "free."

 

[Alzadar]

Is this known to be intentional? Seems like a bug to me that % modifiers would amplify your food consumption.

 

[steveg700]

Soooo... what is the takeaway for us non-mathemagicians? Is +% growth not as powerful...?

It means to facilitate growth you need food in excess of what your citizens consume. If you don't have that surplus, then the percentile boosts don't help.

 

[Browd]

Is this known to be intentional? Seems like a bug to me that % modifiers would amplify your food consumption.

They don't. The OP's presentation on this point is misleading/incorrect. Let me explain.

As noted in my post above, there are two types of food modifiers. Two (ToA and Floating Gardens) provide a raw food bonus, before taking account of consumption by citizens and specialists. Those work the way you would expect: Raw food production is increased by, say, 15% and then the normal food consumption is deducted, leaving you with a greater amount of net food. So, if you have a city that is producing 30 Raw Food (without ToA) and consuming 24 food, you have 6 food left over. ToA will add 15% to Raw Food, but will not change Food Consumption, so ToA will cause that city to generate 34.5 Raw Food, leaving 10.5 Food Surplus after deducting 24 Food Consumption. The formula for that is Food Surplus = (1.15 x Raw Food) - Food Consumption. Extra Raw Food from ToA does not increase Food Consumption.

All of the other modifiers apply a percentage growth factor to the Raw Food that is left over after you deduct Food Consumption. So, that same city with 30 Raw Food (no ToA) and consuming 24 food has 6 food left over. Stack your growth modifiers (say, 35%, from 10% + 15% + 10%) and that 6 food surplus becomes 8.1 surplus food (1.35 x 6).

The OP made a curious, but irrelevant, algebraic observation. The latter formula can be presented as Surplus Food = 1.35 x (Raw Food - Consumed Food), which is algebraically equivalent to Surplus Food = (1.35 x Raw Food) - (1.35 x Consumed Food).

From that, he posits that the percentage growth modifiers can be thought of as increasing both Raw Food production AND Food Consumption (perhaps all that extra food has made everyone in that city a glutton?). Modestly clever algebraic observation, but that's NOT what's happening in the game. 1.35 x whatever food is left over after consumption is deducted is what's happening in the game.

 

[Alzadar]

They don't. The OP's presentation on this point is misleading/incorrect. Let me explain.

As noted in my post above, there are two types of food modifiers. Two (ToA and Floating Gardens) provide a raw food bonus, before taking account of consumption by citizens and specialists. Those work the way you would expect: Raw food production is increased by, say, 15% and then the normal food consumption is deducted, leaving you with a greater amount of net food. So, if you have a city that is producing 30 Raw Food (without ToA) and consuming 24 food, you have 6 food left over. ToA will add 15% to Raw Food, but will not change Food Consumption, so ToA will cause that city to generate 34.5 Raw Food, leaving 10.5 Food Surplus after deducting 24 Food Consumption. The formula for that is Food Surplus = (1.15 x Raw Food) - Food Consumption. Extra Raw Food from ToA does not increase Food Consumption.

All of the other modifiers apply a percentage growth factor to the Raw Food that is left over after you deduct Food Consumption. So, that same city with 30 Raw Food (no ToA) and consuming 24 food has 6 food left over. Stack your growth modifiers (say, 35%, from 10% + 15% + 10%) and that 6 food surplus becomes 8.1 surplus food (1.35 x 6).

The OP made a curious, but irrelevant, algebraic observation. The latter formula can be presented as Surplus Food = 1.35 x (Raw Food - Consumed Food), which is algebraically equivalent to Surplus Food = (1.35 x Raw Food) - (1.35 x Consumed Food).

From that, he posits that the percentage growth modifiers can be thought of as increasing both Raw Food production AND Food Consumption (perhaps all that extra food has made everyone in that city a glutton?). Modestly clever algebraic observation, but that's NOT what's happening in the game. 1.35 x whatever food is left over after consumption is deducted is what's happening in the game.

I don't see how the observation is irrelevant. "but that's NOT what's happening in the game", I don't follow, are you denying the distributive property? The two equations are equal, it IS what is happening in game.

