New 'shield/food' Specialists

[yoshi]

I know there's no chance of this being in Conquests, but I had to add this one:

Basically, it involves adding a 'Shields' caption and a 'Food' caption like the already exisiting 'Happy,' 'Luxuries' and 'Taxes' captions in the 'Citizens' window of the Editor.

The idea is that you could remove a Labourer citizen and convert him/her to one of these Specialists which would provide more of something the city doesn't have. Since imports are the the means by which something is brought from the outside, we'll call these two new Specialists, 'Production Importer' and 'Food Importer.'

Example:

You have a City producing a big surplus of shields but not enough food.
The solution would be to covert one (or a few) of the Labourer citizens working on shield-producing tiles into a 'Food Importer.' That Specialist would increase the amount of food output of the city by a percentage (if you set the value in the caption to 1 that means that production is increased by 10%) of the city.

The problem is that using this method is that all you'd be paying for that 10% increase in food output with only a slight drop in shield output --and if the city is bigger than 20, nothing. The simplest solution that I could think of (and one that happens to be realistic) is that using these specialists costs an amount of gold per turn. If that were the case, then players with too few shields or too much food like the one in the example would be able to alter the cities' food/shield output ratio but only at a price. This would prevent players from exploiting the new Specialit ability. You should not that it wouldn't have a huge effect anyway because as you remove Labourers, food/shield output decreases, so the idea is just to give your cities a few extra shields so as to make it more competitive or a few extra food needed to speed up growth a bit or whatever.

This is faster than having to spend time building new tile improvements on the surrounding terrain --assuming that's an option.

This would reproduce the transferring of production between cities to a degree. It would also be far easier to implement than the 'Diverting Production' concept I brought up in another thread although it would lack most of the strategic aspects and not involve any other cites (the 'importing' is only implied).

This is a pretty simple concept and seems to be a logical step for Civ3...I only wish I had thought of it sooner (although someone has probably done so already and it hasn't flown so I won't kick myself for it). Nevertheless, I think it's an addition that should be in the next expansion (or even the next patch for that matter).

Outside of the one problem I mentioned, I can't think of any others. Can you? I would really be interested to know since this could very well be in the next release (not Conquests though ).

 

[Bamspeedy]

Conquests has a 'civil engineer' which adds uncorruptable shields to your city.

All specialist output is immune to corruption. However, they always 'eat' 2 food, because it takes 2 food to feed them and they aren't producing any. So the 'food specialist' I could only imagine seeing this being used as an exploit. If you have situations where it produces more food than it takes to feed him, in that case make everyone a 'farmer'. Because with more food, then you have more citizens to work the tiles-or you can mine more so the shield penalty is pointless. If they don't produce more food than they eat, then what is the point?

This is faster than having to spend time building new tile improvements on the surrounding terrain --assuming that's an option.

Oh, so you want a way to get around having to spend time having your workers do anything? What good are workers for then?

Irrigate more so you have more surplus food so you can make the 'civil engineers' and you will get yourself more shields. If the city is low on food, then you should have built in a better spot, or you just have to accept the fact that not every city can be perfect or maxed out in size.

 

[Chieftess]

What good is a specialist that produces food when it takes away food? Shields are much better than food. An irragated size 42 city with only 2 bonus tiles does next to nothing.

 

[yoshi]

Conquests has a 'civil engineer' which adds uncorruptable shields to your city.

Yes, I only remembered about that after I posted this thread.

If they don't produce more food than they eat, then what is the point?

The point is to produce more food in cities producing too little of it by turning Citizens who would normally work on abundant shield tiles into 'Food Import' Specialists.

If the city is low on food, then you should have built in a better spot, or you just have to accept the fact that not every city can be perfect or maxed out in size.

A couple of specialists probably wouldn't be enough to perfectly max out size. Besides wasn't it you who said you wouldn't mind a few extra food just to balance out your city growth? Specialists aren't meant to make big changes to you rcities but rather to give that little extra you need to get the job done.

Oh, so you want a way to get around having to spend time having your workers do anything? What good are workers for then?

How did I know you would say that...

