Bay 12 Games Forum

Dwarf Fortress => DF Suggestions => Topic started by: Jiri Petru on July 03, 2010, 08:14:29 am

Title: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Jiri Petru on July 03, 2010, 08:14:29 am
I love food. That's why the current DF implementation always irked me. The idea that cooks would prepare finished meals which you then store in barrels feels so... wrong and illogical. I wouldn't store my roasted chicken with delicious potatoes in a barrel and eat it half a year later, no sir! Besides, being able to sell this chicken to a caravan wouldn't work well with the upcoming caravan arc. I don't want dwarves storing finished stews in a barrel, I want them storing onions, potatoes and salted meat, and preparing the stew only minutes before eating it. No more cooking steaks, stews, etc., and storing them in stockpiles for years... nor selling them to caravans!

In short: dwarves shouldn't cook and store huge piles of finished meals, they should store raw ingredients and cook only just before eating.

While the change is mostly just cosmetic, it would have many consequences in how stockpiles and workshops are handled. The actual implementation is more complicated and open to discussion (this is the opportunity for you!). Obviously, foods could be eaten raw and some raw ingredients could be preserved indefinitely even without cooking (smoked meat, salted fish...). Also, when it finally gets to cooking, the ways could vary. Individual cooking at home, taverns, food stalls, servant cooks... The options are many. I've tried to come up with a system that is both fun and easy to manage. As little micromanagement as possible, hopefully even less than in current DF. Feel free to come up with your own refinements, ideas, counter suggestions, etc.

This is not a thread about food variety! (We had enough of those) It's about storing, preparation, and eating.

I do realise there's about bazillion of food threads here, and I did read them. I'm stealing ideas all around, most notably from Preparation, Preservation, and Hungry Hungry Hominids (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=27501). I could have posted this in that thread, I guess, but seeing as it is two years old and that this post is quite long, I decided to create a new thread.

---------

Why change it?
Why change the system "take any food ingredients>cook them>store the prepared meal in a barrel" to something more complex?

1. Obtaining and storing food
So the food could only be stored before cooking, and cooking a meal would be the end of its career. There are many threads about obtaining food or having different food types so I won't talk about it here. See farming improvements (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=22015.msg1209181#msg1209181) or many others.

To keep it simple, I'd divide foods into things that spoil (vegetables, meat, bread...) and things that never spoil (like alcohol, grain, salted meat, etc.). Things that spoil would all spoil after the same time (say... two seasons in dwarf mode), things that won't will stay forever. It's very simplified, but easy to remember and manage. (Though I can imagine a third group of things that spoil really quickly - like meat - in a month or so). In adventure mode, times could be more varied and realistic, but in dwarf mode, having things spoil only after two seasons or so gives you enough time to process them without much hassle and micromanagement. You would have to eat them or preserve them eventually. Preserved food would never spoil.

A quick sketch of food types, just an example:

Spoiling after two seasons sounds about right... this would mean that eg. humans would be able to live off autumn harvest od vegetables through the winter but come spring they'd be reduced to eat bread only. Unless they had stocks of salted fish or smoked meat, of course. This sounds reasonably historical and prevents you from hoarding huge amounts of food (or at least makes it harder) which is good for game balance I think.

Some kind of AI that would make dwarves eat spoilables first would be nice. Personal preferences would come into play, of course.

NOTE: please don't confuse preserved food which refers to processed raw ingredients (dried meat, salted fish, dried mushrooms...) with prepared meals which refers to cooked meals (biscuits, stews and roasts in the current version).


2. Eating and cooking
Food could be eaten raw (no change here) or cooked. Cooking would happen right before eating, not weeks or months! The player would no longer order food to be cooked - dwarves would cook automatically, by themselves, as needed or as they get hungry. The player would only have to build some kind of a kitchen, then forget about cooking entirely. If the player wouldn't build a kitchen, dwarves would resort to eating raw food. Eating raw food only would probably cause bad mood.

The "prepared meal" items as we have them now would no longer exist. Technically, there would probably still be some "cooked meal" items... existing for a couple of seconds after dwarves take them out of a kitchen, and before they eat them. They would have no gameplay relevance, nor could they be stored. If for some reason a dwarf wouldn't finish his meal, it would count as refuse.

There's many possibilities how to handle "kitchens". Just throwing some ideas (thinking in dwarf mode terms):

Only some ways would be available to a dwarf player, but other races would use different cooking habits. As I've said, imagine dwarves using individual cooking + taverns, humans using family cooking, goblins using large communal pots, etc.

To elaborate on the "pot" idea: I think food in "pots" shouldn't rot or degrade for the sake of simplicity. You can't take it out anyway (so it's almost like it didn't exist), and spoiling would just add too much micromanagement. If fort mode dwarves eat about 8 times a year, then some kind of rotting simplification is necessary. While a pot could still hold prepared meals indefinitely, it would be only small amounts (4 to 10?) - nothing like the thousands of roasts and stews we have in barrells now. The thousands of items would need to be stored in raw/preserved state. Once cooked, food could only be eaten or thrown away, never sold to caravans.

Optional: I believe this cooking system would be later easily expandable by adding nutritional effects or food diseases/sterilisation by cooking. But that's over the scope of this suggestion. I'd like to keep it as basic as possible.

Economy
Food is the base level for the whole economy. Unless you have food economy functioning properly, you have no economy  :) It's very important to get it right for the caravan arc if Toady wants to have "realistic" worlds. The target we want is: basic foods like grain selling for very low prices in very high quantities (think grain caravans), and moving from villages to towns. Villages keep towns alive, a towns can't survive without food from the countryside. In more concrete terms:

For dwarf mode players it would mean they could buy quite a limited range of foods, depending on the exact game location. If they are in an isolated area, caravans would only bring things like salted meat, but the player might arrange grain caravans as well. No fruit or vegetables though. If, on the other hand, the fortress was built in an inhabited area, it would get large variety of spoilable foods from the outlying farms.

It's debatable whether to have the same "towns need villages" apply not only to the world, but also to player fortresses. I'd say YES since having to care about food caravans sounds like Fun. But fortunately fortress mode can cheat and use different rules then the rest of the world.


Optional:

If we want fortresses dependent on the outside world, we have to do something about the limited food consumption. As it is now, dwarves eat too little. Butchering one cow yields about 15 meat and 10 organs, which is 25 food units, which means single cow can feed 4 dwarves for a year. Obviously, this totally breaks the whole economy. Unless this is changed, having enough food in fortress mode would stay extremely easy.

Ideally, a dwarf should consume the same amount of food per year in the fortress mode as in the adventurer mode. In adventurer mode, dwarves eat (or will eat) each day. In fortress mode, they eat about 8 times a year. Which means one fortress-mode meal ought to represent 1/8th of 336 = 42 adventurer-mode meals. The question is how to handle this in a way that still is user-friendly. In any case, it would probably require many changes in Numbers(TM)

We have no answer yet, and I would like to ask you to discuss the issue. My original, now outdated proposal is in the spoiler.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
----

Well... and that's about it. I've outlined how I imagine food could be working after the caravan arc. I also recommend reading the thread I mentioned many times (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=27501) for inspiration. Any comments welcome.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Julius Clonkus on July 03, 2010, 09:09:03 am
This is awesome. Especially the parts about communal cooking and restaurants intrigues me the most, though.

I rarely ever use cooking because stone crafts have been sufficient for trading all the time. This however would make cooks a lot more valuable. Communal cooking in pre-economy times would be sufficient. Post-economy times should activate taverns, restaurants (aka noble tavern, remember to include a flood-based cleaning system) and all the like. The player defines a tavern/restaurant complete with a kitchen area, a dining area and maybe an ingredient storage and a cook would decide to rent it and give it some food-related name. Coupled with a working guild system you could even have the cook hire some other cooks for full-time work and pay rarely-ever working dwarves to serve food, essentially creating a business group similiar to a guild.

Preserved food would most likely be the "favorite" meal of miners, hunters, woodcutters and soldiers.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Silverionmox on July 03, 2010, 10:38:45 am
Jiri, I'm amazed that you can eat an entire cow in three meals :p It's probably the easiest to track nutrition to some extent (if only to make malnutrition possible as a gameplay problem). That way we can give different organs different nutrition values, and it won't be necessary to handle all food in meal-size quantities.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: StephanReiken on July 03, 2010, 11:35:49 am
Most meat lasts longer after prepared, so its unrealistic to have it otherwise.

And certain types of preperation DO last forever. Jerky can last for a very very long time if not directly exposed to the environment.


And the Food trade is constant in modern times. I'd imagine that in less-technological times where Preperation is not as advanced, its still a popular trade profession as travelers need to eat, as they travle.


But I agree that prepared food should still rot. Just not as quickly as unprepared.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Solace on July 03, 2010, 01:49:32 pm
Maybe you could have a "brew vinegar" option, which allows long term storage of usually perishable items in barrels? Possibly preserved items would be less "good" (nutritious, happy-thought producing?), but more valuable to trade because they'd last long enough to actually get there.

Maybe prepared food would be better with or actually require different items? Instead of preparing the "big pot of plump helmets", it would require each new ingredient to be different, as well as possibly have a "cooldown" for different types of food (big pot of plump helmet, dimple cups, and cave wheat would not be a big step up).

One thing I don't like now is how prepared food gets rid of the seeds/ect that eating the item raw saves. Maybe the cooking skill should increase the chance of getting these items?
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: thijser on July 03, 2010, 03:26:42 pm
well preparing food could have 3 steps: one making something out of the raw goods(For example buchering) 2 making shure it can be stored (salting smoking ext.) and 3 dirrect cooking(putting it on a dish ext.)
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: marcusbjol on July 03, 2010, 08:09:37 pm
There is a simpler solution to this:  Add a perishable tag to most foods and have them rot.  Food with a perishable tag should not add to the fortress's value and caravans will not trade.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Silverionmox on July 04, 2010, 04:01:59 am
The obvious link for people looking for inspiration. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_preservation)

Quote from: Wikipedia
Common methods of applying these processes include drying, spray drying, freeze drying, freezing, vacuum-packing, canning, preserving in syrup, sugar crystallisation, food irradiation, and adding preservatives or inert gases such as carbon dioxide. Other methods that not only help to preserve food, but also add flavour, include pickling, salting, smoking, preserving in syrup or alcohol, sugar crystallisation and curing.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: RCIX on July 04, 2010, 04:14:58 am
I like it, as long as there's a realtively easy way for new players to get going with some sort of food for their dwarves.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Wyrm on July 04, 2010, 10:26:12 am
Cheese: spoils, can't be preserved
Only applies to soft cheeses. Hard cheeses keep for years. Indeed, some must be kept years to be properly aged.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Jiri Petru on July 04, 2010, 07:17:39 pm
Thanks for your reactions, guys. Just to clear some misunderstandings:

Most meat lasts longer after prepared, so its unrealistic to have it otherwise.

