30-03-2003 21:48									#1
	Food Distribution Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Hi. Love the show. Long-time listener, first-time caller.

I had a question about food supplies in CivIII/PtW, if anyone can help.

Civ II gave the option on food convoys, as well as caravans. Caravans got the push in CivIII because you could stash them as a shield-bank through the game and insta-build Wonders, fair enough. Dumb exploit, don't need it. Trading system was clumsy, too.

Food convoys could be a real boon sometimes in the game though. I usually play a huge-expander, sprawling, long-map kinda game, and often have cities with huge surpluses down the road from starving desert towns. There are sometimes tactical reasons to want these towns bigger than their local food resources allow, even if just for a while. Same holds true for some of your metros; you want some of them BIG, especially when you're pushing for industrial supremacy. London and New York don't feed their populations on what they grow locally, unless you can feed the citizens parking meters.

Why can't I send them food anymore ? I just sent the guy in the next hemispere 50 ICBMs and 30 transports of armour, the hard way, and I can't sling some bags of wheat in a truck to go down the road ?!

I've always run standard game plus offical patches; I haven't been that interested in scenarios so I didn't play with the Editor, upshot being I don't know if this is something that could be edited around in terms of rules changes, new unit type, etc.

If anyone knows, or wants to tell me I've been dumb and point me in the right direction in the standard game, lay it on. (Sorry about the length, had to blow off steam ). Thanks in advance.

	30-03-2003 22:06									#2
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

It can't be done, SalvationArmy. Sorry. Though believe me when I tell you that there are many more who feel exactly the same way.

Me? I've always thought that cities should grow in size based on the amount of commerce they generate, and the nation's food supply should be automatically shipped from big food producing cities to big industrial/commercial towns without any farms.

But even an old fashioned caravan would be nice.

	31-03-2003 02:12									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Yup - can't be done.

I came to Civ III without any Civ experience and so don't long for some of the things veteran civ players miss in Civ III. But I really enjoy the "static" nature of food supplies -- if food were freely transferable, city planning and placement would be that much easier and less thoughtful a process. As it stands now, one of the challenges I enjoy in city placement is determining how to make the most out of available terrain -- securing enough food to make those gem-encrusted mountains workable and productive (at least as much as possible).

Catt

	31-03-2003 04:45									#4
	Re: Food Distribution Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by SalvationArmy If anyone knows, or wants to tell me I've been dumb and point me in the right direction in the standard game, lay it on. (Sorry about the length, had to blow off steam ). Thanks in advance.

Probably because the AI wouldn't know how to use them very well, giving the human a big advantage.

	31-03-2003 07:18									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I think Catt hit the nail on the head. If food distribution is realistic, other game mechanics suffer.

Realistically, it should be pretty easy to move food around especially in the late game. Load up a train and you're done. Even in the early game, there's no reason food should move more slowly than a military unit...well maybe a bit, but even half-speed is reasonable.

But, as Catt points out, the importance of city planning and city placement would be greatly reduced.

There are probably a zillion game dynamics that could solve this problem, but none that have been implemented through the editor or that are on Firaxis' to-do list.

-TT

	31-03-2003 15:11									#6
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I just thought of something (maybe could be implemented in the future): after a civ can build granaries (or maybe only if it has the Pyramids), it should be able to have something like a national food reserve. Any city that produces more than, say, 2 food, should have the option to store some food in the national reserve. Any city that experiences hunger will tap into this reserve and will not shrink as long as there is some food left. A city that can't grow anymore (no aqueduct/hospital) will automatically store the extra food in the national reserve.

Or, perhaps the "food caravan" could work similar to the freighters in MOO2.

	31-03-2003 18:40									#7
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

A national food reserve should come much later than granaries. Maybe with railroads. We already have trade networks in the game, we could have a food network as well. For two cities to be connected there had to be railroads connecting them, commercial docks for overseas cities.

It could add some depth to late-game warfare. By conquering a nations wheat fields you could start a nation-wide famine. Starving a whole country instead of a single city.

	31-03-2003 21:21									#8
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Well, thanks for all the input folks, but it looks like I'm on a hiding to nothing. Just have to put up with it !

At least I'm not alone; misery loves company, eh ?

The only thing I could think of was maybe it would be possible to flag the output of a developed square near one city and "divert" the output to another nominated city with a rail/sea connection, but this raises a lot of other issues like visible markers in the city screens to indicate the diversion, new entries in the Trade/Domestic Advisor screens, etc. and other front-end mods way out of my league to implement. I could see that being a tricky mod, if possible at all.