What good is a specialist that produces food when it takes away food?

Lets you use create food when there is none but plenty of shields. Another reason for promoting growth is so as to be able to sustain enough citizens to work on commerce tiles.


Since Conquests' new Engineer Specialist already handles the shields, I guess it would be appropriate just to call the food specialist 'Importer' or 'Farmer' or something.

 

[Bamspeedy]

The point is to produce more food in cities producing too little of it by turning Citizens who would normally work on abundant shield tiles into 'Food Import' Specialists.

You are trying to sneak your way out of having to build a granary, aren't you?

To have a citizen available for you to turn into a 'farmer', you need 2 food to feed him. If he supplies more than 2 food (let's pretend 3 food-2 to feed himself, and then 1 extra food). You start out at let's say having 3 excess food/turn Then when you get another citizen you can make him a farmer and now you have 4 excess food and then you get another citizen even quicker and now you are at 5 excess food and you get yet another citizen even faster, and you repeat this process until you reach your desired city size, then fire all the farmers and have them work all the shield producing tiles. That has exploit written all over it. Or at the very least it's made building a granary not such a good idea.

Besides wasn't it you who said you wouldn't mind a few extra food just to balance out your city growth?

Sure, I said that would be nice (but not a necessity). I can easily accept the current system instead of allowing people ways to get around building a granary.

Lets you use create food when there is none but plenty of shields. Another reason for promoting growth is so as to be able to sustain enough citizens to work on commerce tiles.

I know the importance for promoting growth, that is why I build a granary. If you want the city bigger, you irrigate. If irrigation isn't possible, then tough luck. You should have taken the terrain (and the food potential) into consideration when you built that city there. You seem to be trying to get it so cities, regardless of where they are built, would eventually have the exact same potential, reducing the need for incorporating any thought into the early game and careful city placement.

 

[slothman]

Originally posted by Bamspeedy
...
To have a citizen available for you to turn into a 'farmer', you need 2 food to feed him. If he supplies more than 2 food (let's pretend 3 food-2 to feed himself, and then 1 extra food). You start out at let's say having 3 excess food/turn Then when you get another citizen you can make him a farmer and now you have 4 excess food and then you get another citizen even quicker and now you are at 5 excess food and you get yet another citizen even faster, and you repeat this process until you reach your desired city size, then fire all the farmers and have them work all the shield producing tiles. That has exploit written all over it.
...

It does seem like an exploit but think of it this way. Nome, Alaska starts off with a population of 10,000 people in 1900. The gov't makes a new rule, Alaska revoloted and is now despotism, that all people, except 500 to farm the city square, must work in the new supermarket, where farmer specialists go. There they specialize and can turn 20 tons of food into 30 tons by working special machines. Because mostly everyone is a specialist only 10 tons of raw materials and limited commerce is made. But they are creating so mush more food more people can live there, why I don't know it's a game. By 1984 210,000 (6 citizens in the game) people live in Nome - all specialists. The gov't suddenly changes it's rule about forcing peopl to work in the supermarket and they can now do anything. All 210,000 people now work in towns, built by the gov't since limited raw materials could be used, and do "regular" work generating 150 tons of food, 100 tons of wood, etc. and 15 million dollars in commerce. Any jobs needed that didn't exist were "made" by gov't - rush buying banks and such. Nome now looks like her Russian sister city of Yakutsk in terms of population, jobs, resources, and food generated. Yakutsk though never and the supermarket law and could generate lots of commerce and materials the whole time it was growing.
Did I make any sence or did I just waste 10 minutes?

 

[yoshi]

I'll admit I had to read through your post twice and I'm still not clear on how this justifies the exploit but I'll just assume it did make sense and I'm just to thick-headed to understand it.