And certain types of preperation DO last forever. Jerky can last for a very very long time if not directly exposed to the environment.

What I imagine a "prepared meal" means is something like your everyday dinner you put on a plate. A steak with potato mash, a tomato stew with beans, whatever... Things intended for immediate consumption. Prepared meals like this should rot almost immediately, couldn't be stored and of course couldn't be traded to caravans.

Things that DO last forever are what I call preserved, meaning salted meat, dried jerky, hard cheeses (thanks Wyrm), etc. These could of course be stored and traded. Food trade was of course the basis of the enonomy, I'm only saying people traded grain and dried ham, not oatmeal and roasted steaks.

Jiri, I'm amazed that you can eat an entire cow in three meals :p It's probably the easiest to track nutrition to some extent (if only to make malnutrition possible as a gameplay problem). That way we can give different organs different nutrition values, and it won't be necessary to handle all food in meal-size quantities.

No I can't  :D But I also eat more than 8 times a year. So what I'm proposing is to massively increase the amount of food people in dwarf mode (!) consume in one meal. Multiplying it by 10 would mean that 1 meal actually represents 10 meals that just aren't displayed for gameplay purposes (it would be unplayable, having you dwarves eat too often) - but are consumed for economy purposes. Having single cow feed 4 dwarves for a year is simply wrong. And even after multiplying by 10 it's still only 80 meals per dwarf per year.

There is a simpler solution to this:  Add a perishable tag to most foods and have them rot.  Food with a perishable tag should not add to the fortress's value and caravans will not trade.

But this doesn't solve the main reason I started this suggestion - that is how kitchens and cooking currently work. I don't want my dwarves cooking hundreds of meals and storing them in barrels. I want them to store raw ingredients and cook only before eating!

EDIT:
I like it, as long as there's a realtively easy way for new players to get going with some sort of food for their dwarves.

Well... as long as you had some raw ingredients and a kitchen, dwarves could cook for themselves and it could be automated, so I think there's no problem here.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: StephanReiken on July 04, 2010, 10:53:03 pm
Thanks for your reactions, guys. Just to clear some misunderstandings:

Most meat lasts longer after prepared, so its unrealistic to have it otherwise.

And certain types of preperation DO last forever. Jerky can last for a very very long time if not directly exposed to the environment.

What I imagine a "prepared meal" means is something like your everyday dinner you put on a plate. A steak with potato mash, a tomato stew with beans, whatever... Things intended for immediate consumption. Prepared meals like this should rot almost immediately, couldn't be stored and of course couldn't be traded to caravans.

Things that DO last forever are what I call preserved, meaning salted meat, dried jerky, hard cheeses (thanks Wyrm), etc. These could of course be stored and traded. Food trade was of course the basis of the enonomy, I'm only saying people traded grain and dried ham, not oatmeal and roasted steaks.

Ah, I understand, and thus change my perspective ^^.

 Well, Prepared Meals from that point of view, still last some time after prepared. Not a very long time depending on the food, and as time passes it would become more and more stale, and then start becoming rotten. And in this setting, there isn't any refrigeration or anything so I expect it to not be very long, once temperature works to satisfaction how long it lasts should very depending on how warm it is.

And such foods may become rotten without being too apparent. If the dwarf is drunk, lost his sense of smell and taste, or desperately hungery, it might eat such food and acquire a syndrome for doing so.

Also, many preservation methods are decent meals out of the can. Jerky lasts forever and tastes great. Canned fruits, assuming they were canned well, last a very long time and tastes great. And other preserved foods would still be edible. There should be some preference to what minimum quality of food a dwarf likes to eat. And higher noble positions would demand higher qualities of food.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: WormSlayer on July 06, 2010, 10:32:35 am
I really like the idea of expanding on cooking, the current system is a bit weird and simplistic for such an awesome game!
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: NW_Kohaku on July 06, 2010, 01:46:44 pm
I agree with this in general, and would like to see kitchens become something more like "cafeterias", however, some of these things, like cheeses or jerkies do suggest a different solution.

That is, it might be best for a more complex system to arise, with cafeterias serving prepared food, but also making "jerky huts" that specifically preserve dried meats, an option between soft cheeses and hard, salted cheeses, and a difference between baking soft rolls and baking hard, salted crackers with your grains.

From the dawn of civilization, people have worked on ways to preserve their food, after all, (the ability to grow and store enough food to survive even the hard times is, presumably, the entire reason civilization started,) so preserved foods should be represented.

With that said, it might be best to have the happiness (for lack of any better mechanic to tie it to) a dwarf gets from eating related to how they eat.

Currently, there is no reason to encourage dwarves to eat anywhere but in a great hall that is saturated in the best decorations you can make, as this causes dwarven happiness to absolutely skyrocket.  For family cooking to compete, it must have bonuses that would compete with the bonus of a legendary dining hall.  On the other hand, hard tack, hard cheese, and dry jerky should not be as pleasurable as fresh foods.

As a plus, though, it would be nice if we could get dwarves besides military dwarves who go on extended trips away from the center of the fort (such as woodcutters, hunters, miners, mechanics, etc.) to be able to carry some dry rations as well.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Ricky on July 06, 2010, 04:32:05 pm
you forgot an important job to be implemented: catering

caterers will take food to certain dwarves and either cook it on the spot or take it cooked, you can assign certain dwarves to always be catered, likes miners who are busy, they will be happy to sit down and eat the food there instead of a chair, because its on-the-spot, thus there would be no chair/table penalty
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Jiri Petru on July 06, 2010, 05:43:20 pm
Thanks everyone for posting more suggestions!

Also:
Quote from: NW_Kohaku
That is, it might be best for a more complex system to arise, with cafeterias serving prepared food, but also making "jerky huts" that specifically preserve dried meats, an option between soft cheeses and hard, salted cheeses, and a difference between baking soft rolls and baking hard, salted crackers with your grains.

Opps, I forgot to mention this. Thanks. I agree with you... a variety of workshops for preserving food, like smokeries, bakeries or cheesemakeries (?) would be nice. I would personally prefer a bigger number specialised workshops than a single, universal "kitchen" or "farmer's workshop", mostly because of coolness.

A kitchen for cooking food would be a completely different place.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Angry Bob on July 07, 2010, 05:10:33 pm
With the new rotting system in place, it seems like a hot biome would see perishable items spoil faster and cold ones slower. Throwing your food in a snowbank is an accepted way of preserving meat if you've no other way to do so.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Phreak on July 08, 2010, 09:15:46 am
Eh you put alot of work into the first post but doing that would be very inconvienient and time consuming to impliment and to test not to mention all the angry players who don't have time to get more food and want everything to last longer not rot in an hour as they may be too busy. This would be bad as imagine soldiers bringing cooked food in their back pack and they get trapped somehow what if the food goes off? It is a good idea but one a bit far reaching but it does open the mind to alot of possiblilities, I'm just saying not now but maybe later on when toady has cleared and cleaned a bit more of the game. Go ahead have a poll I bet almost all the votes would be no. Also toady has more important things to do at the moment such as adventure mode, farming problems, fight tweeks and balancing and maybe racial balancing as I suggested in an earlier thread. The thing is this might be a good idea if implemented into an option for those players who want the game more chalanging and realistic but I dont see it happening anytime soon. However most of the suggestions are really good buy maybe some are unconventional and far-fetched as if ppl are just throwing ideas In for the heck of it. I get the reasons for why you want it more realistic and with more micromanagement.

Ps: sorry for spelling mistakes I'm still perfecting my English. 
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Rvlion on July 08, 2010, 09:30:53 am
While the fortress in the presence of magma/lava would be very hot, the general corridors, bedrooms would probably be quite cool. Most of the smaller caves that I have been to during summer times were about 10 degrees celcius of lower in comparison to the sunny 25-30 degrees outside. Living inside a mountain would automatically mean food lasting longer before rotting due to lower temperatures.

Imho selling (any quality) food to traders in massive quantities is just weird and I would like to see the whole “dining room” changed. 1 or 2 kitchen workshops within the area of the diningroom and depending on the amount of workshops the same amount of cooks permanently stationed at that location making the food fresh at the moment that dwarfs enter the dining room to eat. Maybe even let different workshops produce different foods and let them be like different “restaurants” surving different foods for different dwarves.

Catering would also be a good idea… not only for food, but also water / booze.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Jiri Petru on July 08, 2010, 10:40:09 am
Quote from: Phreak
Eh you put alot of work into the first post but doing that would be very inconvienient and time consuming to impliment and to test not to mention all the angry players who don't have time to get more food and want everything to last longer not rot in an hour as they may be too busy. This would be bad as imagine soldiers bringing cooked food in their back pack and they get trapped somehow what if the food goes off?

I'm starting to think I'm really bad at explaining, because people always seem to get me wrong and fixate on the most marginal part.  ::) (My fault, Phreak). But Rvlion seems to understand me  :)

I'm not concerned about rotting rates... not in the first place... I'm concerned about storage and trade. The idea was to turn the system around 180°... no cooked food would be stored anywhere. No cooked food stockpiles, no backpacks carrying cooked food, nothing. Cooked food might even not exist as an in-game item, as far as I'm concerned. The idea was to store raw food or dried/smoked/salted/etc. food instead. Cooking would occur only right before eating, and the resulting food would be immediately eaten, not stored. Soldiers would carry dried meat or bread or apples or whatever, just not steaks, stews nor potato mashes.

In other words: I'm not proposing to make food rot quicker! I'm proposing to cook it after storing instead of before storing.

As far as players are concerned, almost nothing would change for them. No added micromanagement (perhaps aside from new workshop types like smokeries, which could be automated), nothing. The biggest change would be that dwarves would store raw/preserved food instead of cooked food. A very cosmetic thing, actually.


EDIT: I removed the mention of rotting from the first paragraph, because it seemed to lead people off the right track. It now says: Instead, dwarves would collect ingredients and cook them right before eating. Prepared meals would cease to exist as a game item, or would exist only as leftovers or refuse or something. No more cooking steaks, stews, etc., and storing them in barrels... nor selling them to caravans!
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Jiri Petru on July 08, 2010, 10:56:41 am
Doublepost to separate topics.