I'll have to express my frustration by shelling Tatung. That'll make me feel better . . . (Although I was reading through Sava's thread on bombardment & air raids and it's clearly a bit of a contentious subject. I may throw my 5 cents worth in later as I'm a bit of a fan, albeit with a few caveats).

Thanks again ! Catch you soon.

	02-04-2003 08:56									#9
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I've mentioned this somewhere before, but I feel that cities which are connected to the Capital, via a road or rail network, should get bonuses to production, food and commerce-based on the total number of cities in the empire which are likewise connected up to the capital! This would represent the flow of freight, such as raw materials and manufactered goods, within the empire!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

	03-04-2003 01:27									#10
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Once a city is connected to the capitol via the trade network it will get lower corruption. And share resources/luxures. I don't think they need a bigger bonus.

	03-04-2003 05:15									#11
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by bongo Once a city is connected to the capitol via the trade network it will get lower corruption. And share resources/luxures. I don't think they need a bigger bonus.

I don't think there's a bonus to cities for being connected other than their access to resources and luxuries.

In CtP, connecting cities to the capital reduced unhappiness and crime, but it has no effect on corruption in Civ3.

	03-04-2003 05:59									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

You're right, Fosse, which means that, in my opinion at least, my original idea still stands up to scrutiny!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

	03-04-2003 07:58									#13
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

No - bongo is correct. Connecting a city to the capitol (via roads, harbors, airports, etc.) is factored into the corruption calculation.

Check out the user-friendly Corruption FAQ by alexman, or the less user-friendly but more "nitty-gritty" Everything you wanted to know about corruption but were afraid to ask thread, also by alexman of course!

Catt

	03-04-2003 08:24									#14
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Both Catt and Bongo are correct. The threads that Catt references are excellent and very helpful.

- TT

	03-04-2003 21:17									#15
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I stand corrected. Silly me!

Well, I'm glad... as Aussie says, it is a good idea! I'm glad it's in.

	06-04-2003 03:49									#16
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I really think that agricultural cities should be able to supply industrial cities. Far from detracting from city planning, it would enhance it by allowing you to specialize your cities. Also, what happens in one part of your empire could have a direct effect on other parts; if your agriculture cities get captured, you starve.

	06-04-2003 04:02									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I've come to accept the food problem as just a part of the game I can't control.
But I have an idea for Firaxis:
The FC acts as another capitol, reducing corruption, which can affect all production in cities within its sphere of influence. Why not have a similar small wonder that acts in such a way that it is a food distribution center for desert/tundra cities?
So many things Firaxis can do; so little we can. Let's get them interested in doing a Civ IV.

	06-04-2003 09:40									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by skywalker I really think that agricultural cities should be able to supply industrial cities. Far from detracting from city planning, it would enhance it by allowing you to specialize your cities.

How would city specialization enhance city planning?

Doesn't the concept of fungible city supplies -- freely available from any city within an empire -- by definition reduce the need to plan specific city locations better?

From my point of view, mobile food supplies would simply ensure that every single workable tile within a given cultural border would be worked regardless of specific city location. Yes, one could specialize cities, but to what end -- any city consisting largely of flatlands such as grasslands or plains would be best utilized as ag cities (to the extent needed) -- irrigated and producing a food surplus -- so as to feed the industrial cities situated near mountains and hills. I'd personally prefer that prospective city locations would need to be evaluated in order to determine wheher or not, among other things, adequate food existed to support appropriate and efficient population levels.

Catt

	09-04-2003 13:26									#19
	Tired of ads?

IMO the view that each city should grow it's own food is a bit outdated. IRL entire nations are running on a food deficit. Like oil and any other resources, if you don't have it, you can buy it.

Maybe a small wonder called National Food Reserve would be fine? Available with industrialization(so it won't lessen the value of good city placement), it would allow food to be transported along your trade network and traded to other civs.

	10-04-2003 03:12									#20
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Catt: no it doesn't reduce the need for good city planning. You still have to be able to work those tiles, and if you made it so that city improvements would be necessary to work certain tile improvements to maximum efficiency, you would want to plan a city so that it would fill a specific role. Thus, you NEED to have agricultural cities, you NEED to have resource-collecting (mining, whatever) cites, you NEED to have industrial cities. This also seperates resources and production - you have to have the materials, but you also need the factories to do something with them.