And given that it also works the intuitive, logical way in some cases, I would assume that these multipliers being tacked on to surplus food and not raw food is a bug.

The amount of food surplus you need for % modifiers to equal similar flat bonuses (e.g. Fertility vs Goddess of the Hunt, you need 10 surplus just to equal one camp, that's insane) seems to support my conclusion.

 

[Browd]

Conclude what you want, but that some modifiers apply only to surplus food is not a bug, but a design decision. Food modifiers from social policies and pantheons should not be "I win!" buttons. They provide a slight, but potentially important, advantage, depending on how much food surplus you direct your cities to produce. And the fact that food from camps can be a better choice than Fertility Rites shows how balanced those pantheon beliefs are; Fertility Rites is far less useful than some believe.

Anyway, it is pretty ridiculous to assert that citizens of a city are, all of a sudden, consuming vastly more food simply because a food modifier is present. Unless maybe you do believe in the gluttony effect (We Love the King Day means party, party, party, eat, eat, eat, let's make some babies!).

So, maybe the game's developers did intend to make social commentary about the poor eating habits of many western countries. Now that's immersion!

 

[Strategist83]

I don't understand the motion behind this thread? How is this news? These various pantheons/wonders/policies etc specifically state they increase growth, not food. So yes, due to how the calculation is done in the game where growth is food minus consumption then yes, of course growth modifiers can be said to 'increase consumption', if you insist on calculating it that way (though it seems far simpler to me to say these modifers simply apply only to your surplus, ie. growth!).

In other words: No, of course + growth modifers are not + food modifers. It never said it was!

The real news to me is what Browd posted: That the ToA increases food, not growth. If that is the case then that is indeed misleading and makes the ToA a far more powerful wonder than I thought it was. ... but, Browd: The Floating Gardens description does say it increases food, not growth, so its description isn't misleading like the ToA's apparently is.

... and yes, it appears lots of people overestimate the 'Fertility Rites' belief. + Food from camps, shrines, temples is going to be more powerful unless you're sporting a huge food surplus (achievable only by going tall):

The amount of food surplus you need for % modifiers to equal similar flat bonuses (e.g. Fertility vs Goddess of the Hunt, you need 10 surplus just to equal one camp, that's insane) seems to support my conclusion.

My current Venice game, I only just got to three cities by the Renaissance. Venice, by far the most populous city in the world, has had a 30+ food surplus with no camps or other special resources available, making Fertility Rites exceptional.

 

[Browd]

ToA has been mis-described forever, but the food calculations are right.

 

[Karmah]

The OP made a curious, but irrelevant, algebraic observation. The latter formula can be presented as Surplus Food = 1.35 x (Raw Food - Consumed Food), which is algebraically equivalent to Surplus Food = (1.35 x Raw Food) - (1.35 x Consumed Food).

From that, he posits that the percentage growth modifiers can be thought of as increasing both Raw Food production AND Food Consumption (perhaps all that extra food has made everyone in that city a glutton?). Modestly clever algebraic observation, but that's NOT what's happening in the game. 1.35 x whatever food is left over after consumption is deducted is what's happening in the game.

Thank you very much for the "irrelevant" !
And I thank you also , now I know that since it is true , it isn t true ,hence it is true !
Now that s relevance
Still I didn t know about ToA and fertility rite not following the same mecanism.

Anyway, it is pretty ridiculous to assert that citizens of a city are, all of a sudden, consuming vastly more food simply because a food modifier is present. Unless maybe you do believe in the gluttony effect (We Love the King Day means party, party, party, eat, eat, eat, let's make some babies!).
So, maybe the game's developers did intend to make social commentary about the poor eating habits of many western countries. Now that's immersion!

Ridiculous...umpf , ridiculous or not , I m not the one who made the rules , and the rules on growth clearly state that your food consumption is increased if you are at positive growth with a +% growth.You might be unable to read an equation or make a basic interpretation out of it , but that doesn t change facts...
Now this might be intentional or an overlook from the game designers.
And if we look at it with an open mind , it s not completely stupid , when you have an abudance of food you tend to eat more ,not that irrational after all.