Technically this expoit would work in real life (i.e. you just keep hiring Farmers from your Labourer population and your city will gradually increse in size). The reason why this is an exploit in Civ3 and usually not in reality is because in reality doing so would cost you money. I had considered this in my previous post and the soultion I came up with was to add a cost to these Specialists (that would apply to Engineers as well since you shouldn't be getting shields for free either --it's just that you can nly afford to use so many Engineers before runnig out of food). If this were the case, 'hiring' Farmers and Engineers would become very costly if you didi it too much. The reason why Tax collectors don't need a cost is because it would defeat the purpose but Entertainers would for the same reasons why Engineers do (i.e. shouldn't get happiness for just one less tile being worked). As for the Scientist, it's questionanable because if you make this Specialist too expensive then it becomes redundant since you'd be better off dedicating that Labourer to Commerce tiles thus increasing the civ's general income available for science and increasing the effect of luxuries (from Marketplace) at the same time.

A typical example of Farmer use is in a city with way too much shields and being able to convert some of the Labourers working on one of the many shield tiles into Farmers, thus increasing food --if it comes with a cost, then you won't want to do this too much.
There is still the Granary exploit that was implied by Bamspeedy: what's to stop you from using a whole bunch of Farmers and converting them back once you've reached the desired size? The Granary would prevent the city from starving due to the drop in food income. So it would cost you gold but only for minimum period of time. If you wanted more city growth, then you would just repeat the process. Now, presonally I always found it stupid that a Granary prevents starvation. I mean, holding off starvation until food storage runs out is one thing but preventing it eternally?

Another way of delaing with the exploit is mlimiting the number of Specialists that can be built in some way. Although I'd prefer just to 'limit' Granaries and get it over and done with. That way if you want to use Farmers to maintain your city's population you have to keep paying them there forever or face starvation --or until you develop better food-producing tile improvements...oh right, they got rid of Civ2's Farmland in Civ3.

As I've already said elsewhere, I don't like the idea of being completely limited by initial city placement. The Farmer specialist is not meant to 'equalize' all cities. Badly placed cities will not reach the full potential of cities with abundant food unless you can afford to maintain these specialists for the rest of the game.
That said, if the Conquests' Engineer specialist costs nothing to maintain except the loss of one Labourer, then shouldn't a similar arguement apply?

 

[slothman]

I'm still not sure why a granary isn't important. With it you grow twice as fast. Regardless of using farmers or not.

 

[Bamspeedy]

I always found it stupid that a Granary prevents starvation. I mean, holding off starvation until food storage runs out is one thing but preventing it eternally?

It delays starvation, it doesn't prevent it. Your granary stores food, so when you do start having negative food you don't lose population until the granary is emptied.

How much of the real civ concepts do you really understand? You are getting lost in never-never land thinking about your cool new 'ideas'.

A typical example of Farmer use is in a city with way too much shields

If the city has too many shields then it should have no problem building a granary, then shouldn't it?

Another way of delaing with the exploit is mlimiting the number of Specialists that can be built in some way.

There already is a way of limiting specialists.
FOOD!
You can only have as many specialists as you have food to feed them. The farmer idea just takes that whole concept and throws it out the window.

Badly placed cities will not reach the full potential of cities with abundant food unless you can afford to maintain these specialists for the rest of the game.

Gold is not a problem at all for someone who runs 0% science. With your ideas about getting more shields at the expense of gold, then there is definitely nothing stopping this player from winning the game through being a production powerhouse. That player can just beat techs out of the AI.
You already can get shields by spending gold by RUSHING. Yes, some governments don't allow cash rushing, but that is the whole point! If you want no war weariness, then you have to also accept the negatives of that government. If you want to be able to cash-rush and have the commerce benefits of Republic/democracy, then you have to accept the fact that there is a negative for those governments (war weariness).

If you say that rushing is too expensive, then just go in the editor and change it. If you say that it is just not cost-efficient to continually do it throughout the whole game, then why are you proposing a similar effect for your ideas to limit excessive use of it?

I'm still not sure why a granary isn't important. With it you grow twice as fast. Regardless of using farmers or not.

But the need for it is diminished. By the time you have 10 farmers (for 10 excess food being produced each turn), building a granary would save you maybe 1 turn for each growth, if even that much. And if you want to build the granary, then you can't have too many farmers, so it may very well be faster to use ALL of your citizens as farmers instead of waiting for the granary.