When talking about eating establishments, I think we can use taverns, inns, food stalls, kitchens, common pots, etc. etc. Just no restaurants nor cafeterias/canteens, please! These would be completely ahistorical. I don't mean the terms, I mean the ideas:

Quote from: Wikipedia
The first restaurant in the form that became standard (customers sitting down with individual portions at individual tables, selecting food from menus, during fixed opening hours) was the Grand Taverne de Londres (the "Great Tavern of London"), founded in Paris in 1782 by a man named Antoine Beauvilliers.

Quote from: Wikipedia on cafeterias
Perhaps the first self-service restaurant (not necessarily cafeteria) in the United States was the Exchange Buffet in New York City, opened September 4, 1885

The thing is, the idea of ordering food from menus or having food cooked specifically for a customer was alien in 1400 or whatever our time frame is. In 1400, you would come to an inn and eat whatever they happened to have at the moment.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: NW_Kohaku on July 08, 2010, 11:04:59 am
Actually, it might be neat to have more set recipies in the cafeteria/kitchens, as I've never been particularly fond of the biscuits/stews/roasts we have had (even as I've made 80k db roasts to buy whole caravans).

You could have cafeterias set to provide a set number of certain types of food (like, say, 10 salads, 10 meat sandwiches, 5 candied plump helmets, 15 meat stews, 5 kidney pies, and 5 cream soups), where dwarves will walk into the workshop themselves to get the food to eat (and pay), eat at the nearest table, then return.  Cooks could move between kitchens to restock food as necessary.

These foods could have recepies with wildcards (meat sandwiches or stews might be made with any kind of meat, but candied plump helmets are made with dwarven sugar and plump helmets) and we'd get that whole "ability to make recepies for food" thing.



Ah, just as I was hitting post, Jiri's last post came up. 

Cafeteria, at least, as I'm using the term, is not anachronistic.

That said, I wouldn't worry the historical relevance of how food was served in the 1300s, so much.  Yes, we have a limited tech line because of an arbitrarily selected line in the metaphoric sand, but we are talking about a fantasy race in a fantastic setting who live underground and have very different psychology and physiology from humans, so we shouldn't assume that they are required to be exactly like humans (except where they already aren't) in every way along the "tech tree".
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Nil Eyeglazed on July 08, 2010, 11:49:03 am
I have concerns about how this might play out....

Right now, you could kind of simulate what you propose by enabling cooking on all or most dwarves and forbidding prepared food from all stockpiles.  Then you have food sitting in kitchens (your "pot"), degrading, and waiting to be picked up; you have dwarves making meals for themselves or others, then eating.

The problem is that cooking is already of pretty minor benefit to a fort.  Sometimes you can get some small happy thoughts; you can sell meals, but then you can sell anything; and it saves some food space.  If you remove these benefits, or add new costs, I don't think it's very likely that any player will bother with cooking at all, not unless you expand on this idea-- you have to make cooking the solution to a problem that doesn't yet exist.

I kind of agree, regarding how much food a cow gives; the changes to butchery have led to an explosion of food.  And a mature fortress has no trouble maintaining enough food.  But I wonder how requiring multiple food items might affect a beginning fortress.  Starvation is a real risk in that first year, and the risk has been the object of a lot of careful adjustment.  Doubling food requirements would throw everything out of whack.

And what about the time requirements?  A dwarf would definitely spend more time eating were he or she to require more items-- at least in time spent hauling.  In some situations, that'd be significant.  Or prisoners, or the injured?
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Jiri Petru on July 08, 2010, 12:07:28 pm
The problem is that cooking is already of pretty minor benefit to a fort.  Sometimes you can get some small happy thoughts; you can sell meals, but then you can sell anything; and it saves some food space.  If you remove these benefits, or add new costs, I don't think it's very likely that any player will bother with cooking at all, not unless you expand on this idea-- you have to make cooking the solution to a problem that doesn't yet exist.

I'm afraid I still don't get it. What benefits am I removing? What costs am I adding?

The only cost I can think of is the time you mentioned. Dwarves would spend time gathering ingredients before cooking their meal, yes. But this might actually end up being less hauling then before. It would be offset by not having communal cooks gather ingredients to cook a prepared meal, and not having haulers take the prepared meal to the stockpile. There might be a slight time difference, but with 8 meals per year, it would hardly be noticeable.

And that's only if we implement the "individual cooking" solution. If we implemented "communal cooking", the time spent hauling would be actually much, much lower!

Or prisoners, or the injured?
A good question, thanks. The answer is: if you had some communal "pot", the prisoners and injured would be fed cooked meals from the pot. If you hadn't, they'd be fed raw vegetables, bread, cheese, dried meat or any of the many foods that can be consumed without cooking.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Nil Eyeglazed on July 08, 2010, 12:45:26 pm
Additional costs to the system you propose:

1) You can't use prepared meals to buy out caravans or increase the value of your fortress.  The meals will rot too quickly.

2) You can't use prepared meals to consolidate food stockpiles, since you can't save prepared food.

3) You can't take advantage of quality bonuses as easily.  both because you have individual, non-specialist cooking, and because with the dangers involved in degradation, you can't put a single dwarf on just cooking duty.

Regarding hauling: I'm speaking about the requirement for more than a single unit of food at a meal.  I fail to see how the hauling costs could ever be lower.  You argue that hauling costs could be lower by not requiring intermediate stockpiling, but this option already exists; you're free to leave your prepared meals in the kitchen, after all.  The additional hauling cost comes from a dwarf needing two units of food rather than one, say.  In some situations (by no means all situations) this would mean that a dwarf would have to visit multiple areas to gather his food.  (Like for instance, if your pot is down to a single unit of stew.)  I'm not saying this is a huge price-- as you say, there are only eight meals a year.  Still, with those eight meals a year, there are already situations where we holler at our dwarfs to finish their meal already and get to the depot.

My concern with prisoners/wounded isn't about cooking, which seems simple enough to me, but to your suggestion that dwarfs ought to require multiple units of food for a single meal.   If you do that, you increase the risk of jobs being abandoned and dwarfs going hungry, which already happens very easily.

The costs of your suggestion aren't game-breaking or anything.  But I'm concerned that they're significant enough that people would just stop bothering to cook meals.  The way I play, the only reason I have a cook is to make my food stockpiles smaller.  Your suggestions would just make me abandon cooking, and use an extra dwarf for hauling or military instead.

As I've said, a good way to test the largest of your suggestions is simply to ban prepared food from all of your stockpiles, and treat a kitchen as a pot.  How would this affect the way you play?
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Jiri Petru on July 08, 2010, 01:10:07 pm
Additional costs to the system you propose:

1) You can't use prepared meals to buy out caravans or increase the value of your fortress.  The meals will rot too quickly.

2) You can't use prepared meals to consolidate food stockpiles, since you can't save prepared food.

3) You can't take advantage of quality bonuses as easily.  both because you have individual, non-specialist cooking, and because with the dangers involved in degradation, you can't put a single dwarf on just cooking duty.

Oh I see. All of these (perhaps except the last one) are what I hate about the current system, what feels weird and "unrealistic" to me and why I bothered to come up with a different solution in the first place  ;D Buying out caravans by steaks and stews might seem like a benefit, I call it an "exploit".

As for the second one, food would be stored before cooking instead of after cooking, but it would still be stored! The change is almost merely cosmetic and it shouldn't affect the size of your foodstocks in any significant way. If, as a second step, ingredients like vegetables or raw meat were made to rot even in barrels (they don't now), then we would get workshops to smoke/dry/salt/pickle them to preserve them indefinitelly. This might look as more micromanagement, but isn't, because these workshop would replace the current kitchen workshop and otherwise be almost the same. Instead of making roasts that last indefinitely, you'd make dried ham that lasts indefinitely. Not much of a change. The workshops could also be automated for less micromanagement.

But I do agree the end result might be that it would be a bit more difficult to keep large foodstocks - even if only because you had to build more workshops and divert some workforce to meat smoking or something. Again, this is what I call "gameplay" because the current system of having 2000 roasted steaks in a cellar sounds too much like an exploit. In medieval times, people were always on the verge of famine. I'm not saying to go this far (and this suggestion wouldn't even come close), but a bit more attention to food couldn't hurt.

Number three is very dependent on the actual implementantion, and whether we choose "individual cooking" or "communal cooking" or whatever. Dwarves right now use something like communal cooking. If they used my idea of communal cooking even in the new system, nothing in terms of bonuses would change. You seem to dislike the idea of "individual cooking" but please note this is only one of several proposed ways of implementation.

Hauling is the same as number three.

Quote
My concern with prisoners/wounded isn't about cooking, which seems simple enough to me, but to your suggestion that dwarfs ought to require multiple units of food for a single meal.   If you do that, you increase the risk of jobs being abandoned and dwarfs going hungry, which already happens very easily.

I'm not actually suggesting dwarves should eat more food units in a single meal. I was suggesting to limit the supply of food in fortress mode by dividing all food sources by 10. The end result: a single cow gives 1 to 2 meat and a single dwarf still eats 1 unit of food per meal.

---

Anyway, thanks for your questions. I now see I must rewrite the OP to prevent misunderstandings like these.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: NW_Kohaku on July 08, 2010, 01:18:49 pm
Frankly, I don't see it as a terribly negative thing if we can't make 80k dwarfbuck export goods from a couple of shrubs that take essentially spring from nothing to purchase unlimited amounts of supposedly rare metals like gold and platinum from caravans.

With regards to the previous statement of being "The solution to a problem that doesn't exist", prepared food currently has a major positive benefit on happiness.  Lacking a better, more detailed system (of which, there are several suggestions), happiness would be a good way of dealing with creating the problem that this solves.

Frankly, how happy would you be if you had to eat a cold raw horse kidney that had been sitting in the back of the butchery's closest stockpile?

How much happier would you be if you ate a professionally-prepared fresh and hot meat pie, insatead?

I would say that for the first year or so, dwarves should have some sort of special condition that makes them less likely to complain of poor food quality, but only as a stopgap for more serious changes to the happiness system, so that dwarves in general demand better quality of life as your fortress matures.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Deimos56 on July 08, 2010, 02:51:23 pm
These foods could have recepies with wildcards (meat sandwiches or stews might be made with any kind of meat, but candied plump helmets are made with dwarven sugar and plump helmets) and we'd get that whole "ability to make recepies for food" thing.
...First of all, sorry to nitpick, but it's recipes.
Secondly, this reminds me a little of the Tales of Symphonia (other Tales of games too, maybe. Haven't played em sadly.) cooking system.

