Food commerce?

[Frasco]

Hi. I'm pretty exited about CIV V and would like to put in my piece.

I remember reading on an article prior to CIV IV launch that the biggest cities in Earth are rarely the places where most food is produced. As such, the article announced food commerce in CIV IV, which never came to be.

I believe that food may be relocalized (inside one's CIV) and bought/sold (to other CIV's) at a transport cost in gpt depending on distance and age.

I know you'll probably say this is micro-managing, but just think if Mexico City, New York, Tokio, or Bombay are the leading food producing cities in this world.

 

[Ahriman]

Its an intrinsic issue with the civ engine; in civ, cities are about collecting resources/working tiles in their hinterlands. For most of human history, this is fine. Cities really did grow partly because of local food sources and resources, fool was perishable and too hard/expensive to transport elsewhere en masse. In the real world in the industrial era, refrigeration and transport change the picture, and so the model doesn't work very well anymore.

Given the major changes they're making to the combat engine and diplomacy, I would not be surprised if the core economic engine was left largely unchanged.

It works pretty well, and its still basically unchanged since Civ1. Only major changes have been adding health and changing specialists.

 

[Mef]

For most of human history, this is fine. Cities really did grow partly because of local food sources and resources, fool was perishable and too hard/expensive to transport elsewhere en masse.

What about the Romans? Rome was built on marshland, not exactly the best starting location.
They became rich because they were located on a trade route and could collect taxes, then they started conquering and when Rome became a huge city, they needed to import grain, e.g. from Carthage.

So food trading didn't start in the industrial area.


I myself would be very much in favor of a system that incorporates domestic trade and makes population growth depend on the attractiveness of a city (e.g. most people will live along the coast at the mouth of a river and not in the heartland farm towns).

I even have a whole plan for an economy modeled around domestic trade, I could post it in the Suggestion forum but I guess that wouldn't change much and there have probably been similar suggestions already.

 

[Greizer85]

Oh God yes..! This needs to happen! I'm fine with either ancient or modern era (but it should be much easier in modern ofc). I mean, when I see that spot in the barren Tundra with 4 Gem resources, 2 Iron and 1 Aluminum but NO FOOD, it tends to irk me more than a little bit. You ever heard of Norilsk, Sid? Murmansk? Sure, food corps help with this somewhat, but I want to be able to have a massive metropolis wherever I please! And since I like to role-play Soviet Union on world maps, corps are an unpleasant answer. Command economy ftw, comrades! Down with Free Markets! Uncle Joe knows best what to do with fish and bread, as with everything else!

Edit: Also, this will lead to a much more realistic landscape (in the industrial/modern era): farming towns will be level 1 villages with some puny buildings for a little culture (if culture is still in... whatever it takes to expand the borders), while the metropolises will tower in the 40s and 50s of population, surrounded by all possible production and commerce improvements known to mankind (there's bound to be more variety in these too). If it isn't in, I can't wait to see someone mod this in (if the tales of "unprecedented modding tools" are even close to reality)!

 

[chongli]

You don't need refrigeration to transport food over long distances. Grains, beans, flour and other dry goods can be transported fairly easily over tremendous distances, even by ship (as long as it is kept dry). Such food can also be stored over very long periods of time.

I hope Civ 5 decouples food from population growth, allowing you to stockpile food in case of emergency (sieges and so on) without having all of the food wiped out whenever the population goes up.

I also hope they allow you to move food, population and production resources around your empire. This would let you kickstart your new cities and specialize them to a much greater degree.

 

[Ahriman]

What about the Romans? Rome was built on marshland, not exactly the best starting location

Marshland (once drained) is incredibly productive farmland. Most of the biggest cities of Europe were constructed on marshes; Paris, London, St Petersburg....

Grains, beans, flour and other dry goods can be transported fairly easily over tremendous distances, even by ship (as long as it is kept dry).

What do you mean "even" by ship? Only by ship. Land transport was incredibly expensive until canals and railways.

