Discussion: food costs

[Spiffor]

Since the early times of Civ1, Civ has always known three kinds of resources used to pruduce things: shields, gold and population.

This thread is about the idea of spending food to get things done as well.

Food-spending is an indirect population-spending, which should be used when a population cost would be too drastic, but when you want to avoid unpopulated cities to become production powerhouses.

For example, the intensive production of military units, could cost you a little food (say, 2-4 grains upon completion), reflecting a limited loss of population that is not as drastic as losing a whole citizen, but yet hampers your growth is you use it too much.

Another example, in CtP-ish public works, would be that each public work would cost a little food to reflect for the use of workforce.

I also actually think that pop-rushing should rather be "food rushing", meaning that huge cities can pop-rush big constructions. But I understand some people would disagree with me on this one.

So what do you think?

Are food costs a good idea ?

How do you think about implementing them ?

What are the limits of the idea ?

[Maniac]

on units being built costing food.

[Fosse]

I don't like this, but not because it's a poor idea... instead because I want to see city growth be no longer dependant on amount of food production, and I want to see populatio measured in numbers instead of "points."


... but to prevent a thread jack... I like your idea because pop rushing has a very "all or nothing" feel to it, but I think a better approach (ignoring my more radical points above) would be to make population rushing and gold rushing available in most governments, and giving the ruler the option of which they wish to use.

[joncha]

Originally posted by Fosse
... would be to make population rushing and gold rushing available in most governments, and giving the ruler the option of which they wish to use.

Yes! With a shield/food/gold slider for rushing improvements: regular cost, 20 shields. Want it faster? add food/gold to speed up production some or all of the way. They could even include cost variables for government type... ie, cheaper (gold) cost for republic, cheaper (food) "pop-rush" for despotism, etc.

jon.

[hexagonian]

Well, food useage/rations are used as a global happiness modifier in CTP, so you know I'd like to have it play a greater role in civ4...

Seriously, using food as part of the cost equation would increase the considerations for a player without necessarily increasing the micromanagement aspect of the game, so I'm all for it. It would probably require a reworking of the amount of food generated.

[Kuciwalker]

I don't want military units to cost food; that's ridiculous. It takes forty food to build a regiment of Riflemen? Rather, the military should require some (small) food upkeep.

(In addition, I think the population should stabilize BELOW the maximum, so you don't have to starve people if you want to expand your military a small amount).

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by skywalker
I don't want military units to cost food; that's ridiculous. It takes forty food to build a regiment of Riflemen?

It already does cost food to build units. Every time you pop rush a unit you are spending food to do it. But as currently implemented you're spending food in increments of a full granary. He is merely suggesting to make it more granular.

[Kuciwalker]

That's different though - you are using people's LABOR to build units. Indirectly, it is food, but food is NOT used in the construction of rifles

Plus, how often do you pop rush?

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by skywalker
That's different though - you are using people's LABOR to build units. Indirectly, it is food, but food is NOT used in the construction of rifles

No, but rushing a unit means taking a worker out of the fields to put them in the workshop, so the amount of food coming in goes down. Makes perfect sense to me.

Plus, how often do you pop rush?

Every single game I pop rush a bunch of temples along my borders.

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by skywalker
That's different though - you are using people's LABOR to build units. Indirectly, it is food, but food is NOT used in the construction of rifles

Sure, you don't need food to create the rifles, but you sure need it to feed the people pointing those rifles.

If you are working with the assumption that the turns needed to create a Rifleman is not only for weapon creation but also for (basic) training, then having food as part of the creation process is valid.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by skywalker
That's different though - you are using people's LABOR to build units. Indirectly, it is food, but food is NOT used in the construction of rifles

You are also manning a military unit with people you won't work in the fields / factories anymore.
Think in terms of Civ3: you'll notice the abstract population figure of a city depends on the amount of food more than the amount of citizens (this figure has no gameplay value). A city that has 4 citizens and 0 foos will have "100,000" inhabitants. A city with 4 citizens and 2 reserve food will have "102,000" inhabs or so. If a military unit costs a little food on completion, it will merely show that 2,000 people left their plows for swords.
That's not something unbearable, but I think it is not absurd, and I think it can avoid a player to overuse a small but strategical city to churn out units like there was no tomorrow.

However, I insist the food costs for military units should be minimal, once they have been normally built with shields. The loss of 40 food upon completion is absurd: you'll basically never want to build military units in ancient age, and you'll be very cautious about it even in modern age. Food costs should make the game more interesting, not more tedious.

[VetLegion]

I like the initial suggestion! May need some working but has a right ring to it

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by skywalker
Plus, how often do you pop rush?

In this game, I'm playing a communist empire, and most AI countries are fascists. Pop rush galore!

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by Spiffor
However, I insist the food costs for military units should be minimal, once they have been normally built with shields. The loss of 40 food upon completion is absurd: you'll basically never want to build military units in ancient age, and you'll be very cautious about it even in modern age. Food costs should make the game more interesting, not more tedious.

The key, as you said, is to keep it a small hit rather than a large one.

And the system is partially in place in CTP2...In CTP2, population is measured incrementally - your population is indicated down to the man. (Babylon - pop. 25,386) So your setup could work, since it is food that causes the city to grow in size.

Having a loss of a couple hundred men upon completion of a unit would not break the city either - it would nicely simulate the lost food element of the equation. City growth could be retarded for a turn or two whenever you build a unit.

I would like to see a national food pool for your military units that are in the field too. It could be every unit you field, every unit outside a friendly city radius or outside your borders. (TBD)

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by hexagonian

Sure, you don't need food to create the rifles, but you sure need it to feed the people pointing those rifles.

Yeah, duh - that's why I suggested UPKEEP. You aren't feeding them just once, are you?