...What about dried fruits and pickled (okay, that's been suggested) vegetables? In cold/freezing/etc biomes, would it be possible to create a rough sort of freezer?
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Nil Eyeglazed on July 08, 2010, 06:15:03 pm
Oh I see. All of these (perhaps except the last one) are what I hate about the current system, what feels weird and "unrealistic" to me and why I bothered to come up with a different solution in the first place  ;D Buying out caravans by steaks and stews might seem like a benefit, I call it an "exploit".

Right, I understand that.  The problem is that the only remaining benefit for cooking is happiness, and the way the game works right now, that benefit is fairly small, especially if compared against something like increased risk of miasma.  So without these benefits, inappropriate as they might be, cooking ends up being pretty much irrelevant to game play-- there's no reason to pursue it.  Under the changes you're advocating, the game might be more realistic, but with the way I play the game, I would just stop cooking.  And I don't think I'm alone.  So then the question is, do you want changes that make cooking irrelevant?

Quote
As for the second one, food would be stored before cooking instead of after cooking, but it would still be stored! The change is almost merely cosmetic and it shouldn't affect the size of your foodstocks in any significant way.

Currently, a stockpile of, say, 500 plump helmets costs me 50 squares and 50 barrels.  After I cook those plump helmets down to roasts, I only need 25 squares and no barrels.  That's because I can store those roasts.  That's why I cook.  That's how cooking currenty affects stockpiles.  If I were limited by some mechanic to a single roast at a time, say, by cluttering workshops, or because of prepared meal degradation, that same stockpile would cost me 47 spaces and 46 barrels.  It probably wouldn't be enough of a difference to justify cooking for me.  I don't consider that a purely cosmetic change.

Quote
If, as a second step, ingredients like vegetables or raw meat were made to rot even in barrels (they don't now), then we would get workshops to smoke/dry/salt/pickle them to preserve them indefinitelly. This might look as more micromanagement, but isn't, because these workshop would replace the current kitchen workshop and otherwise be almost the same. Instead of making roasts that last indefinitely, you'd make dried ham that lasts indefinitely. Not much of a change. The workshops could also be automated for less micromanagement.

I don't think it'd really affect much if you renamed roasts as pickles, or biscuits as jerky.  I don't think it'd be bad to introduce food degradation.  I just wonder if there'd be any purpose to roasts in that situation.

Quote
But I do agree the end result might be that it would be a bit more difficult to keep large foodstocks - even if only because you had to build more workshops and divert some workforce to meat smoking or something. Again, this is what I call "gameplay" because the current system of having 2000 roasted steaks in a cellar sounds too much like an exploit. In medieval times, people were always on the verge of famine. I'm not saying to go this far (and this suggestion wouldn't even come close), but a bit more attention to food couldn't hurt.

Well, what'd you'd have is people storing 10000 plump helmets instead of 2000 roasts.  I agree that feeding your dwarfs is a little too easy right now, but changing cooking doesn't fix that.

Quote
Number three is very dependent on the actual implementantion, and whether we choose "individual cooking" or "communal cooking" or whatever. Dwarves right now use something like communal cooking. If they used my idea of communal cooking even in the new system, nothing in terms of bonuses would change. You seem to dislike the idea of "individual cooking" but please note this is only one of several proposed ways of implementation.

Individual cooking is the worst in terms of the way you changes would affect the impact of qualtity, but your changes would also affect communal meals.  If a meal has to be eaten now, you can't make a dedicted cook and tell him to cook everything in the fortress, then forget about him until he eventually shows up idle.  Doing so would invite famine.  That slows down skill progression, which means less of an effect from quality.


Quote
I'm not actually suggesting dwarves should eat more food units in a single meal. I was suggesting to limit the supply of food in fortress mode by dividing all food sources by 10. The end result: a single cow gives 1 to 2 meat and a single dwarf still eats 1 unit of food per meal.

That would work.  There's details to be taken care of though (stuff like, do you make a dog give a brain 1/10th of the time, or what?)  I think that would also have a massive effect on the early part of the game.  A lot of strategies that involve putting off farming, trading for food, or bringing reserves would stop working.  I don't think glaciers, coasts, or deserts would be viable starting biomes anymore.  I think 2 of your starting 7 would have to be farmers.  So it would have a really radical effect on the rest of the game.

To answer Kohaku: I disagree.  I believe that currently, cooking has a minor benefit to dwarf happiness.  If  food changes involved increased risk of rotting, that benefit wouldn't be worth the cost of miasma, which can be a major cost to happiness.  (You get to eat only four times a year, but miasma is continuous.)  As I said, if these changes were implemented, I would not pursue cooking, and I don't believe that I am the only one.

Why do you cook food?  For the happiness?  Because you can?
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: NW_Kohaku on July 08, 2010, 08:12:56 pm
To answer Kohaku: I disagree.  I believe that currently, cooking has a minor benefit to dwarf happiness.  If  food changes involved increased risk of rotting, that benefit wouldn't be worth the cost of miasma, which can be a major cost to happiness.  (You get to eat only four times a year, but miasma is continuous.)  As I said, if these changes were implemented, I would not pursue cooking, and I don't believe that I am the only one.

Why do you cook food?  For the happiness?  Because you can?

You are misreading me.  I am saying to alter the rules to make eating uncooked food have significant unhappy thoughts associated with them, so that cooked food would then be preferable.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Lord Shonus on July 08, 2010, 09:46:42 pm

I'm not actually suggesting dwarves should eat more food units in a single meal. I was suggesting to limit the supply of food in fortress mode by dividing all food sources by 10. The end result: a single cow gives 1 to 2 meat and a single dwarf still eats 1 unit of food per meal.

---

Anyway, thanks for your questions. I now see I must rewrite the OP to prevent misunderstandings like these.

That's rather absurd. A single adult cow provides, in the real world, enough food to support an adult human for well over a year, assuming that the meat is properly stored. That does not include organ meats. To suggest that that same cow would only support a dwarf for two months makes little sense.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: NW_Kohaku on July 08, 2010, 10:53:44 pm
That's rather absurd. A single adult cow provides, in the real world, enough food to support an adult human for well over a year, assuming that the meat is properly stored. That does not include organ meats. To suggest that that same cow would only support a dwarf for two months makes little sense.

Of course, that same cow doesn't eat any food itself to produce that meat, as long as you have uncaged cows to get pregnant, you have a food source where the only labor involved is the actual butchering, and the hauling of body parts.  Plus you're able to milk them, as well.  Right now, we get about 24 usable parts off a cow, plus about 8 fat... on a normal cow, that's if you don't use unnatural selection to make them all gigantic and fatty and meaty.

Still, I'm not fond of the idea of dividing the current meat by ten, but rather just making dwarves eat X units of food at a time, so that we don't have to deal with fractions of food being produced.

I honestly don't see a big problem producing food even very early on in this version.  In fact, I can pretty much get by just by using berry-gathering, which I would do anyway just to get some seeds for aboveground farming without having to hope that the elves will trade me decent seeds.  After that, a simple manual pump next to a murky pool in a walled-off area is enough to get you your first temporary aboveground farm.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Lord Shonus on July 08, 2010, 10:58:49 pm
Feeding of pets is already scheduled, and compensating for the lack of it with a clear hack would seem rather shortsighted.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: NW_Kohaku on July 09, 2010, 12:01:55 am
Feeding of pets is already scheduled, and compensating for the lack of it with a clear hack would seem rather shortsighted.

Even if we set the target as a cow feeds a dwarf for one year, then we are talking about Jiri having picked the wrong arbitrarily selected number to cut the food rates by.  To fit 24 meat and 8 fat into one year, then a dwarf should be eating four units of food, or the amount of food should be divided by four, not ten.

Still, I think maybe it would be best to make the amount of meat and food produced somewhat larger, and then make the amount of food a single unit eats based upon the size of the creature in question, especially if we are talking about having livestock being fed.  As hungry as dogs might get at times, I still think they will be eating less in one sitting than your tame elephants will.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Lord Shonus on July 09, 2010, 02:54:16 am
Exactly. That would be a reasonable change, rather than a quick and dirty hack.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Jiri Petru on July 09, 2010, 07:31:48 am
Yeah, dividing by 10 was an arbitrary, random number I came up with. If you think 4 is better, then 4 it is! (does a single cow really feed a person for a whole year? wow). The important part here is that I'm suggesting to handle food in a similar way how thread/cloth is handled now. Ie. 1 thread is actually how much... 10000 thread units? But it gets divided by 10000 for most purposes. Food in fortress mode would be similarly divided to make up for dwarves only eating 8 times a year.

The actual numbers would have to be balanced later. There are other things than livestock to take into consideration, such as field yields, etc.

The idea to have the divider/multiplier dependent on size of your dwarves/humans/kobolds/whatever you play as sounds like a good one. But I'm worried about the implementation. No matter how you divide, people should always eat only 1 displayed unit of food per meal. In other words, the division for eating should be the same as the division for display, so the stocks menu works properly. "100 food units" should always mean "100 meals available".

I'm not sure how this would work out for fortresses with different races/castes. We definitely don't want one cast eating 0.8 food per meal and another one 1.4. Perhaps rounding would be in order? Imagine you have a fort with kobolds, dwarves and humans. Kobolds would eat for example 0.8, which gets rounded to 1. Dwarves 1.0. Humans 1.5 which gets rounded to 2. End result: kobolds eat as much as dwarves do, humans eat twice as much. Simple to remember for the player.

1.0 should be the standard for the average size of your race, the most common race in your civilisation or something.

--------

Nil Eyeglazed: Sorry, I don't have much time now. Will respond later.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: jaked122 on July 09, 2010, 07:36:01 am
 it is still more fun to trade tomato soup rather than pickled tomatoes and candied water.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: NW_Kohaku on July 09, 2010, 09:37:41 am
Yeah, dividing by 10 was an arbitrary, random number I came up with. If you think 4 is better, then 4 it is! (does a single cow really feed a person for a whole year? wow). The important part here is that I'm suggesting to handle food in a similar way how thread/cloth is handled now. Ie. 1 thread is actually how much... 10000 thread units? But it gets divided by 10000 for most purposes. Food in fortress mode would be similarly divided to make up for dwarves only eating 8 times a year.

The actual numbers would have to be balanced later. There are other things than livestock to take into consideration, such as field yields, etc.