Did I make any sence or did I just waste 10 minutes?

you just wasted 10 minutes

Just kidding.

Well, why you would want farmers in alaska I don't know. But, the thing is why should you be able to get Nome up to 1,000,000 people. It has no food. Yes, in reality, you could ship food there to feed them, but if you use the 'realism' argument too much, the game ends up broken and not playable. You destroy the whole purpose of needing any strategy whatsoever for where you put your cities and taking food output as one consideration.

I don't like the idea of being completely limited by initial city placement.

did you ever think that maybe civ is just simply not the game for you?

A simple solution I think would be to allow 'terraforming'. for the standard game this could come in when you get future tech 1. This way, you and other modmakers can add this feature into the tech tree earlier in the game if you really want to be able to get all cities to your desired level.

(oh, I'm sorry I forgot...but then you would need workers, and you don't like fiddling with them.)

Or have a city improvement that adds +1 food to all LAND tiles (currently there is only the possibiltiy of adding food to water tiles).

That said, if the Conquests' Engineer specialist costs nothing to maintain except the loss of one Labourer, then shouldn't a similar arguement apply?

Since specialists costs you food, using them slows your growth and you are limited in how many you can have. Again, if you had farmers then this limitation/trade-off is non-existant.

 

[slothman]

Farmer specialist's produce food instead of shields or commerce. There is a cost there. In economics it is call opportunity cost. In the case given the opportunity cost for 1 unit of food would be something like 2 shields and 2 commerce icons, depending on terrain. Plus let's say you have a city on 21 squares of non-bonus, roaded grassland. Each square gives 2 food and 1 commerce. If it were irrigates that's 1 more food. 3 food and 1 commerce is better than just 3 food you'd get from a farmer.
You are right about the granery. Of course in a city with all floodplain hence 1 shield from the city square the factories and power plants just as useless. Let's add shields to floodplain to counter that. j/k Basically that's too a specific case were graneries don't help. In most cities they would still be usefull.
In any case even if this is never added to the default mod I would be for allowing to to be modded to personal mods, especially for scenarios. There are many things that scenarios could use that would help in a unmodded game.

 

[Bamspeedy]

In the case given the opportunity cost for 1 unit of food would be something like 2 shields and 2 commerce icons, depending on terrain. Plus let's say you have a city on 21 squares of non-bonus, roaded grassland. Each square gives 2 food and 1 commerce. If it were irrigates that's 1 more food. 3 food and 1 commerce is better than just 3 food you'd get from a farmer.

True, farmers would be pointless in all-grassland areas when you are out of despotism and have workers available to irrigate all the tiles. I think Yoshi was intending this to be used in lower food areas. The shields/commerce you are losing is true, but doesn't always apply due to corruption.

If the farmer produces 2 or more food, then you will have a problem with cities NEVER capping off in size. When you get metropolises and there are no more tiles to work, then your city will continously be adding more and more specialists because you keep getting more farmers who are feeding even more farmers who are feeding more farmers......

 

[Tacit_Exit]

Maybe an Agriculturalist that produces one food, just to cap off those annoying 'one extra food' cities without resorting to forest planting or cracking off a railroad.
Hardly worth it but, considering all the areas of the game that could use fleshing out.

edit Even better, a Supermodel: consumes only one food but one gold also, makes one citizen content edit

 

[slothman]

I guess that would be a problem with 100+size cities, all farmers. Maybe having a "no-max," or some better name, rule that prevents using farmers if you have all tiles worked. That's seems to be the worst though.

 

[yoshi]

How much of the real civ concepts do you really understand? You are getting lost in never-never land thinking about your cool new 'ideas'.

I just forgot whether or not the Granary completely prevents starvation or the effect only lasts until the food runs out. It's the latter. Since that is the case, then the exploit of using Farmers to increase Food and then turning them back into Labourers once the city has reached the desired size is not an exploit...as long as Farmers cost gold.

(BTW, a moment of forgetfulness does not translate into me not understanding the civ concepts. And why the quotation marks for 'ideas'?)

If the city has too many shields then it should have no problem building a granary, then shouldn't it?

