This has been a problem for a long time

[justjake73]

My capital of Orleans is in a seemingly unsolvable problem - it's size 22 but is only producing 43 food (one less than is needed.) I cannot do anything, as it has control over all of its squares (I can't "shift" squares between surrounding cities) and all of its squares that can be irrigated, are irrigated. The city will go through a starvation cycle (one person will die, therefore making three food available, one will be born, starting everything over again!)

I have a Granary there, but it makes no difference.

Can anyone offer suggestions?

[bobbo008]

you have railroads yet? pillage an irrigated/railroaded square, this will lower the food production by one. if not, pillage the irrigation on one square.

[justjake73]

I guess that's my only option, but I wish somehow this wouldn't happen in the first place. You should be able to ship food from one city to another! They allow convoys to do that in SMAC!

[bobbo008]

i know what you mean, otherwise, cities in the midwest (US) would have millions upon millions of people...

[Optimizer]

In future versions of Civ you should be able to connect cities to create food pools, at least in the late game.

[Adagio]

or make a simple solution:

If a city has all squares and has only one food more than required, then the city can't grow

This kills the problem a simple way, but doesn't kill the population

[Asmodean]

Or just let things stay as they are. It's not like it's affecting the gameplay in any way

On a side note. Why do you allow your cities to overlap. I have always found that it poses unwanted limits on city growth.

Asmodean

[bobbo008]

"On a side note. Why do you allow your cities to overlap. I have always found that it poses unwanted limits on city growth."

I agree with you in a way, but, overall, you will then have wasted space. In my (huge map) game, I have the cities in a nice grid pattern, but now, since the cities are exactly 4 squares away from the adjacent square (if that makes sense) i've got a 2x2 useless land area. So, where individual cities are more productive this way, your empire as a whole will be weaker, in terms of used space. but i personally prrefer your method.

[justjake73]

I always try and optimize my city placement to make the best use of resources. I try and spread wheat, cattle, game etc among 2 cities if possible, because I would rather have 2 cities grow large than one large and one medium. This strategy sometimes requires overlapping. You just have to monitor city square use and rearrange workers to balance advantage.

[IthacaMike]

If you have a mined grassland, plant a forest on it. This will reduce the food production by 1.

Ithaca Mike

[Coracle]

Originally posted by justjake73
I guess that's my only option, but I wish somehow this wouldn't happen in the first place. You should be able to ship food from one city to another! They allow convoys to do that in SMAC!

Another reason why SMAC is alot better. And why it makes more sense.

The IMPORTATION of food from distant places is another important real aspect of "civilization" the game disregards.

[aahz_capone]

oh yea gods, how hard is it to implement OLD ideas for good OLD games into the new games?

[Hurricane]

I always overlap my cities a lot. If you space your cities so loosely that they don't overlap at all, you will have LOTS of unworked tiles for most of the game. Remember that you get your cities above size 12 only after the game has been more or less decided. It makes much more sense to have 3 good size 6 cities 0 AD, 3 good size 10 cities at 1000 AD and 3 average size 16 cities in 1500 AD than using the same space 1 good size 6 city in 0 AD, 1 good size 12 city in 1000 AD and 1 very good size 30 city in 1500 AD.

[bongo]

More overlapping also makes defence easier and decrease distance-based corruption.

[Falconius]

When faced with this problem, I usually just draft or build a worker. Repeat as necessary.