The idea to have the divider/multiplier dependent on size of your dwarves/humans/kobolds/whatever you play as sounds like a good one. But I'm worried about the implementation. No matter how you divide, people should always eat only 1 displayed unit of food per meal. In other words, the division for eating should be the same as the division for display, so the stocks menu works properly. "100 food units" should always mean "100 meals available".

I'm not sure how this would work out for fortresses with different races/castes. We definitely don't want one cast eating 0.8 food per meal and another one 1.4. Perhaps rounding would be in order? Imagine you have a fort with kobolds, dwarves and humans. Kobolds would eat for example 0.8, which gets rounded to 1. Dwarves 1.0. Humans 1.5 which gets rounded to 2. End result: kobolds eat as much as dwarves do, humans eat twice as much. Simple to remember for the player.

1.0 should be the standard for the average size of your race, the most common race in your civilisation or something.

That's why I'm saying not to divide.

If we had dwarves that just ate, say, 4 units of food at once (and considering how most food comes in stacks of at least that size, that's not a problem), smaller or larger dwarves might eat 3 or 5 food at once.

It still might be better than that to multiply all food by two or three (both how much creatures eat, and the size of the food stacks any food source gives you), and then you could have dwarves that eat 8 food normally in a sitting, but eat between 6 and 11, depending on how large they become (with things like strength adding to mass, by the way...)

If we have fractions, rather than always rounding, it could be like the speed system, and simply have a percentage chance of rounding up.  So someone who is large enough to eat 7.45 food per sitting would have a 45% chance to eat 8 food, and a 55% chance to eat 7 food.



edit:  Also, something about the way that the food system currently works: Looking at Dwarf Companion back in 40d (no reason to assume much has changed on this front, other than when the dwarves actually decide to eat), hunger is calculated like this: 

There is a Hunger variable attached to every creature who might need to eat.  It is a variant of an intiger, starts at 0, and incriments 1 for every frame/tick of the clock.  There are 403,200 frames in a year, so dividing by 8 brings you to 50,400 frames between meals.  Looking at DC data corroborates that dwarves will probably eat at around 50,000 on their hunger meters.  I am not sure exactly when they start to actually starve to death.  Eating any type of food will immediately revert that hunger meter back to 0.

Using this knowledge, we could actually make food that, instead of simply resetting the hunger variable to 0, actually just subtracts from the hunger variable.  For example, given the new dwarven average size of 70,000, and a target of requiring 4 food on average per meal, and a target hunger reduction of 50,000, we have enough to solve for the variables.

50,000 hunger divided into 4 servings is 12,500 hunger per unit of food for a 70,000 size creature.  So, then, a single unit of cow meat could reduce  875,000,000 hunger divided by the size of the creature.

A dwarf who is hungry could run a quick calculation to figure out how large a stack of food he/she would need to pick up to sate their hunger, and if rounding down, it simply means they wouldn't go all the way down to 0 hunger, and would just eat a little more frequently, even if eating less at a single point in time.

A more complex system (but that just makes it more dwarfy).
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: NW_Kohaku on July 09, 2010, 02:10:14 pm
While I'm on a roll, why not make things even more messy by including some of the nutrition suggestions in the game, as well.

To add another reason not to simply let dwarves eat raw meat, the game could put food into different nutritional categories, and encourage a balance of these categories through reducing the hunger-reducing value of a given type of food the more that the given type of food you are about to eat has already been a part of your diet.

To make a nice, arbitrariy round number, instead of that 875,000,000 number in the last post, we could have a starting value of 1,000,000,000 hunger divided by the mass of the eater, provided they have a 0 value for nutrition from one food group.  This 1,000,000,000 would be subtracted by the value in the variable (probably once it has been multiplied by 1,000 or 10,000) for the food group, so that, if we want an average of 875,000,000, then that value should normalize at around 1,250 (assuming we are multiplying by 10,000, so that it would be 1,000,000,000 - 125,000,000 = 875,000,000).  (Sorry for the superfluous math, but I realize this is complex, and want to make sure that people can follow.)

(This food group variable is a integer, since for programming purposes, that would be somewhat easier on the system than a floating point decimal.  Because I'm multiplying it and dividing it around, it needs to be a largish integer, since there is no precision below the ones digit.  Hence, the next part, where eating one unit of food pushes you up a few hundred points in a food group.)

The value for each given food group could go up by a variable amount each time that the dwarf eats food from that group.  (Let's say for right now, just for round number's sake, this variable, which I will call "A", is 1,000.  So every time you eat meat, the meat food group variable goes up 1,000, and meat will give you 100,000,000 less hunger reduction per unit mass your creature weighs.) 

At the same time, after you eat, so that food starts to give you more nutrition back, all the food group variables would need to be reduced.  (Theoretically, this would happen gradually, as your body uses up the nutrients in the food you have eaten, but if this only applies when we are actually eating, then we can save some processor power by making these calculations only take place when the dwarf is going through the eating process.)  The exact weights of every variable depend on the number of foods we are throwing around to be balanced.  However, I can make a little formula:

Food_Group_Variable = (Food_Group_Variable + A (if this is the food group eaten, if not, this is 0)) * B - C;

Where Food_Group_Variable is the amount that the food's nutrition will be reduced (once multiplied), and B is a fraction/percentage (may actually just be a whole number that is subsequently divided by 100 so that there are only integers in the function), and where C is a flat value subtracted every round of eating from the Food_Group_Variable.

B is needed so that this doesn't simply become a process where you just eat one food in a cycle going around the food groups.  Eventually, you would be able to more-or-less get by on having missed some food groups more than others.  C is needed so that the values will eventually start to reach 0 again.

As nutrition from certain food groups reaches 0, negative symptoms or other effects might also be applied to dwarves, making them slower, and more vulnerable to disease or injury.

Keep in mind that the different food groups do not need to use the same variables A, B, and C.  A (the drop in nutrition) might be larger for things like meat, but lower for things like vegetables or fruits food groups.



This whole complex mess could be used as part of a means of encouraging prepared foods of higher quality, which, by mixing food groups, could potentially help balance nutrition a little better.  (You might even have a Chief Nutritionalist dwarf!)  These prepared meals could split the "A" part that is added into different food groups, as well as encourage greater overall happiness in dwarves.



EDIT: I somehow get the feeling I just scared everyone out of the water.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Ultimoos on July 11, 2010, 06:26:54 am
Not at all. This idea is great. Now we can feed entire fortress with strawberries with out having to bother with other food too much. If the nutrition system was implemented that would force providing better diet for dwarfs. There could be a couple of different nutritions. And a lack of something would make dwarfs more sleepy, lazy, less effective in combat or even make them easily fall for sickness. Prepared meals would now be more effective in feeding. And so you would have to import different food types to provide dwarfs with nutritions that you have problems with creating on your own.   
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Grendus on July 11, 2010, 10:51:19 am
I would love to see something like this. Currently the only reason to grow dwarven wheat or any of the above-ground wheat varieties is for flavor. In real life, the reason we eat so many grains is, as stated, they keep for a very long time (if kept dry they can last for centuries and still be edible), they have a very high calorie to acre ratio, and they can be grown in a large variety of conditions.

Even with these changes, players who don't want to bother with preserved meat can just farm more plump helmets. So long as the game remains as moddable as it is, players who want a challenge can mod in more realistic plants (low yield edible-raw plants that rot fast with the bulk of the food industry being focused around slightly higher yield grains) while players who don't want to fuss with it can use the stock plump helmets and simply grow them in bulk for their fort.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Nil Eyeglazed on July 11, 2010, 12:46:51 pm
I like nutrition as a problem for cooking to solve.

As in real life, specific nutritional deficits could take years to develop, which is perfectly appropriate-- it gives you time to get on your feet.  All of this could be done within the frameworks that already exist in the game, maybe as part of a syndrome expansion, or as part of the development of stat improvement.  I'm afraid I don't quite understand Kohaku's suggested implementation :)  I can't imagine how quality would increase the number of food groups involved, other than through more easily making lavish meals.

It would, however, hurt some of the more extreme forts out there.  Farming isn't always possible, and neither is trade.

I'm not as fond of the idea of requiring multiple units of food based on size.  It ends up making smaller races more productive, just because they spend less time hauling.  This doesn't seem right to me.  On the other hand, it doesn't really seem right to me either that larger races could store more food in a single square than a small race could.  I think there's room for some abstraction in the game.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: NW_Kohaku on July 11, 2010, 12:56:48 pm
Prepared foods should be able to be in multiple food groups at once when they are composed of multiple types of foods.  I.E. a stew made of beef and quarry bush leaves is giving you both meat and vegetables in a single serving of food.

The food groups system, however, is just a simpler way of abstracting dietary needs, and this could alternately be done based upon stating out various vitamins that any given food might be able to give you, although this would obviously be Hell in the raws, as you'd have to do more than just say that any given plant is a vegetable or a fruit, but go out of your way to stat out various vitamins (plus for every creature, their meat would either have to use some kind of default meat nutritional value, or else have a stating-out of their meat).

Also, if this means that a fortress that cannot farm, and relies upon exploitation of the fact that livestock currently don't eat to breed endless supplies of meat from absolutely nothing... well, I can't say I'm going to be terribly saddened by the loss.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Nil Eyeglazed on July 11, 2010, 01:16:00 pm
I can't imagine it being too difficult to have a scalable nutrition system.

Creatures get something like, "NUTRITION_TICK:PROTEIN:100" and the meat default gets "NUTRITION_SOURCE:PROTEIN:120000".  If somebody wants to get into more detail, they just add "NUTRITION_TICK:B12:50" to their dwarfs and makes a few foods supply B12.

With the way DF works right now, though, I can't imagine much room for a lot of complexity.  There just aren't enough different food sources to get much beyond basic food groups.

Then, we'll need to figure out a way to make polar bear liver poisonous :)
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: NW_Kohaku on July 11, 2010, 01:18:21 pm
Also, an advantage of food groups over specific nutrients is what it would look like when you find a problem:

Urist McCarnivore has been feeling sluggish and craving fruits lately.

vs.

Urist McCarnivore has been having gum pains related to a Vitamin C deficiency lately.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Jiri Petru on July 11, 2010, 03:39:23 pm
Kohaku, I'm afraid I have to distance myself from your nutritional idea.  :P It would require overtly complex underlying mechanisms noone would be able to remember, and the only visible end result would be that one dwarf eats 3 foods per meal, while another one eats 5. Which is IMHO wrong! All dwarves need to eat 1 food exactly. The disparity would make the stocks screen and the number of stockpiled food completely useless. The player would have no way to tell how much food there is and how long the stocks will last. Making Dwarf Fortress more obscure is not what we want.