Granaries do not produce MORE food. They only store it so the city can grow faster IF it has a surplus --that's where the Farmers come into it.

The farmer idea just takes that whole concept and throws it out the window.

I already addressed this with the gold cost.

With your ideas about getting more shields at the expense of gold, then there is definitely nothing stopping this player from winning the game through being a production powerhouse.

I don't see the connection. Engineers will do this anyway and you won't even have to pay gold. Are you saying they shouldn't include Engineers into Conquests or are you saying that the gold limitation is not enough to stop this exploit?

...then why are you proposing a similar effect for your ideas to limit excessive use of it?

I'm not. Specialists don't increase war weariness.

And if you want to build the granary, then you can't have too many farmers, so it may very well be faster to use ALL of your citizens as farmers instead of waiting for the granary.

In that example, you're using the Farmers to increase growth rate. Yes, the Granary would become a little redundant in that sense, but if growth is your aim then you will probably want as much of it as possible. Farmers will allow your city to grow beyond the size limited to the food output of the city's surrounding tiles --but at a cost. Additionaly, Farmers will be of little help if start losing citizens to starvation during a siege for instance. Other than for cases like that and doubling growth, Granaries are not really that important as things are.

Yes, in reality, you could ship food there to feed them, but if you use the 'realism' argument too much, the game ends up broken and not playable.

Again with the realism. Look, Civ3 is lightyears away from being what could seriously be called 'realistic.' Adding a few features that happen to resemble reality is not going to break the game.

A simple solution I think would be to allow 'terraforming'.

Not the same effect. Terraforming permanently changes the landscape at no cost except for the maintenance of the Worker that initially terraforms. Not dependent on food (i.e. Workers only cost gold; the cost in Citizens is soon made up.

Or have a city improvement that adds +1 food to all LAND tiles (currently there is only the possibiltiy of adding food to water tiles).

That is a good idea that should be included into Civ3 but it is still different (no Citizens required).

Since specialists costs you food, using them slows your growth and you are limited in how many you can have. Again, if you had farmers then this limitation/trade-off is non-existant.

Yes but you don't have to pay for those shields except the amount that would have been made by a Labourer on a tile (opportunity cost).

In any case even if this is never added to the default mod I would be for allowing to to be modded to personal mods, especially for scenarios. There are many things that scenarios could use that would help in a unmodded game.

Yes, just adding in 'Food' and 'Cost' captions into the Editor's 'Citizens' window would be enough. It's just that if a concept isn't meant for the core game (no matter how simple), developers won't spend a penny on it.

f the farmer produces 2 or more food, then you will have a problem with cities NEVER capping off in size.

This is why I proposed placing a limit on the number of Farmers --aside from food.

Even better, a Supermodel: consumes only one food but one gold also, makes one citizen content

You've got my vote!

Maybe having a "no-max," or some better name, rule that prevents using farmers if you have all tiles worked.

Yes, that is a way of preventing cities from never 'capping off.'

 

[Bamspeedy]

I'm not. Specialists don't increase war weariness

You misunderstood what I was trying to get at ( I realized after I had posted that, that it would probably be confusing).

For your diverting production idea and this idea, your suggestion to stop/or discourage people from excessively using these ideas too much was to make them cost appropriate (somewhat expensive) so it woundn't be very cost-effective to do this the entire game. Well, cash rushing you say is expensive and isn't cost effective to do the entire game. The same problem you say is wrong with cash rushing, you are saying should be done for your ideas.

Farmers to increase Food and then turning them back into Labourers once the city has reached the desired size is not an exploit

I think having a city go from size 1 to size 20 in about 40 turns when it should normally take 100+ turns is exploitive. I think if you had been running at -1 food and then just before you are supposed to lose a citizen to starvation you turn all your citizens into farmers for 1 turn to fill up the food bin again and then repeating the 'slow starvation' process would be somewhat exploitive.

Why would you want to add a feature that makes an improvement (granary) nearly worthless? We don't need any more useless improvements (like coastal fortresses).

Yes but you don't have to pay for those shields except the amount that would have been made by a Labourer on a tile (opportunity cost).