I don't see how the observation is irrelevant. "but that's NOT what's happening in the game", I don't follow, are you denying the distributive property? The two equations are equal, it IS what is happening in game.

And given that it also works the intuitive, logical way in some cases, I would assume that these multipliers being tacked on to surplus food and not raw food is a bug.

The amount of food surplus you need for % modifiers to equal similar flat bonuses (e.g. Fertility vs Goddess of the Hunt, you need 10 surplus just to equal one camp, that's insane) seems to support my conclusion.

Thank god someone pointed it out.

I don't understand the motion behind this thread? How is this news?

It isn't , hence the disclaimer at the start of the post.

 

[Alzadar]

Conclude what you want, but that some modifiers apply only to surplus food is not a bug, but a design decision. Food modifiers from social policies and pantheons should not be "I win!" buttons. They provide a slight, but potentially important, advantage, depending on how much food surplus you direct your cities to produce. And the fact that food from camps can be a better choice than Fertility Rites shows how balanced those pantheon beliefs are; Fertility Rites is far less useful than some believe.

Anyway, it is pretty ridiculous to assert that citizens of a city are, all of a sudden, consuming vastly more food simply because a food modifier is present. Unless maybe you do believe in the gluttony effect (We Love the King Day means party, party, party, eat, eat, eat, let's make some babies!).

So, maybe the game's developers did intend to make social commentary about the poor eating habits of many western countries. Now that's immersion!

Unless you were on the Civ5 design team you can't say that it isn't a bug. Of course I can't say that it is a bug for sure but I have a hard time believing that they knowingly decided to make % food modifiers apply AFTER food consumption, it is simply very counter-intuitive.

 

[DeepSoul]

I have Golden Age and Swords to Plowshares(= +45%)but a city with 6 food surplus(my best atm) doesn't get a single extra food. Explain that.

 

[ilik]

Wait, I thought percentage increased how much food your civ produces in total. For example, you're producing 20 food, have 8 citizens, you would have 4 surplus food, and that would allow you to grow. Percentage increase by 20 percent means your civ will simply produce an extra 4 food in this case, making 8 surplus food.

 

[Browd]

I have Golden Age and Swords to Plowshares(= +45%)but a city with 6 food surplus(my best atm) doesn't get a single extra food. Explain that.

Golden Age does not boost food or growth -- just gold and culture. Swords is just 15% growth (added to food surplus, not raw food production) and doesn't apply if you are at war with anyone.

For group debugging, you would need to post a save file.

 

[Browd]

Wait, I thought percentage increased how much food your civ produces in total. For example, you're producing 20 food, have 8 citizens, you would have 4 surplus food, and that would allow you to grow. Percentage increase by 20 percent means your civ will simply produce an extra 4 food in this case, making 8 surplus food.

Every food-related percentage bonus, except Temple of Artemis and the Aztec Floating Gardens, is a "growth" bonus, not a raw food bonus. So, percentage growth modifiers will only apply to the raw food surplus (after deducting food consumed by citizens). Using your example, with 20 food produced and 16 food consumed by citizens, raw food surplus is 4 food and 20% of growth modifiers (such as Landed Elite's +10% in your capital plus Fertility Rite's +10%) will yield an additional 0.8 food, for total food surplus of 4.8 food.

Also, food is computed city by city, not empire-wide, so you need to do separate computations for each city.

The UI is not great, but all of the relevant detail can be seen if you mouse hover over the food line in City View - "Base" is surplus food before percentage growth modifiers are applied and "Total" is surplus food after applying growth modifiers.

 

[killmeplease]

UI isnt very good
e.g. here it says that 12-8=5

really, theres 12 base food, +1.2 from artemis = 13.2, - 8 = 5.2 surplus and +10% (0.52) = 5.72

 

[Browd]

Yeah, the UI completely botches reflecting the Temple of Artemis bonus, but, as you note, you can see what is really happening if you spend enough time dissecting the display. The "Total" line, at least, is correct.