This would let you kickstart your new cities

How realistic is that, particularly for pre-modern times?

I dunno, it just seems unnecessary to me.

Didn't Civ2 let you move food around by caravan? I seem to remember that getting dropped without a trace.

Particularly when they're expanding to 3 range city hinterlands, I'd be surprised if they implemented resource shifting.

 

[chongli]

What do you mean "even" by ship? Only by ship. Land transport was incredibly expensive until canals and railways.

Caravans? People have been moving goods on land for a very long time. It's really not that hard.

How realistic is that, particularly for pre-modern times?

Great migrations have been happening since the stone age, where do you think all the natives of North and South America came from?

It's far more unrealistic to send a token few people to a location and then expect that population to grow on its own into a sprawling metropolis without any further migration, but that's how all previous Civs work.

Didn't Civ2 let you move food around by caravan? I seem to remember that getting dropped without a trace.

Yes it did, though it was too expensive (you lost the caravan unit in the process) and too inflexible (the food trade route consisted of only 1 food per turn and could not be changed). Master of Magic has a much better system than this, where all food produced by your entire empire is pooled and shared among your cities according to need, with any excess going to feed your armies or sold for profit.

 

[Ahriman]

Caravans? People have been moving goods on land for a very long time. It's really not that hard.

In large quantities, over long distances? Not at all.

They might take it to the nearest city to sell by cart, or between cities by ship (eg feeding Rome from North Africa and Egypt) but that's pretty much it. Too expensive otherwise.

Great migrations have been happening since the stone age, where do you think all the natives of North and South America came from?

Migration? Sure. But they weren't exactly founding cities, or importing food from long distances away. You don't have cities being created in pre-modern times with large amounts of food or resources being brought in from elsewhere. (If anything, the opposite: new towns were created to send resources back to the existing ones).

I agree that Civ is missing migration, but its hard to see a simple and elegant way of incorporating that into the economy engine. Spreading food evenly just doesn't make sense in a game
The whole founding philosophy of Civ is that local resources *do* matter. And its drawn from most of the classic geography literature on origins of cities; cities happen when localized food production becomes efficient enough to allow you to support non-food producing specialists.
That is where *all* the ancient cities come from.

And large-scale migration between cities is also a relatively modern phenomenon (18th century and later).

 

[chongli]

In large quantities, over long distances? Not at all.

They might take it to the nearest city to sell by cart, or between cities by ship (eg feeding Rome from North Africa and Egypt) but that's pretty much it. Too expensive otherwise.

Your definitions of large quantities and long distances are pretty strict. No, I don't believe that ancient people moved freight-train quantities of food and steel across continents. However, populations and needs were much smaller back then and the amounts they did move were proportionate.

Migration? Sure. But they weren't exactly founding cities, or importing food from long distances away. You don't have cities being created in pre-modern times with large amounts of food or resources being brought in from elsewhere. (If anything, the opposite: new towns were created to send resources back to the existing ones).

They didn't import their food, they followed it (herds of buffalo and muskox) and they did eventually found many cities, entire civilizations in fact (Incans, Mayans, Aztecs, Iroquois etc).

I agree that Civ is missing migration, but its hard to see a simple and elegant way of incorporating that into the economy engine. Spreading food evenly just doesn't make sense in a game
The whole founding philosophy of Civ is that local resources *do* matter. And its drawn from most of the classic geography literature on origins of cities; cities happen when localized food production becomes efficient enough to allow you to support non-food producing specialists.
That is where *all* the ancient cities come from.

And large-scale migration between cities is also a relatively modern phenomenon (18th century and later).

I think the simplest and most elegant way is to increase the size of settlers as technology improves. That way a modern city can be founded with a higher population (say 10) instead of the usual 1.

I also think that excess population growth in one city should "spill-over" into other nearby cities, reflecting natural migration.

 

[Shiggs713]

on a side note if you still play civ4, you should check out this modcomp that is in development. It pretty much does exactly what your hoping for.