But I'm also afraid Toady agrees with you because I seem to remember he wrote somewhere he wanted to implement a nutritional system. My two cents are: I don't really care about nutritional system, as long as it works in the background, is completely automated and doesn't make the game any more complicated. All I am willing to do is to provide different food sources - if the dwarves handle the rest automatically, so be it. But if I'm required to monitor their food intake, carefully prepare recipes for a balanced diet and whatnot, I'm probably quiting the game.

Not to mention our modern understanding of diet and its components are only recent, and by medieval and whatever, people had no idea (in the better case) or a completely wrong idea (in the worse case) of what was healthy.

--EDIT:
Quote from: Ultimoos
There could be a couple of different nutritions. And a lack of something would make dwarfs more sleepy, lazy, less effective in combat or even make them easily fall for sickness.
This is what I'm afraid of. How would the player know their dwarves are weak due to lack of animal fats or whatever? Is there any simple way to tell them? Or would they have to browse through Thoughts screen or endless tables to find the information amongst dozens of random other numbers or stats? If the latter, don't bother implementing nutrition, it would only made the game worse.
--

And even if it is all invisible, there's a problem how to inform player about the nutrition. How would the player know something went wrong? The game really shouldn't have a system with a complexity bigger than it can meaningfully report to the player. Would there be a separate Nutrition screen that would list all dwarves' needs and consumed foods in a similar way how the Healthcare screen now? That would be horrible! A reasonable way to handle the system would be for it to be invisible all the time, unless there is a problem. Then some pupup or something would warn you: "There's a danger of scurvy! Quickly provide more fruit. If you don't do that in two seasons, dwarves might start to die". This would be allright, it's quite user friendly and also provides an interesting challenge.

Quote from: Ultimoos
Now we can feed entire fortress with strawberries with out having to bother with other food too much.

This isn't really a problem with nutrition, and you don't need nutritional system to handle this problem. Is is again a problem of the food units, and how much dwarves consume per year. How much is 1 strawberry? I imagine it would be something like a jar of strawberries. But how can that much be harvested from a single tile? And even if it could, it would just mean that 30 jars of strawberries provide about the same amount of food as a single cow. Which is ridiculous. One dwarf eats 8 times per year, which means that 8 strawberry bushes - or 8 jars of strawberries - provide for a single dwarf for a whole year. Farewell, economy!

The game simply needs better balance of food "sized" all over. And when the foods are balanced in between each other, you then need to balance adventurer mode and fortress mode, because as I've already says, dwarves eating only 8 times a year must consume much more per meal. We probably can't solve that now - we've tried to come up with a division based on how much a single cow would last, but our division wouldn't probably work for grain, cheese, berries, etc. The first step really needs to be to balance the foods so that "1 meat" is about the same amount of food as "1 grain" and "1 berry".

Thinking about berries specifically, I'm not convinced they can be kept in fortress mode. Gathering enough berries even for a single dwarf serving (= 1/8th of a year's food intake) seems extremely difficult, and it wouldn't be worth the effort. For a fortress of 100 dwarves or a human town of 100 people, berries might as well not exist - their effect would be almost nil. Unless, of course, you dedicated a large part of the workforce to gathering, but I doubt any player would want to do that. I see no reason for keeping berries in. They would probably be best as an adventurer mode only and just a cosmetic thing for dwarf mode (like pebbles are).

OR berries could be implemented the same way as spices, if we ever get to that point. I imagine foods like these wouldn't satiate nor decrease hunger, they would only create happy thoughts. (I know, you might argue you can get satiated by berries in real life. But fortress-mode scale is very different from real life or adventure-mode scale).
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: NW_Kohaku on July 11, 2010, 04:05:45 pm
Kohaku, I'm afraid I have to distance myself from your nutritional idea.  :P It would require overtly complex underlying mechanisms noone would be able to remember, and the only visible end result would be that one dwarf eats 3 foods per meal, while another one eats 5. Which is IMHO wrong! All dwarves need to eat 1 food exactly. The disparity would make the stocks screen and the number of stockpiled food completely useless. The player would have no way to tell how much food there is and how long the stocks will last. Making Dwarf Fortress more obscure is not what we want.

In that case, make it 80 kilos of food a year (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=61215.0). 

Personally, I don't see much problem with having a change in the amount of food you need to store.  If a dwarf eats 4 food on average, and eats 8 times a year, then instead of multiplying your current population by 2 to get a rough estimate of how much food you should have, you just multiply by 8.  That wouldn't even make it more obscure, as that's not even a number that new players would even be able to come up with.

In fact, personally, I never see much problem with it at all, since I tend to be so flooded in food that I'm typically more concerned with whether or not I need to be building more warehouses to hold it all or not.

This is what I'm afraid of. How would the player know their dwarves are weak due to lack of animals fats or whatever? Is there any simple way to tell them? Or would he have to browse through Thoughts screen or endless tables to find the information amongst dozens of random other numbers or stats? If the latter, don't bother implementing nutrition, it would only made the game worse.

Interface tweak to the rescue.  I've been thinking about it for a while, but I think that what we really need to do is start taking advantage of some of the transparency layers in the new graphics system.  We could start using a small overlayable icon that blinks to start telling you when something is wrong with a unit on the regular viewing screen. 

If we just have "look menus" that are capable of switching to one another, it would also be less of a problem.

Likewise, I don't think the guy who's running the Complete Interface Overhaul thread should be saying we can't tweak the interface to suit new demands.

And even if it is all invisible, there's a problem how to inform player about the nutrition. How would the player know something went wrong? The game really shouldn't have a system with a complexity bigger than it can meaningfully report to the player. Would there be a separate Nutrition screen that would list all dwarves' needs and consumed foods in a similar way how the Healthcare screen now? That would be horrible! A reasonable way to handle the system would be for it to be invisible all the time, unless there is a problem. Then some pupup or something would warn you: "There's a danger of scurvy! Quickly provide more fruit. If you don't do that in two seasons, dwarves might start to die". This would be allright, it's quite user friendly and also provides an interesting challenge.

Actually, while I was thinking of a loo(k)-menu page for nutrition, a z-menu page just for reporting nutrition (possibly reported by a medical officer, the way that the record keeper keeps the stocks page) could show you who was suffering from imbalances... especially since, generally speaking, if one dwarf isn't getting a balanced diet, odds are, ALL dwarves aren't getting a balanced diet (unless it's just the military dwarves that get stuck with large amounts of beef jerky).

This isn't really a problem with nutrition, and you don't need nutritional system to handle this problem. Is is again a problem of the food units, and how much dwarves consume per year. How much is 1 strawberry? I imagine it would be something like a jar of strawberries. But how can that much be harvested from a single tile? And even if it could, it would just mean that 30 jars of strawberries provide about the same amount of food as a single cow. Which is ridiculous. One dwarf eats 8 times per year, which means that 8 strawberry bushes - or 8 jars of strawberries - provide for a single dwarf for a whole year. Farewell, economy!

The game simply needs better balance of food "sized" all over. And when the foods are balanced in between each other, you then need to balance adventurer mode and fortress mode, because as I've already says, dwarves eating only 8 times a year must consume much more per meal. We probably can't solve that now - we've tried to come up with a division based on how much a single cow would last, but our division wouldn't probably work for grain, cheese, berries, etc. The first step really needs to be to balance the foods so that "1 meat" is about the same amount of food as "1 grain" and "1 berry".

I don't think that was what Ultimoos was talking about (I think he was talking about having all dwarves live on a single crop as their only food.)  Regardless, that just makes me plug  tracking everything by volume and mass again (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=61215.0).

Thinking about berries specifically, I'm not convinced they can be kept in fortress mode. Gathering enough berries even for a single dwarf serving (= 1/8th of a year's food intake) seems extremely difficult, and it wouldn't be worth the effort. For a fortress of 100 dwarves or a human town of 100 people, berries might as well not exist - their effect would be almost nil. Unless, of course, you dedicated a large part of the workforce to gathering, but I doubt any player would want to do that. I see no reason for keeping berries in. They would probably be best as an adventurer mode only and just a cosmetic thing for dwarf mode (like pebbles are).

OR berries could be implemented the same way as spices, if we ever get to that point. I imagine foods like these wouldn't satiate nor decrease hunger, they would only create happy thoughts. (I know, you might argue you can get satiated by berries in real life. But fortress-mode scale is very different from real life or adventure-mode scale).

Strawberries are a huge part of agriculture in the US, especially in places like California, you know...  According to a quick hit on Google, Americans apparently eat 5 lbs of them every year.  Compared to orchard fruits, you probably get more pounds per acre with strawberries.  Besides, we already have things like the potato knock-off, the bloated tuber, and the presumable sugar beet knock-off, the sweet pod.  Both of those are root vegetables, which require some serious labor, as well.  Hell, even things like rice and wheat require picking the kernels off from the stalks.  I don't see why you'd single in on berries.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Jiri Petru on July 11, 2010, 04:38:52 pm
Reply to an older post.

Nil Eyeglazed: I'm convinced our misunderstandings are just that - misunderstandings. You seem to be reading different things than intended. I'll try to explain better, please let me know if it helped, I'll eventually try to rewrite the OP.

Quote
Right, I understand that.  The problem is that the only remaining benefit for cooking is happiness, and the way the game works right now, that benefit is fairly small, especially if compared against something like increased risk of miasma.  So without these benefits, inappropriate as they might be, cooking ends up being pretty much irrelevant to game play-- there's no reason to pursue it.  Under the changes you're advocating, the game might be more realistic, but with the way I play the game, I would just stop cooking.  And I don't think I'm alone.  So then the question is, do you want changes that make cooking irrelevant?

How could you stop cooking? Dwarves would cook automatically by themselves before eating. Do you mean you would not build any "kitchens", thus forcing them to eat raw food only? But why would you do that, if eating raw food only would create unhappy thoughts? And really, all you'd have to do is build a (automated) "kitchen" and stop caring. It's extremely simple and there's no reason not to do that!

Quote
Currently, a stockpile of, say, 500 plump helmets costs me 50 squares and 50 barrels.  After I cook those plump helmets down to roasts, I only need 25 squares and no barrels.  That's because I can store those roasts.  That's why I cook.  That's how cooking currenty affects stockpiles.  If I were limited by some mechanic to a single roast at a time, say, by cluttering workshops, or because of prepared meal degradation, that same stockpile would cost me 47 spaces and 46 barrels.  It probably wouldn't be enough of a difference to justify cooking for me.  I don't consider that a purely cosmetic change.

