Sure would be nice if you could move food from one city to another

[Dis]

or refrigeration. Which should in reality be close to the railroad tech, even though it isn't required. As that is the reason my city of Las Vegas came into being. As the railroads needed ice. And ice requires refrigeration.

[Nugog]

That would make sense.

[_BuRjaCi_]

Perhaps you could move food with railroad or if you placed your cities insanley close even before that but could only send 1-2 food until you got refrigiration wich would rase the cap to 3-8.

[Stickyman]

When you trade with a foreign nation for a "food" resource, you should not only get the health bonus, but also additional food for your cities. Same +1F for each city.

[eris]

Originally posted by Stickyman
When you trade with a foreign nation for a "food" resource, you should not only get the health bonus, but also additional food for your cities. Same +1F for each city.

I would love that!

In fact, when I first started playing Civ4, that is what I thought it meant. I was most disappointed to find it was not true. I saw it as a way to trade your way out of total uselessness for a tundra city or something. It was how you could make a Las Vegas in the desert. It was how I was going to have food resources to afford specialists. I thought I had it all figured out and that it was going to be a fun factor to work with. As I said, I was most disappointed.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Stickyman
When you trade with a foreign nation for a "food" resource, you should not only get the health bonus, but also additional food for your cities. Same +1F for each city.

If you are maxing out your cities with respect to the Health cap (which you should be doing, since Happiness is easier to obtain than Health), then +1 Food and +1 Health amount to the same thing.

[Cort Haus]

I agree that the unworkable silver mines in the tundra are frustrating, but if we could move food around cities, might the game itself become too easy? Humans would quickly build 'food pumps' and spam all their weaker cities with food, giving them a huge edge over the AI, which tends not to use human optimisation strategies, requiring further AI bonuses to balance it out.

We do have the Gt Merchant option to add 1 food to a city, but it would take a lot of GP work to get enough food to work three tundra mines. Mind you, nice commerce city it would be then.

[VonSharma]

"I can accept that moving large amounts of food around between cities (outside of grains and other non-perishables) in anceint times before refrigeration would be difficult."

Even in ancient times, cities were sustained on the produce of other regions. When Sparta occupied the farmlands surronding Athens during the Peloponesian war, Athens was able to sustain itself for decades by keeping the sea lanes opens to Egypt (it helped that Sparta never bothered building a navy).

[Dis]

Perhaps there should be limits to food shuffling, but no necessarily. I suppose if we wanted we could support a city of 10 or 15 million people up in the Yukon territory in Canada. But who in the hell would want to live up there?

The fact is, you don't see huge cities up in the frigid areas of the world supported by food from elsewhere. I think the game should factor good weather into the game, and have your citizens emigrate to warmer climates. . Just kidding of course. Much added complexity, and it has only been in recent years humans have moved to warmer climates. It seems most of our history people have moved to worse climates. Why in the hell would people leave Africa and the middle east for northern europe? Who in their right mind would think Finland or Norway would be a good place to live? . Yes I know the middle east dried up, and Africa can only support so much population. But I do find it interesting Europe thrives in poorer climates, while other civilizations stagnated. I know it wasn't always that way, only in recent centuries has Europe really thrived.

In the desert we are also limited by water. but this can be represented by the aquaduct building improving health (which allows higher population). And if we eliminated having any grass at all perhaps we could support 10 million people (we'd still need water from up north).

My point is I think it may be unreasonable to think your cities in the artic wasteland should grow to a larger size. Just work the silver mine, and keep the city at size 2 or 3.

But if you have a city like I do in a reasonable location, with all the amenities (represented by happiness improvements), then there would be reason to move food there from another city.

[Dis]

Perhaps there should be limits to food shuffling, but no necessarily. I suppose if we wanted we could support a city of 10 or 15 million people up in the Yukon ( or is it northwest territories? Or that indian land recently created) territory in Canada. But who in the hell would want to live up there?

