Great DECEPTION over food supplying methods

[Voli]

For yet another time the Firaxians did not succeed in taking care of the food supplying system of Civ games. They kept the well-known, classical civilization food supplying method, that is unrealistic and, to me, annoying.

The world's largest cities do not produce the biggest food amounts. Instead, a nation's cities SHARE FOOD SUPPLIES via trade routes, etc., especially in modern times. If such a feature existed:

would allow a mountain-surrounded city to grow normally and ...become a nation's most important industrial centre. Similarly, little important dessert cities, found in rivers' banks, would become a nation's most important food supplier, if the player wished so.

HISTORICAL EXAMPLES:
::The province of Egypt has been the main grain supplier for the medieval Byzantine Empire.
::Modern Northern France gets all of its crops from the southern part or from the french overseas territories.
::The US southern states play the same role for the industrialized northern states.

ANCIENT TIMES: Grain crops were dried and transported over the cities of empires.
MODERN TIMES: Little needs to be mentioned; there are numerous ways of transporting goods and food without risking of spoiling it.


Hopefully, Civ5 will include such realistic and obstacle-overcoming features, although I doubt...

 

[tcjsavannah]

SimFarm is coming out soon, that should be right up your alley.

 

[Vael]

The entire economy is essentially based around the fact that terrain determines what a city is capable of and makes it unique from other cities. If you could transport food (or shield) around between cities then terrain no longer really matters. Plus it seems like a lot of micromangement to have things shipped around. People argue that it could be done automatically to prevent cities from starving and things like that, but how often are your cities even starving (not on purpose)?

 

[Sullla]

I agree. This would add a nightmarish level of complexity to Civilization that we're better off avoiding. It would also be extremely open to exploitative play that took advantage of the system.

 

[rhialto]

Ive long wanted a system whereby the total culture determines where excess food gets redirected to. this would ensure that high culture cities grow fast while agricultural backwaters dont.

 

[Darwin420]

When it was mentioned that you'd have to 'grow' a wide variety of food for your Empire or your overall health would be mentioned, it seems that food is traded between cities. Remember, now in cIV, HEALTH is what determines how large your cities grow, not in how much surplus food you have.

Sounds like they took care of the food problem to me...

 

[warpstorm]

BTW, where is the DECEPTION?

 

[Voli]

The entire economy is essentially based around the fact that terrain determines what a city is capable of and makes it unique from other cities. If you could transport food (or shield) around between cities then terrain no longer really matters. Plus it seems like a lot of micromangement to have things shipped around. People argue that it could be done automatically to prevent cities from starving and things like that, but how often are your cities even starving (not on purpose)?

I don't think you're right. Firstly, I did not talk about transporting shields; this would be unrealistic. Secondly, the terrain does not determine what a city will be like. We all eat bananas. Are they produced in London, NY, LA or Paris? Nope. They are produced in Columbia, Peru, etc... We all drink coffee. Is it produced...

Do you see my point? And I don't think this would add unneeded complexity. When, for instance, you have a low production city that has no aqueduct and has reached population 6, and nontheless has a food surplus of 5, you would be able to redirect this surplus to your capital, in order to increase productivity or create spec.civs.



By the way, not for you, but the one above you, I am a Civ addict. I'd never quit it for ****ty stuff like SimFarm. The latter is way more simplistic to Civ.

 

[Pascal]

BTW, where is the DECEPTION?

I think he meant "disappointment"

 

[Vael]

I don't think you're right. Firstly, I did not talk about transporting shields; this would be unrealistic. Secondly, the terrain does not determine what a city will be like. We all eat bananas. Are they produced in London, NY, LA or Paris? Nope. They are produced in Columbia, Peru, etc... We all drink coffee. Is it produced...

Yes, but this is a game. I like the fact that terrain can change things, as long as it's fair for all players.

Do you see my point? And I don't think this would add unneeded complexity. When, for instance, you have a low production city that has no aqueduct and has reached population 6, and nontheless has a food surplus of 5, you would be able to redirect this surplus to your capital, in order to increase productivity or create spec.civs.

What about if you have 20 cities? 50? 100? How long would it take to determine who needs what, who has what and who should send to whom? It's a lot of work.

 

[searcheagle]

Hopefully, Civ5 will include such realistic and obstacle-overcoming features, although I doubt...

Let's see what Civ 4 comes out with first.

I think food could be added to trade. When one city is starving, you divert food from other regions. Also, if one city has high production power, but little growth ability, food could be diverted there so population growth could go up.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Uummmm, you say you want food trading, but then claim SHIELD trading is UNREALISTIC???? Sorry, but the trade in food AND shields is completely realistic IMO. As for it undermining the importance of cities-that is absolute ROT. If anything, it makes breadbaskets and industrial heart cities all the more important. If you can find good locations for a couple of Breadbasket cities, for instance, then you can send food out from there to your commercial hubs and industrial cities to stop them from suffering famines (just because they happen to be near mountains and/or key luxuries!)
What we have in Civ1-3 are cities with little to no character-every city is a 'jack of all trades', which produces all of its food, all of its culture, all of its production and all of its entertainment. Yet we know that very few-if any-cities are like than in the real world. They may have started that way, but they became more specialised as time progressed-and so it should be in this game (and Soren has certainly indicated that cities WILL be more specialised in Civ4.)
As for it adding MM, I don't see why?? A simple % based vector system would work very well, with all vectored shields and/or food ending up in the main trade screen-where it can be easily dished out to the cities which require it, or traded to other civilizations for cash, resources or the like. It is a system which would require no more (and actually quite less) MM than the existing systems of sending workers out to build terrain improvements, or the allocation of population to working certain squares.
I, for one, hope that they DO incorporate these elements into civ4, and have yet to actually see the proof that they AREN'T in there!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker

 

[stormbind]

The entire economy is essentially based around the fact that terrain determines what a city is capable of and makes it unique from other cities. If you could transport food (or shield) around between cities then terrain no longer really matters. Plus it seems like a lot of micromangement to have things shipped around. People argue that it could be done automatically to prevent cities from starving and things like that, but how often are your cities even starving (not on purpose)?

City placement would be at least as important, it's just that cities would be part of a team!

 

[Own]

I was hoping you could trade food with your neighbors.

 

[searcheagle]

I was hoping you could trade food with your neighbors.

That would add a good element to diplomacy. "If you don't stop waging war against the Zulus, I will cut off your food supply."

 

[Vael]

I, for one, hope that they DO incorporate these elements into civ4, and have yet to actually see the proof that they AREN'T in there!

You sure do have a lot of expectations from this game. I for one do not think Soren would add in a system like this based upon what I've read. Divvying up food and shields like this is quite a bit different from how all Civ games have worked in the past.

 

[tcjsavannah]

By the way, not for you, but the one above you, I am a Civ addict. I'd never quit it for ****ty stuff like SimFarm. The latter is way more simplistic to Civ.

Damn, another sale missed out on. I'll never make my quota now.

 

[Pentium]

That would add a good element to diplomacy. "If you don't stop waging war against the Zulus, I will cut off your food supply."

More like: If you don't start waging war against the Zulus, I'll cut your food supply.

I think the general principle would be too exploitive. Just transport all your food and production to one city and you could easily get 20k. Of course, AI wouldn't be able to do tht

 

[Voli]

It's a lot of work.[/QUOTE]

Yes. But you forgot about the governor?? You just make a default governor that will take care of such MM stuff. And everything will be OK and everybody happy .

 

[dc82]

this is actually a pretty interesting point - i mean, just look at the news to see how often food is used as a bargaining chip btw nations (iraq, n.korea, sudan, etc.).