JanghanHong
Enrico Trololo
I don't think the OP wants to convince anyone, or will be convinced by anyone.
The 'hill' tiles in Civ5: Why no food?
- Thread starter BSPollux
- Start date
Quite simply they are dissatisfied with an aspect of the game. I used poor wording in a previous reply, which prompted the mod action, but I still think his best options would be to edit the xml himself with the aid of a guide, likely found in the Modding Tutorials & Reference sub-forum, or to find an existing mod that satisfies his desires.
As an apology offering, I sifted through some of the threads in that section and found this thread on Modifying Tile Yields, i hope this is what you were looking for, BSPollux
EDIT: Here's a mod I found that may or may not help you, BSPollux. Again, sorry for any misunderstandings or hard feelings
As an apology offering, I sifted through some of the threads in that section and found this thread on Modifying Tile Yields, i hope this is what you were looking for, BSPollux
EDIT: Here's a mod I found that may or may not help you, BSPollux. Again, sorry for any misunderstandings or hard feelings
No harm done 
I run into problems with the board rules all the time, its all a matter of opinion and I think its hardly ever ment offensive by anyone.
And about your post, JanghanHong: Like its just like that. I'm bringing things like that up once in a while not because I think that something will actualy change, but just to leave a note that some things could be improved. Just like you might say to friend "It would be better for the environment if people made better use of public transportation systems."
I run into problems with the board rules all the time, its all a matter of opinion and I think its hardly ever ment offensive by anyone.And about your post, JanghanHong: Like its just like that. I'm bringing things like that up once in a while not because I think that something will actualy change, but just to leave a note that some things could be improved. Just like you might say to friend "It would be better for the environment if people made better use of public transportation systems."
Smokeybear
Emperor
Well, you're the first person I've ever see voice this particular complaint, unlike dozens of others that show up like ants at a picnic around there... so don't hold your breath waiting for Firaxis to jump on that one...
LoneRebel
Emperor
So. We know that hills were 1f 1p in earlier Civ installations (Civ 3 at least). But plains were also 1f 1p. The difference was that hills could not be irrigated, but could be mined for more shields and, while plains could be mined for less, they could also be irrigated. That encouraged irrigating plains and mining hills.
Now, plains are still 1f 1p but hills are 2p. I think this was done to differentiate them further. Of course there's been a number of other changes too, such as that mines can only be built on hills and mountains are completely unworkable. All things considered, at this point I don't think this system is worse than before, just different. It still encourages putting farms on flat land and mining hills, if your city has both in its radius.
Sure, we can have villages and towns in hills, but with few exceptions, major cities have been built in hilly and mountainous terrain only recently, with modern technology (Bogota, the capital of Colombia, for example).
There's other things that aren't properly modeled anyway. I don't remember the exact figure but I'm pretty sure each hex covers thousands of square kilometers. A single city is working all of that, without suburbs or smaller towns and villages in the countryside. Of course countries in real life aren't divided into huge cities and empty countryside. I like the suggestion in the "Actual population of cities" thread, that either improvements or worked tiles (or both) should also add population to the demographics statistics.
There was an interesting proposal suggested earlier in this thread, that cities with a surplus of food could trade it to cities that lack food. This reminds me of the game "Cities XL", which has a similar system. It's realistic since cities like Las Vegas, which is in the middle of a desert, do not produce all their food and water on their own.
All in all the situation isn't that bad. At least farms can be constructed on hills with fresh water, which is an improvement on Civ 3. And now farms can be placed on tundra, which was completely impossible in Civ 3 and really restricted tundra cities. Only possible change I can think of would be to allow farms to be built on hills even without fresh water. I'm not sure I want that change though. It would be acceptable only if you have to research a certain technology first, certainly not from the start.
Now, plains are still 1f 1p but hills are 2p. I think this was done to differentiate them further. Of course there's been a number of other changes too, such as that mines can only be built on hills and mountains are completely unworkable. All things considered, at this point I don't think this system is worse than before, just different. It still encourages putting farms on flat land and mining hills, if your city has both in its radius.
Sure, we can have villages and towns in hills, but with few exceptions, major cities have been built in hilly and mountainous terrain only recently, with modern technology (Bogota, the capital of Colombia, for example).
There's other things that aren't properly modeled anyway. I don't remember the exact figure but I'm pretty sure each hex covers thousands of square kilometers. A single city is working all of that, without suburbs or smaller towns and villages in the countryside. Of course countries in real life aren't divided into huge cities and empty countryside. I like the suggestion in the "Actual population of cities" thread, that either improvements or worked tiles (or both) should also add population to the demographics statistics.