The fact is, you don't see huge cities up in the frigid areas of the world supported by food from elsewhere. I think the game should factor good weather into the game, and have your citizens emigrate to warmer climates. . Just kidding of course. Much added complexity, and it has only been in recent years humans have moved to warmer climates. It seems most of our history people have moved to worse climates. Why in the hell would people leave Africa and the middle east for northern europe? Who in their right mind would think Finland or Norway would be a good place to live? . Yes I know the middle east dried up, and Africa can only support so much population. But I do find it interesting Europe thrives in poorer climates, while other civilizations stagnated. I know it wasn't always that way, only in recent centuries has Europe really thrived.

In the desert we are also limited by water. but this can be represented by the aquaduct building improving health (which allows higher population). And if we eliminated having any grass at all perhaps we could support 10 million people (we'd still need water from up north).

My point is I think it may be unreasonable to think your cities in the artic wasteland should grow to a larger size. Just work the silver mine, and keep the city at size 2 or 3.

But if you have a city like I do in a reasonable location, with all the amenities (represented by happiness improvements), then there would be reason to move food there from another city.

[_BuRjaCi_]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
I agree that the unworkable silver mines in the tundra are frustrating, but if we could move food around cities, might the game itself become too easy? Humans would quickly build 'food pumps' and spam all their weaker cities with food, giving them a huge edge over the AI, which tends not to use human optimisation strategies, requiring further AI bonuses to balance it out.

We do have the Gt Merchant option to add 1 food to a city, but it would take a lot of GP work to get enough food to work three tundra mines. Mind you, nice commerce city it would be then.

You haven't read the thread have you?

[_BuRjaCi_]

Originally posted by Dis
Perhaps there should be limits to food shuffling, but no necessarily. I suppose if we wanted we could support a city of 10 or 15 million people up in the Yukon ( or is it northwest territories? Or that indian land recently created) territory in Canada. But who in the hell would want to live up there?

The fact is, you don't see huge cities up in the frigid areas of the world supported by food from elsewhere. I think the game should factor good weather into the game, and have your citizens emigrate to warmer climates. . Just kidding of course. Much added complexity, and it has only been in recent years humans have moved to warmer climates. It seems most of our history people have moved to worse climates. Why in the hell would people leave Africa and the middle east for northern europe? Who in their right mind would think Finland or Norway would be a good place to live? . Yes I know the middle east dried up, and Africa can only support so much population. But I do find it interesting Europe thrives in poorer climates, while other civilizations stagnated. I know it wasn't always that way, only in recent centuries has Europe really thrived.

In the desert we are also limited by water. but this can be represented by the aquaduct building improving health (which allows higher population). And if we eliminated having any grass at all perhaps we could support 10 million people (we'd still need water from up north).

My point is I think it may be unreasonable to think your cities in the artic wasteland should grow to a larger size. Just work the silver mine, and keep the city at size 2 or 3.

But if you have a city like I do in a reasonable location, with all the amenities (represented by happiness improvements), then there would be reason to move food there from another city.

Double post.
But for the most part your post makes sense.

[Dis]

thanks. I was hoping to troll some Canadians though. . There are some decent sized cities in artic climates. And there are varying reasons for that. But proximity to other population centers, proximity to the ocean are some.

some areas of the world actually are in the middle of nowhere. And it's just not cost effective to make them into a "big" city even if people did want to move there.

[Virdrago]

Originally posted by Dis
thanks. I was hoping to troll some Canadians though. .

Grrrr....

There are some decent sized cities in artic climates. And there are varying reasons for that. But proximity to other population centers, proximity to the ocean are some.

True. Arkangel'sk, Tromso, and Anchorage come to mind. Mainly because of food, but Murmansk is a large port because it's ice free all year. Can't say that for any parts of northern Canada (at least until global warming).

[_BuRjaCi_]

Originally posted by Virdrago


Grrrr....



True. Arkangel'sk, Tromso, and Anchorage come to mind. Mainly because of food, but Murmansk is a large port because it's ice free all year. Can't say that for any parts of northern Canada (at least until global warming).

Anyone notice that in cIV only nuclear warfare causes global warming? Dosen't seem realistic to me. Why not replace it with global fallout and health penalties? Or expand the concept to be trigered by unhealthines from buildings or something that makes a little more sense.