	10-04-2003 05:48									#21
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I have to agree with Catt on this. It would lower the strategic challenge because it would be an obvious choice to specialize all cities. Once there is an obvious choice, there isn't a strategic choice. The whole point of the game is to make strategic choices.

	10-04-2003 07:15									#22
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by skywalker Catt: no it doesn't reduce the need for good city planning. You still have to be able to work those tiles, and [. . . ] you would want to plan a city so that it would fill a specific role. Thus, you NEED to have agricultural cities, you NEED to have resource-collecting (mining, whatever) cites, you NEED to have industrial cities.

But this sounds like an argument that one would need to control certain types of terrain, rather than emphasizing efficient city placement. I would need to ensure control of sufficient irrigable flatlands to make available the productive "verticallands" but I need not worry about specific city locations within my cultural borders -- only sufficient empire-wide balance.

It still seems to me that the proposal de-emphasizes city placement strategy and promotes (if at all) simple geographical diversity.

The above quote without my edits, but with my emphasis added:

quote: Catt: no it doesn't reduce the need for good city planning. You still have to be able to work those tiles, and if you made it so that city improvements would be necessary to work certain tile improvements to maximum efficiency, you would want to plan a city so that it would fill a specific role. Thus, you NEED to have agricultural cities, you NEED to have resource-collecting (mining, whatever) cites, you NEED to have industrial cities. This also seperates resources and production - you have to have the materials, but you also need the factories to do something with them.

Your proposal strikes me as more interesting with the highlighted changes -- but that's an additional radical change to the basic game structure. And though I think it represents a "radical" change to the game structure, I don't think it represents much of a change to actual gameplay -- I would obviously build the required imporvements in my spcialized cities, almost without thinking about it much (i.e., "farm" in an ag city; "factory" in a shield city).

quote: Originally posted by bongo IMO the view that each city should grow it's own food is a bit outdated. IRL entire nations are running on a food deficit. Like oil and any other resources, if you don't have it, you can buy it.

I don't disagree that in real life cities, and entire nations, needn't produce their own food. But there are thousands of aspects of the game that are geared towards more interesting gameplay than towards realism -- in my view, a more engaging game is far more important that adherance to a more realistic simulation.

quote: Maybe a small wonder called National Food Reserve would be fine? Available with industrialization(so it won't lessen the value of good city placement), it would allow food to be transported along your trade network and traded to other civs.

I'd be less opposed to such a change since by the Industrial Age much of the world is settled. But it would also strike me as adding an "uncalled-for complexity" in the later game, since the present system seems to work without too much problem as it is (if you buy my other arguments, that is ).

Catt

	10-04-2003 07:50									#23
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I think that, even if this removed a layer of strategy in city placement, it would add enormous strategic depth to war. And if you actually seperated shields and production, you've made it so that civ can really represent the Industrial Revolution.

	10-04-2003 10:47									#24
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

reading this thread reminds me of how much I miss CTP!

	10-04-2003 11:37									#25
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Why don't you play it then? If you have lost your CD, you can have mine. Just blow away the dust from it.

	10-04-2003 13:25									#26
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Catt , I totally agree with you on one thing. This add unneeded complexity. IMO the game is fine now(actually there is one thing I would really like to change but that's a totally different matter)

It's just that sometimes I have cities that are totally useless except for an incredible food-production. It would be nice to find some use for all that food....I don't miss CTP but it had some interesting features. Remember the worker specialist that added shields to a city? Give me some of those and excess food will never again be a problem. (add a policeman specialist to combat corruption and the game will become dangerously easy )

	11-04-2003 01:59									#27
	Tired of ads?

I think it would add minimal complexity. Let me explain why.

Say you're playing on the world map, in America, and you have one or two mega food cities in the middle. You go into a "resource distribution screen". On it is a map, with cities and such. You select one or more cities, right click and pick "move food", then select another city or group of cities. You specify the amount of food per turn sent from each city. You can only do it if the city is on your trade network and is only a certain distance (along the network) away, with different costs depending on the mode of transport (harder to move across water, no cost for railroad, for example). Bingo. You could also set the advisor to automatically handle some of it or even all of it.

One thing I want to repeat about the shields: having more shields wouldn't increase your production (at least not much) under this system. You would have to have the industrial capacity to utilize those shields.

	14-04-2003 18:38									#28
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Rob_S So many things Firaxis can do; so little we can. Let's get them interested in doing a Civ IV.

Let's get them interested to do Civ IV as a distributed project: accept input from hundreds of thousands of Civ fans all over the world, with ideas as good as yours.