There was an interesting proposal suggested earlier in this thread, that cities with a surplus of food could trade it to cities that lack food. This reminds me of the game "Cities XL", which has a similar system. It's realistic since cities like Las Vegas, which is in the middle of a desert, do not produce all their food and water on their own.
All in all the situation isn't that bad. At least farms can be constructed on hills with fresh water, which is an improvement on Civ 3. And now farms can be placed on tundra, which was completely impossible in Civ 3 and really restricted tundra cities. Only possible change I can think of would be to allow farms to be built on hills even without fresh water. I'm not sure I want that change though. It would be acceptable only if you have to research a certain technology first, certainly not from the start.
Bibor
Doomsday Machine
Many of these features you mentioned were pioneered in SMAC. You could build crawlers to provide any resource to the city it belonged to and create convoys delivering minerals/hammers as well.
NotSure
King
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2011
- Messages
- 712
I live in California and there's over 38 million people here. We don't really import food either... just our barren hills and a little valley that isn't represented by the terrain in the game. On an Earth map you can grow larger populations in the desert and jungles than you can in the western United States.
Maybe Fertilizer, Hospitals and Labs could provide larger growth (or "food") to represent the modern day population explosion, but that would probably just create an even greater runaway problem, happiness issues, etc., etc. The low growth yields are just a necessary game mechanic I suppose. Anyway, I was going to start this conversation once after I played an earth map, and now I'm glad I didn't.
Maybe Fertilizer, Hospitals and Labs could provide larger growth (or "food") to represent the modern day population explosion, but that would probably just create an even greater runaway problem, happiness issues, etc., etc. The low growth yields are just a necessary game mechanic I suppose. Anyway, I was going to start this conversation once after I played an earth map, and now I'm glad I didn't.
I believe that with BNW's release, convoys/caravans are being introduced that will basically share a base income with another city in your empire. As in your city in the flood plains can export food to your city in the dry hills without a hit to their food generation. It is my understanding that the caravans are units to be built, and once used their effects have a limited length of effect. Would be game breaking if the effect was unlimited/infinite turns lol.
Wodan
Deity
Umm. Have you heard of this thing called the California Aqueduct?
That said, I don't see why game balance requires no farms on hills, especially with a midgame tech or something.
JanghanHong
Enrico Trololo
California can't grow food! I live on on end of California and it's barren hills outside of my house!
NotSure
King
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2011
- Messages
- 712
Not on a CiV map at least. Wodan makes a great point that the Aqueduct is the only reason so many people can live in southern California. I guess I agree with him too that, off the top of my head, I can't see any reason why farming hills after a certain tech would unbalance the game. The new trade system should help too (although I'll bet you want most of your trade to be for gold).
Has anyone modded this game to give hills +1 food with fertilizer or something? Not a lot, but it could add up if you work a lot of hills.
Smokeybear
Emperor
What you and Wodan overlook, is the fact that all of that water from the California aqueduct system is used either for human consumption in cities, or flat land agriculture. There is pretty much no significant (non-meat) food grown in the hill country in California. Wine, sure... but that's not actual life-sustaining food (unless you're a wino I guess, but I digress...).
Wodan
Deity
Oh, I didn't overlook it. I was responding to the assertion that CA doesn't grow any food. There's a lot more to CA than "barren hills".
Anyway, in real life, the sheer fact of hilly terrain doesn't make it unfarmable. It's more accurate to say that the presence or absence of water is what makes it unfarmable (but the same is true of flat terrain). And, streams (which aren't big enough to qualify as rivers) and even sufficient rain or well-fed irrigation provides enough water.
Meanwhile, in the game, a hill requires the same thing (water) to be farmable. You can even farm a non-water desert. I just don't see the game breaking issue with allowing farming of non-water hills. The game allows farming of non-water flat desert, which seems much more odd to me than a grassland hill.
NotSure
King
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2011
- Messages
- 712
I was being a bit smarmy, which apparently translates to stupid sometimes. The terrain is abstract (like anything else represented in the game) so hilly area would often times have plenty of valleys where farming could occur. I thought about this myself and almost commented on it. I said I was glad I didn't because the OP took a little criticism (which I don't think he/she deserved). Anyway, I agree with the OP (and I know for a fact that CA is not barren hills, although it is depicted this way on Earth maps). I would prefer late game farming in grassland hills over any kind of farming in the desert. Anyway, maybe we can blame the Inca... if everyone could farm on a hill they wouldn't be so darn special.
This is true. Desert seems like the one place where you can't grow food without serious investment in fertilizer etc.
Smokeybear
Emperor
Hills farm just fine if they're next to fresh water. And neither bare desert nor snow can produce four hammers when mined or 3+ food when farmed (barring weird crap like Petra). Tile types and yeilds are a tradeoff, in the game. Can't have everything, sorry. Personally, I think it would be rather boring if you did.