If you can get your city from size 1 to size 20, 50 or 60 turns sooner than normal, you will very easily recover the 'opportunity cost' when you turn the farmers back into laborers.

...as long as Farmers cost gold

Shields are far more valuable than gold. Gold is the least of my worries.

Engineers will do this anyway and you won't even have to pay gold.

Perhaps there are some limitations on engineers you haven't been informed about.

Again with the realism.

Well, if you want realism, then farmers would not increase population. People having babies is what increases population, not people producing or eating more food. With excessive use of farmers then the population growth some cities get would mean that every single married couple in your civ had a baby all in one year, every year.

 

[Pirate]

I just don't see how taking a worker off the land would produce MORE food. If you are in a tundra with all farmers and no one out in the land working for food, then where is it coming from? I can see a "hydroponics farm" city improvement in modern ages, but I just don't see how someone sitting in a city during the ancient ages is producing more food than someone out working the land.

Also, consider how it will make the game run. There have been studies and mods out there that restrict building on tundras and deserts. The game plays and loads MUCH faster because ai cities and units are curtailed. If farmers are implemented, you can place cities everywhere! Get ready for 3 hour turns...

 

[khirkhib]

This makes a lot of sence, you could create agrarian outpost cities and extremely developed and huge interior cities. I think that you would need to assign food importers and exporters. The exporter would gain a city a shield but cost them a food. which would be helpful in those currupt cities on the fringe. A food importer woud cost the city a shield but gain them a food. Maybe it should be a couple food. They should be pooled so the number of importers can not supras the number of exporters. You could realy make the interiour cities huge and super productive but think of the panic that could occur (eg west berlin) if they were cut off from their food supply.

 

[yoshi]

The same problem you say is wrong with cash rushing, you are saying should be done for your ideas.

But cash rushing doesn't produce the same effect as Farmers. Diverting Production has more to it than just increasing Food or Shields --see the thread.

I think if you had been running at -1 food and then just before you are supposed to lose a citizen to starvation you turn all your citizens into farmers for 1 turn to fill up the food bin again and then repeating the 'slow starvation' process would be somewhat exploitive.

You make a good point. But you would still have to pay gold to maintain the Farmers, it's just that you would only do so whenever food is nearly exausted. It's not a very efficient exploit and most players would not have the patience.

Why would you want to add a feature that makes an improvement (granary) nearly worthless? We don't need any more useless improvements (like coastal fortresses).

I'm not sure how to answer that but it just seems to me that if a city can afford to import goods so that it may grow, then let it. This ties economics and demographics together more than is they are at present.

Shields are far more valuable than gold. Gold is the least of my worries.

More food frees up citizens to work on shield tiles and that is a conflict with the low-food city if gold is the only set back. Another good point. The only solution I can see is make FArmers very expensive --I suppose that in reality, imports are quite costly and not worth spending the money to send them to a 'badly' placed city. (THe reason why I put quotation marks around badly is because you may have intentionally placed a city there for the shields, but as other cities take over this role, the city is no longer as essential.)

If you are in a tundra with all farmers and no one out in the land working for food, then where is it coming from?

The Farmer represents food from the outside (imports).

The game plays and loads MUCH faster because ai cities and units are curtailed. If farmers are implemented, you can place cities everywhere! Get ready for 3 hour turns...

Why not deselect the 'Build City' option for that Terrain?

The exporter would gain a city a shield but cost them a food. which would be helpful in those currupt cities on the fringe. A food importer woud cost the city a shield but gain them a food.

Yes, part of the idea is to compensate for the 'shield importer' (Engineers).

 

[Hygro]

Originally posted by Tacit_Exit
Maybe an Agriculturalist that produces one food, just to cap off those annoying 'one extra food' cities without resorting to forest planting or cracking off a railroad.
Hardly worth it but, considering all the areas of the game that could use fleshing out.

edit Even better, a Supermodel: consumes only one food but one gold also, makes one citizen content edit

I've trhought of this too! Well, not the supermodel but the 1 food thing. It would be nice .