Ah yes. Early game (prehistoric especially) well over 50% of my food and hammers comes from hunting. I forgot to mention that. BTW, I intend to try to track down the display inconsistency in the food next. If you could post a save game that has such an inconsistency (I have one in my game but it seems to have a different source than your image) that would be appreciated.
Wasted Food
- Thread starter BlueTemplar
- Start date
Ah yes. Early game (prehistoric especially) well over 50% of my food and hammers comes from hunting. I forgot to mention that. BTW, I intend to try to track down the display inconsistency in the food next. If you could post a save game that has such an inconsistency (I have one in my game but it seems to have a different source than your image) that would be appreciated.
KingArthur666
Warlord
Now that you mention it that is probably why my capital is so much bigger than any of my other cities. It was the only city around while I was doing most of my hunting. It likely got every herd possible (based on the animals I was catching) plus all that food and production from hunting. Once I started getting additional cities things started spreading out and there weren't as many animals to capture.
JosEPh_II
TBS WarLord
You can only build 1 herd of each type in a city. You can't build 2 Bison or 2 deer, etc. And on many maps you will only get the opportunity to capture early game a % of the Herd animal types. So you are only going to add a limited amount of food from herds. They are vital though for early growth. That's why I dislike it when my early wanderer/hunter units kill instead of subdue, cause it seems my luck is they kill 80% of the time and only subdue 20%.
And it's because of these game mechanics, "wasted food" and "slower city growth rates", that I keep harping about City Limits being redundant now and unnecessary for limiting that "dreaded" (Oh God save us from it!
) city spam.
JosEPh
And it's because of these game mechanics, "wasted food" and "slower city growth rates", that I keep harping about City Limits being redundant now and unnecessary for limiting that "dreaded" (Oh God save us from it!
) city spam.JosEPh
Ok, time to re-evaluate!
It's pretty clear that:
For that reason I am thinking of taming wastage somewhat.
I **don't** want to entirely remove it because I don't want to get into the situation where you can have 70% storage of food plus literally several hundred food per turn, leading to growth almost immediately in some eras/city sizes.
However, I don't think the current system scales well enough. Currently wastage is dependent only on the surplass food (and independent of city size or growth thresholds). This seems wrong. Thinking about modeling reality it's certainly true that one person (or one unit of population however many you want to view that as being) can't make use of enough food for 100 people. Equally 100 people CAN.
Hence I am thinking of changing the wastage formula so that it scales with population, and the threshold is increased (i.e. - the wastage curve moves out to the right with surplass food being the horizontal axis) the smaller the proportion of the food-required-to-grow your food-per-turn is.
The effects would be:
It's pretty clear that:
- This is a not-entirely popular feature
- The original runaway growth that caused its introduction is greatly tamed now anyway
For that reason I am thinking of taming wastage somewhat.
I **don't** want to entirely remove it because I don't want to get into the situation where you can have 70% storage of food plus literally several hundred food per turn, leading to growth almost immediately in some eras/city sizes.
However, I don't think the current system scales well enough. Currently wastage is dependent only on the surplass food (and independent of city size or growth thresholds). This seems wrong. Thinking about modeling reality it's certainly true that one person (or one unit of population however many you want to view that as being) can't make use of enough food for 100 people. Equally 100 people CAN.
Hence I am thinking of changing the wastage formula so that it scales with population, and the threshold is increased (i.e. - the wastage curve moves out to the right with surplass food being the horizontal axis) the smaller the proportion of the food-required-to-grow your food-per-turn is.
The effects would be:
- Early cities wouldn't see much wastage at all because their growth rates are so low that the surplas would always be a small proportion of the growth threshold
- Large cities wouldn't see wastage until significantly higher food surplass exists than is currently the case (more population can use more surplass without wasting it)
- High-tech cities with huge surplasses and large storage-after-growth percentages would still see some wastage (though likely less than now)
Hydromancerx
C2C Modder
I would like to just speak out and say that I think the system you have in place should not be changed. Having super growing cities in the prehistoric era isn unrealistic. Likewise once you change your civics to growing ones they the game balances out again. And even unbalances itself by the trans-human era.
I would like to give a big NO to changing it. In short just because its not popular doesn't mean its not balanced. If anything the challenge of small cities are good since you actually have something to work up to.
To those who can't get their cities to grow just have poor city management. There buildings are there to grow your cities VERY fast if you just build the right buildings.
I would like to give a big NO to changing it. In short just because its not popular doesn't mean its not balanced. If anything the challenge of small cities are good since you actually have something to work up to.
To those who can't get their cities to grow just have poor city management. There buildings are there to grow your cities VERY fast if you just build the right buildings.