But all of these are just minor details that can be changed easily. You say you store prepared meals to save space? And not being able to store prepared meals would mean larger stockpiles? Well then, we wave a magic wave and suddenly we can store 50 plump helmets in a single barrel instead of 10!

Quote
I don't think it'd really affect much if you renamed roasts as pickles, or biscuits as jerky.  I don't think it'd be bad to introduce food degradation.  I just wonder if there'd be any purpose to roasts in that situation.

This is where I think we don't understand each other. There would be no roasts any more, exactly because they wouldn't have a purpose! Not roasts as we know them now. There could be something named a roast, but that would be only cosmetic, and the item would exist just for a couple of seconds in after being cooked (or taken out of a "pot") and before being eaten.

What I'm trying to say: forget about kitchens as we have them now. Forget about prepared meals as we have them now. Neither would exist any more. Instead, dwarves would automatically cook ingredients just before eating (or automatically retain a small supply of cooked food in a "pot").

Quote
Individual cooking is the worst in terms of the way you changes would affect the impact of qualtity, but your changes would also affect communal meals.  If a meal has to be eaten now, you can't make a dedicted cook and tell him to cook everything in the fortress, then forget about him until he eventually shows up idle.  Doing so would invite famine.  That slows down skill progression, which means less of an effect from quality.

Why can't I make a dedicated cook? On the contrary - a communal "pot" would require a dedicated cook. He would cook food as needed, not continually, but that doesn't matter. As the "pot" would be automated, you would only have to assign the cook and then you could happily forget about him. The cook's skill would still apply to the food.

You could not create famine, no matter how hard you tried. Cooks would not cook more food than needed. (You could still create famine by dumping all your stocks, though  ;)).

Skill progression is a detail that can be changed. If afterwards cooks cook less food on average, simply make skill progression faster.

---

Hope this was helpful.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Jiri Petru on July 11, 2010, 04:55:59 pm
Kohaku: My issue with nutrition is not that we can't display it. We could, of course. My issue is it adds another layer of complexity and I'm not sure I want it. Wait... I'm sure I don't want it. If I had to choose where to add a new layer of complexity, it would be up, like commanding armies or kingdoms, not down, tracking more information about individual dwarves.

I'm not strictly against the idea of nutrition, but my opinion would heavily depend on the actual implementation. The system would need to be next-to-invisible and all actions required from me as the player would need to be simple and easily understandable. Something like happiness works now. "Have a beautiful fortress, use decorations, statues, have nice rooms and quality items = your dwarves are happy". That's something I can handle. "Have meat, grain and fruits = your dwarves are healthy" is something I could handle too. But nothing more. If you wanted me to care about precise food rates, I wouldn't like it.

I'm still not sure how far nutrition effects should go. Having dwarves fat/slim depending on what they eat sounds really cool. Its mostly just cosmetic. But having diseases, not so much. That's no longer cosmetic, that actually adds penalties and requires micromanagement. Penalties and micromanagement for something this "small" are bad! A similar issue would be if the personality system that's purely cosmetic now required you to micromanage things. Imagine two dwarves with a grudge couldn't meet, otherwise they'd murder each other. You'd have to micromanage the game, find them, and enclose them in separate burrows. Very, very, bad! Or if dwarves with certain personality aspects would disobey orders as soldiers, forcing you to micromanage and find suitable recruits. Horrible!

Unless we can handle nutrition without any added micromanagement, I say let's not bother.

As for dwarves consuming 3, 4 or 5 meals... I think I'll respond in your Volume and Mass thread, it's a connected issue.

EDIT: Having a "chief nutritional dwarf" is akin making the game into a fitness centre. Totally ahistorical, totally bland. Sorry, I don't mean to be rude, I just really dislike it.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: NW_Kohaku on July 11, 2010, 05:09:18 pm
Actually, I tend to disagree, and think that this game needs to be refocused down on the individual dwarf.

The problem with the game as it stands, is that so much of it is focused on the blunt things the game can easily display - architecture, and large hordes of creatures.  I am actually working around trying to find ways to force players to care more about the lives of their dwarves (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=50284.0), including social status, leisure time, and intra-fort diplomacy so that the game is not so much about fungible happy faces with stats as it is about individual dwarves.

Regardless, the purpose of a nutritional system as I proposed it would simply be to give a (perhaps highly complex) reason to make people want to diversify their food supply.  If you simply have enough meat and vegetables of enough variety, then you are done.  (I think a prevoius nutrition idea simply had a "what were the last 10 different types of foods this dwarf ate" system, rather than worrying about specific nutritional needs.)

That is to say, it would be an "If you have meat, fruit, and vegetables = dwarves are happy" system. 

As for particular rates, I wouldn't ask a player to track that (dwarves would simply favor what they need more of in their AI selection of what to eat), although if you had the ability to command certain recepies for the giant soup pots, I guess you could meddle in that if you really wanted.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Nil Eyeglazed on July 11, 2010, 06:25:49 pm
I made a really nice post and then accidentally hit back on my browser :(

1) I would stop cooking by not making kitchens.  Just like I don't make dyer's workshops.  The cost to eating raw food is a small unhappy thought.  The benefit to eating raw food is decreased preparation time, increased fortress space from no kitchen (or pot), and overall simplicity of the fortress.

And I want to emphasize this, because I feel like I've been going around in circles: happiness, as it stands, is insufficient reason to cook food for many of us.

2) Changing the space requirements of raw food does nothing to change the relative value of cooking to not cooking.  If my raw plump helmet stockpiles take up half the space they used to, there is still no benefit to stockpile space from cooking.

3) I was mistaken regarding skill quality and communal cooking.  I generally make a dedicated cook and turn off all other labors on him until things are cooked.  That wouldn't be possible, or rather, would leave him idle frequently, under your proposed changes.  So skill progresses slower, time-wise.  But the quality of the 1000th prepared meal is the same either way.  (It would be kind of a hassle to find make-work for my cook, but I could live with it.)

4) I have had a hard time understanding parts of your proposals.  I'm going to describe how I currently describe it.  I am going to be very specific, more specific than my understanding warrants, because it sounds like you want to know how to make things more clear.

When a dwarf gets hungry, he will check for the presence of prepared food.  If there is no prepared food, he will try to cook food.  If he can't cook food, maybe because of no pathable kitchen, he will eat raw food.  He will do this regardless of whether cooking is enabled on his labors.  Only after cooking (if possible) will he eat.

There will be a new kind of building which we'll call a pot.  When a built pot is empty, it will generate a cooking job at a kitchen.  This job will only be accepted by a dwarf with cooking enabled.  Once cooked, the food will be moved into a pot.

There will be no option to manually (through the manager or through the workshop) create cooking tasks.  If you want a cooking task, place an empty pot someplace.

Prepared food will disappear from stockpile settings.  Prepared food that is not in a kitchen or pot will rot.  Prepared food will not be able to be brought to a depot, or else it will rot quickly enough that there's no point to doing so.

How accurate is that?  (I translated a lot of things like "Dwarfs should do this" into exactly how they will behave-- I think that sort of thing is necessary to really evaluate proposals like this, because the devil is in the details-- or rather, it's easy to miss exactly how things play out unless you spell out the details.  For instance, after writing this, I wonder: well, why not just make a stockpile of pots to store tons of prepared meals?)

Now, like I said, my problem with this is that I don't see a point to bothering with prepared meals under your system.  To be useful, cooking needs to solve a problem.  Here are some potential problems:

1) Gives dwarfs significant bad thoughts for eating raw foods.
    As has been said, if you do this, you need to make other changes to happiness as well.  You don't want to screw up beginning fortresses.
2) Require diversity in diet for health, which is easiest to provide through prepared foods.
    You've said you don't like this idea.

There's something else I see on review, which may be what you originally intended:

Kitchens are necessary in order to preserve food.  Once you have a kitchen, dwarfs will insist on using it to cook their food, whether you like it or not.  So the problem solved by cooking is rot, but prepared meals (and the labor they require) are an unavoidable cost of kitchens, rather than a function served by kitchens.

I know I've been wordy, especially considering losing my earlier essay :)  That's because I think that you and I probably play very differently.  I think it's important to see how a wide diversity of players would see these changes.  I represent a faction that would, for instance, see food preparation, in the absence of all current functions of cooking except happiness, as a net loss to my fortress.  It feels like you don't believe me when I say that.  Do you see how I could feel that cooking wasn't worth the benefit?
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: NW_Kohaku on July 11, 2010, 07:09:51 pm
I made a really nice post and then accidentally hit back on my browser :(
If all you hit was back, you could probably hit forward, and it would still be there.

1) I would stop cooking by not making kitchens.  Just like I don't make dyer's workshops.  The cost to eating raw food is a small unhappy thought.  The benefit to eating raw food is decreased preparation time, increased fortress space from no kitchen (or pot), and overall simplicity of the fortress.

And I want to emphasize this, because I feel like I've been going around in circles: happiness, as it stands, is insufficient reason to cook food for many of us.

I'm pretty sure I've said this before, but, the simple answer to that is to simply make the unhappy thought much more unhappy.

You said this is "the solution to a problem that doesn't exist", and I responded "So make the problem so that this will be the solution."

I didn't ignore that, I answered it.

3) I was mistaken regarding skill quality and communal cooking.  I generally make a dedicated cook and turn off all other labors on him until things are cooked.  That wouldn't be possible, or rather, would leave him idle frequently, under your proposed changes.  So skill progresses slower, time-wise.  But the quality of the 1000th prepared meal is the same either way.  (It would be kind of a hassle to find make-work for my cook, but I could live with it.)

The way I see it, the cook would be moving between individual kitchen/cafeteria/"big pot" workshops, and replenishing food stocks in them as they draw down.  It would largely mean that they would run from stockpile to more than one kitchen rather than from stockpile to same kitchen over and over.  (Of course, this is provided there was a large enough population for there to be relatively continuous food consumption.)

4) I have had a hard time understanding parts of your proposals.  I'm going to describe how I currently describe it.  I am going to be very specific, more specific than my understanding warrants, because it sounds like you want to know how to make things more clear.

When a dwarf gets hungry, he will check for the presence of prepared food.  If there is no prepared food, he will try to cook food.  If he can't cook food, maybe because of no pathable kitchen, he will eat raw food.  He will do this regardless of whether cooking is enabled on his labors.  Only after cooking (if possible) will he eat.