 

[Ahriman]

Your definitions of large quantities and long distances are pretty strict. No, I don't believe that ancient people moved freight-train quantities of food and steel across continents. However, populations and needs were much smaller back then and the amounts they did move were proportionate.

Can you please cite some historic examples of significant quantities of food being shipped overland in pre-modern times, other than from hinterland->nearest main city?

They didn't import their food, they followed it (herds of buffalo and muskox) and they did eventually found many cities, entire civilizations in fact (Incans, Mayans, Aztecs, Iroquois etc).

The former are nomads. Remember "civilization" by definition means people living in cities.
Incans, Mayans, Aztecs weren't founded by nomads or migrants, they were founded by people the descendents of the migrants thousands of years later, who settled in places with good local food output and built village and then cities. The Civ idea of a single settler unit starting a city that slowly grow up over time fits the New World experience well. And those cities were consuming food produced locally, not imported from elsewhere. Don't try and merge "following herds of buffalo" in with "building Aztec cities", they're entirely different.

Iroqois never really had cities.

I think the simplest and most elegant way is to increase the size of settlers as technology improves.

This sounds relatively harmless, I have no particular objection, though size 10 sounds large.
You should try the Rise of Mankind civ, where Settlers are replaced by expensive Colonists and Pioneers, who found size 3-4 cities with basic tier buildings already constructed.

I also think that excess population growth in one city should "spill-over" into other nearby cities, reflecting natural migration.

I don't know that this makes sense; the biggest cities don't typically emigrate to smaller cities, if anything its the opposite. People move like gravity, towards the larger centers.

 

[Greizer85]

What if you could do it only in coastal cities in the Ancient era? And only up to a certain limit (that would increase with better ship technology). There could be minor improvements with some other techs that I can't think of right now... Then ofc with Biology and Refrigeration + Railroads the floodgates would open.

 

[chongli]

Can you please cite some historic examples of significant quantities of food being shipped overland in pre-modern times, other than from hinterland->nearest main city?

Yeah, the Darb el-Arbain trade route, dating back to the Old Kingdom, stretched from Middle Egypt to the Sudan. Wheat, animals, plants, spices as well as gold and ivory were transported along it in massive caravans.

I don't know that this makes sense; the biggest cities don't typically emigrate to smaller cities, if anything its the opposite. People move like gravity, towards the larger centers.

People move towards opportunity, safety and health. When cities become overcrowded, they leave.

 

[Thormodr]

Your definitions of large quantities and long distances are pretty strict. No, I don't believe that ancient people moved freight-train quantities of food and steel across continents. However, populations and needs were much smaller back then and the amounts they did move were proportionate.


They didn't import their food, they followed it (herds of buffalo and muskox) and they did eventually found many cities, entire civilizations in fact (Incans, Mayans, Aztecs, Iroquois etc).


I think the simplest and most elegant way is to increase the size of settlers as technology improves. That way a modern city can be founded with a higher population (say 10) instead of the usual 1.

I also think that excess population growth in one city should "spill-over" into other nearby cities, reflecting natural migration.

Hunters followed the Buffalo migrations. They didn't follow Musk Oxen however.
Musk Oxen don't migrate.
Other than that, good points.

 

[Cilpot]

You don't have cities being created in pre-modern times with large amounts of food or resources being brought in from elsewhere. (If anything, the opposite: new towns were created to send resources back to the existing ones).

Rome, for example, was completely dependent on Egyptian grain to feed their city.

 

[Ahriman]

stretched from Middle Egypt to the Sudan.

You mean... along the *nile*?

As I've already said, transporting food by boats was common. Its major over-land food transport that I'm skeptical of.

People move towards opportunity, safety and health. When cities become overcrowded, they leave.

Throughout human history, large cities have attracted migrants. Migration is urbanization, people rarely move in large numbers from cities to rural areas (or small towns). The *only* significant exception is 17th century on New World colonziation.