I like this. It is quite realistic and will still prevent too fast growth. At least this allows to balance it better than the old version.Ok, time to re-evaluate!
It's pretty clear that:
- This is a not-entirely popular feature
- The original runaway growth that caused its introduction is greatly tamed now anyway
For that reason I am thinking of taming wastage somewhat.
I **don't** want to entirely remove it because I don't want to get into the situation where you can have 70% storage of food plus literally several hundred food per turn, leading to growth almost immediately in some eras/city sizes.
However, I don't think the current system scales well enough. Currently wastage is dependent only on the surplass food (and independent of city size or growth thresholds). This seems wrong. Thinking about modeling reality it's certainly true that one person (or one unit of population however many you want to view that as being) can't make use of enough food for 100 people. Equally 100 people CAN.
Hence I am thinking of changing the wastage formula so that it scales with population, and the threshold is increased (i.e. - the wastage curve moves out to the right with surplass food being the horizontal axis) the smaller the proportion of the food-required-to-grow your food-per-turn is.
The effects would be:
- Early cities wouldn't see much wastage at all because their growth rates are so low that the surplas would always be a small proportion of the growth threshold
- Large cities wouldn't see wastage until significantly higher food surplass exists than is currently the case (more population can use more surplass without wasting it)
- High-tech cities with huge surplasses and large storage-after-growth percentages would still see some wastage (though likely less than now)
Hydromancerx
C2C Modder
Ok maybe I am missunderstanding. So this still keeps early game cities small right? Or no?
For most people it won't make much difference early on because uless you get Druidism and shamanism etc. You typically don't run very large surpluses then anyway. The civic growth thresholds are the main brake on early growth. A most I'd guess this will be a ten percent or so change in that era.
KingArthur666
Warlord
I'm actually liking this now that I'm getting it figured out. It wasn't so much the wasted food that was preventing my cities from growing, it was more poor civic choices. I was using just about every civic possible to increase the amount of food required to grow a city, which was leading to cities that remained size 1 for about 100 turns. Now that I've played into the medieval age using a Spiritual leader (allowing me to change my civics without 10+ turns of anarchy) I can really see the difference those food multipliers make in the civics. I'd be willing to check out the new system Koshling has in mind, but it might be less balanced than what is currently in place. When I changed to my current set of civics, the food changes being Tribal to Bourgeois for a 50% savings, No Borders to Open Borders for a -15% required food, and No Agriculture to Subsistence Agriculture a reduction from 50% to only 25% my cities exploded. I would say some of my oldest cities are growing unrealistically for the time period. I couldn't say for certain though. Are size 20 cities normal around 100 A.D.? My biggest city just hit influential culture and is now working the 3rd city ring, so I expect more speedy growth from this city.
I thought the metro admin building was required to work the 3rd ring?
I thought the metro admin building was required to work the 3rd ring?
If you use e game option 'larger cities' then you do NOT need the metro admin building. The game option enables the third tier of tiles automatically at influential. Without the game option you can still work the third tier but you DO require the metro admin building first (which becomes available at influential). I keep meaning to clarify the hover text for tha game option, but not getting round to it!
Hydromancerx
C2C Modder
Yeah that clarification for the hover text is LONG over due.
I too am now liking it now that I understand it and have tried a few different tactics for city growth to see what makes a difference.
I only didn't like it initially because I didn't change the way I played back from several versions back, and was therefore struggling - I tend to get a bit set in my ways! On this particular game that I am on now I am not finding it an issue, having a Spiritual leader trait certainly helps because on the slowest game speeds there is a real reluctance to switch civics too often as it gives the impression that you're in anarchy and stagnant for absolutely ages, even though it is appropriate for the game speed!
I only didn't like it initially because I didn't change the way I played back from several versions back, and was therefore struggling - I tend to get a bit set in my ways! On this particular game that I am on now I am not finding it an issue, having a Spiritual leader trait certainly helps because on the slowest game speeds there is a real reluctance to switch civics too often as it gives the impression that you're in anarchy and stagnant for absolutely ages, even though it is appropriate for the game speed!
JosEPh_II
TBS WarLord
My current v21 game is at 1969AD and my Largest city is a size 43. I have 71 cities and only my capital and my 3rd built city is at that 43 size, on a Giant map, 7AI, Archipelago map. And only 1 AI has been eliminated. (One of the other AI did that. Although I did give him the tech to make him have an edge over the AI he defeated.)
I just got Food factory in the last 3 turns and only have 1 built so far. I don't consciously use the 3rd ring, as I don't leave that much room between my cities. Archipelago maps make you very city placement conscious as you need to make your borders solid by the time you can navigate the seas/oceans.
Earlier versions, circa v14, I could have size 50+ and sometimes size 60 by this time frame.
I play on Epic level so my eXperiences Are different than a player that uses Snail. On Epic level City Limits are unnecessary as are fixed borders. The Pop growth restrictions coupled with the food wasteage modifiers make it so that you have to really push to exceed the Number of cities that City Limits set. So for Epic games they become redundant and not needed. And I AM a city spammer. I will push my economy to the breaking point to place a city I deem necessary for resources or border locking. Then I backfill like mad.
The AI in my games on Epic don't get trapped as long in lesser Civic choices either. And if a Leaders favorite Gov't Civic happens to be Despotism it doesn't go into a Death spiral by using it, like those games that use City Limits and Rev do. I also never use REV. It implodes strong opponents into weak pickings imho.
As for the changes proposed, I'd use them, hehe.
But I have learned to adapt my play for the current system. With the above noted differences or Options Not used. Of course C2C changes so much with each version that you are in a constant state of adaptation. So you Must learn to adapt and give up your old regular BtS ways of playing. And for some of you the ways that you exploited or cheated the AI with. JosEPh
Dancing Hoskuld
Deity
Ok, time to re-evaluate!
It's pretty clear that:
- This is a not-entirely popular feature
- The original runaway growth that caused its introduction is greatly tamed now anyway
For that reason I am thinking of taming wastage somewhat.
I **don't** want to entirely remove it because I don't want to get into the situation where you can have 70% storage of food plus literally several hundred food per turn, leading to growth almost immediately in some eras/city sizes.
However, I don't think the current system scales well enough. Currently wastage is dependent only on the surplass food (and independent of city size or growth thresholds). This seems wrong. Thinking about modeling reality it's certainly true that one person (or one unit of population however many you want to view that as being) can't make use of enough food for 100 people. Equally 100 people CAN.
Hence I am thinking of changing the wastage formula so that it scales with population, and the threshold is increased (i.e. - the wastage curve moves out to the right with surplass food being the horizontal axis) the smaller the proportion of the food-required-to-grow your food-per-turn is.
The effects would be:
- Early cities wouldn't see much wastage at all because their growth rates are so low that the surplas would always be a small proportion of the growth threshold
- Large cities wouldn't see wastage until significantly higher food surplass exists than is currently the case (more population can use more surplass without wasting it)
- High-tech cities with huge surplasses and large storage-after-growth percentages would still see some wastage (though likely less than now)
I like.
One of the reasons I was not worried about dropping the idea of some diseases was because the affect I wanted was being done in in the food wastage system better than I could via a disease system. Changing it to this would indeed be more realistic but would mean that those diseases would now need to be introduced.
Malaria for example should have an affect that increases with population increasing food and hammer wastage until you can mitigate its effects. I suppose that is what AIAndy's properties are all about.
Hydromancerx
C2C Modder
Its nice that the game can be played in so many different play styles. This is one of the best parts of C2C. It actually has some wiggle room so there is no "right" choice because there are so many possible paths you can follow when playing the game.
So much so that even playing the same map over (I suspect) would lead to different choices. I mean do people that play say GEM map play the same game over and over? I don't think so.
So much so that even playing the same map over (I suspect) would lead to different choices. I mean do people that play say GEM map play the same game over and over? I don't think so.
I've adjusted to and like the food wastage. Granted, I liked it already from start. *laugh*
Though on the matter of food and growth: is the third ring = +50% or so food needed to grow really necessary with the Food Wastage System in play?
That's really all that bums me out with the food and growth atm.
Cheers
Though on the matter of food and growth: is the third ring = +50% or so food needed to grow really necessary with the Food Wastage System in play?
That's really all that bums me out with the food and growth atm.
Cheers
IMO no. Frankly I didn't even know that mechanic existed!
Edit - is there any consensus. I'm getting the impression there isn't in which case maybe my time is better spent on AI work currently, and just leave this be for now...?
I don't know or remember if it increases required food to grow when using the Larger Cities Option and reaching Influential Culture. I do know it drastically increases food required to grow when reaching the third ring via Metropolitan admin building AND Capital admin building.
Cheers
Cheers
JosEPh_II
TBS WarLord
Well DH and I said "We" would use it.
But AI work Is very important too!
Dang! Mixed signals again!
JosEPh
Dancing Hoskuld
Deity
Well DH and I said "We" would use it.
But AI work Is very important too!
Dang! Mixed signals again!
JosEPh
If we could get the "malaria" style diseases in the game then I think your changes would be great but maybe we need to hold off until they are in. Now since I said I would not be working on them for C2C does not mean I will not be working on them (diseases) for my mod. Since I do stuff in modules anyway it should be fairly easy to merge back into C2C when I get them done