The big cities of history have often been over-crowded, but that didn't make people leave. Sure, over-crowding is a push-factor, but it has always been outweighed by the pull-factor of the economic activity and opportunity created by that mass of people.

The idea that someone founds a town in the countryside of Italy, and all of a sudden a mass of the city dwellers from Rome start migrating there is just ridiculous.

Rome, for example, was completely dependent on Egyptian grain to feed their city.

Read my comment you quoted again.

Rome was not *created* by food transport from North Africa/Egypt. Rome developed as an Italian city state, and then centuries later conquered Carthage and Egypt, and *then* continued to grow supported by grain imports. Its not like a bunch of people went along to some inhospitable spot and said "oh, lets build a huge city here, and bring all the food in from somewhere else".

None of these examples violate my argument:
1) Until modern times, cities developed only where there was good local food supply, and early city growth was dependent on the local area resources
2) Until modern times, significant long distance amounts of food trade (ie from the hinterland of city A to feed people in city B) did not occur except by water.
3) Migration is mostly urbanization, significant urban->rural migration did not occur except for New World colonization. Large numbers of people do not move from large cities to small towns.

Conclusion:
The basic Civ economy model works fine for most of human history, and doesn't need to have cross-city food trade added. Adding migration would be difficult and confusing and would add little to the game.
If you like, think about migration this way; when your city grows in size, it is from a mixture of natural increase *and* urbanization from surroundnig rural areas.

 

[Greizer85]

@Ahriman: What about the Soviet Union though? There were Naukograds, Atomgrads and whatevergrads all over the place. People were simply ordered to move there, on pain of a not-so-bright future. (Ofc there were also positive incentives.) I want to be able to make an "Urban Type Settlement" in the Tundra and simply order food there from other parts of the country. I'm ok with this only being possible in the modern age though. But like I said, even earlier, limited grain transport by water should be possible.

 

[chongli]

You mean... along the *nile*?

Last time I checked, the Nile didn't run through the Kharga oasis.

The Darb el-Arbain caravan route was a land-based route. Do some research before making snap comments.

 

[Yakk]

You can implement something that would smoothly flow into modern times.

Cities grow from HAPPINESS and from HEALTH points. In order to maintain health, they need food. Excess food is a great source of health, as is sewer systems, aqueducts, etc.

Trade zones are tiered. Rivers are a medium-tier trade route, ancient roads are a low-tier trade route, and open water is a high-tier trade route.

The tier of a trade route determines its capacity to transport goods, which includes food.

Cities with excess food "offer" it in their connected trade routes, for a price.

Trade routes can be cut up by blockades, terrain, pillaging etc.

When you ship food over a trade route, it degrades based on how high a tier the trade route is, and the amount you can import is also bounded by how high the trade route tier is.

So, early game, cities need local food. They can then develop trade routes (via building harbors or the like), which can then be used to import food. Transportation technologies move the trade route tiers up as the game progresses.

Roads -> Bridges -> Railroads -> Highways -> Mag-lev trains sequentally make long-distance trade over land cheaper. Similar naval technology ends up making ocean trade more efficient, to a certain extent.

Having excess food ends up making a city healthier, which causes growth -- but it is the health, not the food, that causes the city to grow.

 

[Kyarao]

I would also like to see populations from over-crowded cities leaving to find better opportunities. Most of my cities reach around 20+ population before I have access to the more healthy modern technologies like medicine and ecology. They also start revolting any time I'm not using monarchy and filling my cities with garrisons.

Throughout history, people have always gone to places where they ~believed~ they were presented with better opportunities. I wouldn't call a 20+ population city that's starving itself to death and rioting to the point that only half the fat cross's tiles can be worked a 'good opportunity'. I'd call it a slum.

I don't want to see people moving out of my cities as soon as they get uncomfortable though. If a city is producing a lot of commerce or is trading a lot of luxuries, I would like to see populations flock there, just as they do in real life.