There will be a new kind of building which we'll call a pot.  When a built pot is empty, it will generate a cooking job at a kitchen.  This job will only be accepted by a dwarf with cooking enabled.  Once cooked, the food will be moved into a pot.

There will be no option to manually (through the manager or through the workshop) create cooking tasks.  If you want a cooking task, place an empty pot someplace.

Prepared food will disappear from stockpile settings.  Prepared food that is not in a kitchen or pot will rot.  Prepared food will not be able to be brought to a depot, or else it will rot quickly enough that there's no point to doing so.

How accurate is that?  (I translated a lot of things like "Dwarfs should do this" into exactly how they will behave-- I think that sort of thing is necessary to really evaluate proposals like this, because the devil is in the details-- or rather, it's easy to miss exactly how things play out unless you spell out the details.  For instance, after writing this, I wonder: well, why not just make a stockpile of pots to store tons of prepared meals?)

That's not exactly how I see it, but then, Jiri and I don't always agree.  I would say the pot IS the kitchen.  I would prefer something more like a cafeteria, so that there is more than one kind of food in a given workshop, but it can basically just be a giant soup bowl in the middle of the eating hall that the cook keeps adding more food into while dwarves keep eating out of it.  I would say that the pot doesn't have to hit empty to generate a job, it just has to be relatively low, but that's tweaking.

Pots can't be stockpiled, as that's completely defeating the purpose.  Hopefully, there should come a point where even the pot should spoil (Pea porrige hot, pea porrige cold, pea porrige in the pot nine days old?)

I would also like to see some sort of control over how a kitchen/cafeteria chooses its menu, though, so that you could push for certain recepies purely for flavor, if you so chose, but that would be totally optional.

I'm not big on the idea that dwarves cook their own food much, either, although the idea that a dwarven family might have home-cooked meals, or a noble might hire an in-house servant to cook meals does sound kind of cool.  I would put those down as "definitely optional", however.

Now, like I said, my problem with this is that I don't see a point to bothering with prepared meals under your system.  To be useful, cooking needs to solve a problem.  Here are some potential problems:

1) Gives dwarfs significant bad thoughts for eating raw foods.
    As has been said, if you do this, you need to make other changes to happiness as well.  You don't want to screw up beginning fortresses.

For the beginning fortress, I would like there to be a special tag for the original 7.  Just like how they all will "not mind being outside", the original seven might just be hardier survivalists by necessity, and not mind tougher, leaner fare.

Hopefully, however, it could be combined with a "social classes" update (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=50284.0) that I've been wanting, where, as your fortress becomes more wealthy, the wealthier middle-class dwarves would be more demanding in terms of food and other amenities.

2) Require diversity in diet for health, which is easiest to provide through prepared foods.
    You've said you don't like this idea.

Obviously not referring to me, there :P

There's something else I see on review, which may be what you originally intended:

Kitchens are necessary in order to preserve food.  Once you have a kitchen, dwarfs will insist on using it to cook their food, whether you like it or not.  So the problem solved by cooking is rot, but prepared meals (and the labor they require) are an unavoidable cost of kitchens, rather than a function served by kitchens.

I know I've been wordy, especially considering losing my earlier essay :)  That's because I think that you and I probably play very differently.  I think it's important to see how a wide diversity of players would see these changes.  I represent a faction that would, for instance, see food preparation, in the absence of all current functions of cooking except happiness, as a net loss to my fortress.  It feels like you don't believe me when I say that.  Do you see how I could feel that cooking wasn't worth the benefit?

Hmm... honestly, I'm the sort of person who will grow at least four tiles of every crop, even prickle berries, just so my dwarves have more food diversity.  I dye clothes just because I can.  I try to make sure everyone has decent furniture and a nice-sized room, and everyone is assigned to a job that involves one of their preferences.  I personally prefer to see happiness levels at around 200 average, or consider something to be seriously wrong in my fort.  Making that kind of fort is my goal, and I don't really give a damn about the military aspects of the game.

Still, as much as I am in love with the system, I try to make letting the system work be far simpler than trying to abstain from the system.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Nil Eyeglazed on July 11, 2010, 07:32:01 pm
Sorry, Kohaku, I was talking to Jiri :)  I hit forward, but it didn't work.  So I was lazy with quoting and stuff.

Kohaku, I should have acknowledged that I did misunderstand you earlier-- yes, changes to happiness can be the problem that cooking solves.  (Although I'm wary of that approach, because it doesn't let us compartmentalize suggestions-- happiness itself could use some adjustment, and if cooking changes depend on happiness changes, then it makes sense to talk about happiness first, get it right, and only then move on to cooking.  You know what I mean?  Also, it seems like it's really hard to get happiness right/interesting, in terms of balancing the numbers.)

Small, unimportant replies to stuff:

Wouldn't much matter if there were kitchens and pots, or only pots-- although if there were different workshops for preservation than for preparation, you couldn't do that "prepared food as a price of preserved food" thing I mentioned at the end.  I don't think it would matter much either if pots generated jobs at empty, at 1 food, at 2 food, or at whatever.  If at empty, you might need a few more pots than otherwise.
I wasn't thinking about literally stockpiling pots, but imagining that if pots were 1x1 buildings, you could just build 100 of them, and do the same thing we do now with preserved food, just at the cost of a little more labor.  If you really wanted to stop that, I can't imagine how you'd do it without rotting.
I find that even in a 200 dwarf fortress, a single cook can more than keep up with food consumption.
Part of what I like about what you were talking about with nutrition is that it has that built-in protection for early fortresses-- it's realistic to give a year's grace regarding nutrition to dwarfs, and more is reasonable if you want.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: NW_Kohaku on July 11, 2010, 08:00:16 pm
Mmmm, well, I think that changes should be made to the happiness system, regardless, as it would help move the game away from solely being focused on silly things like combat, and would like to use this as part of a platform to help make that case, if I can.

Also, yes, perhaps I said it a little too indirectly, but we definitely shouldn't be leaving pea porrige in those pots for nine or more days, no matter how historically accurate it might be - food in pots should still spoil, too.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Toast024 on July 11, 2010, 09:03:22 pm
Prepared food that for what ever reason, are not eaten, could be sacrificed to the God of the food's recipient's choice.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: slink on July 11, 2010, 11:41:06 pm

...

  • Fruit, mushrooms and vegetables: spoil, cannot be preserved (optionally, depending of how many subsystems we want to implement, can be preserved by canning and pickling... with difficulties and in small amounts)

...

Spoiling after two seasons sounds about right... this would mean that eg. humans would be able to live off autumn harvest od vegetables through the winter but come spring they'd be reduced to eat bread only. Unless they had stocks of salted fish or smoked meat, of course. This sounds reasonably historical and prevents you from hoarding huge amounts of food (or at least makes it harder) which is good for game balance I think.

...


I see in my mind's eye my eldest aunt's cold cellar.  It was under her house, where most people had a basement, but you could only get there from outside.  In it she kept home canned fruit and vegetables for an entire year after their harvest.  That did not happen all at one time, so it was perfectly practical to can cherries in their season and green beans in theirs.  This was not difficult nor did it happen in small amounts.  Even I, born and raised in one of the largest cities of the USA, am able to can food.  When we moved to this house from our previous one, I canned all the frozen rabbit meat I had stored in the basement freezer so that it would travel reliably.  I canned it in pint jars and it supplied us with two meals a week for half a year.  It is not difficult to preserve food by canning, especially if you count fruit mixed with suger which is called "preserves" for good reason.  :)  My aunt fed a husband, two sons, and two daughters with preserved food from her garden and her henhouse, plus preserved woodland fruit and salted venison, and day-old bread from the town store.

That completely overlooks dried fruit, vegetables, and mushrooms, which are also possible.  I've never been much on dehydrating because I have always lived in humid places, but I once dried hot peppers with a borrowed electric dehydrator.  Surely people who can smelt on a magma-heated anvil can dehydrate food.   :P

At any rate, historically people did their best to preserve as much food as possible simply because they didn't want to face spring with nothing but crusts of bread and rinds of salt pork.  Sometimes they did end up that way, but it was not for lack of methods; rather it was for the lack of food available in autumn to be preserved.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: RCIX on July 12, 2010, 12:49:11 am
I'm against a complex nutrition system. Why? It makes the game too realistic. While some would say nothing can be too realistic, i contend that we play games because they don't accurately model life. Why? As the famous sayings go, "life is hard" "life is unfair". If you make the game very realistic, then it becomes hard and unfair. Not that it isn't that already, but we don't want it even more hard and unfair.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Lord Shonus on July 12, 2010, 02:05:01 am

...

  • Fruit, mushrooms and vegetables: spoil, cannot be preserved (optionally, depending of how many subsystems we want to implement, can be preserved by canning and pickling... with difficulties and in small amounts)

...

Spoiling after two seasons sounds about right... this would mean that eg. humans would be able to live off autumn harvest od vegetables through the winter but come spring they'd be reduced to eat bread only. Unless they had stocks of salted fish or smoked meat, of course. This sounds reasonably historical and prevents you from hoarding huge amounts of food (or at least makes it harder) which is good for game balance I think.

...


I see in my mind's eye my eldest aunt's cold cellar.  It was under her house, where most people had a basement, but you could only get there from outside.  In it she kept home canned fruit and vegetables for an entire year after their harvest.  That did not happen all at one time, so it was perfectly practical to can cherries in their season and green beans in theirs.  This was not difficult nor did it happen in small amounts.  Even I, born and raised in one of the largest cities of the USA, am able to can food.  When we moved to this house from our previous one, I canned all the frozen rabbit meat I had stored in the basement freezer so that it would travel reliably.  I canned it in pint jars and it supplied us with two meals a week for half a year.  It is not difficult to preserve food by canning, especially if you count fruit mixed with suger which is called "preserves" for good reason.  :)  My aunt fed a husband, two sons, and two daughters with preserved food from her garden and her henhouse, plus preserved woodland fruit and salted venison, and day-old bread from the town store.

That completely overlooks dried fruit, vegetables, and mushrooms, which are also possible.  I've never been much on dehydrating because I have always lived in humid places, but I once dried hot peppers with a borrowed electric dehydrator.  Surely people who can smelt on a magma-heated anvil can dehydrate food.   :P

At any rate, historically people did their best to preserve as much food as possible simply because they didn't want to face spring with nothing but crusts of bread and rinds of salt pork.  Sometimes they did end up that way, but it was not for lack of methods; rather it was for the lack of food available in autumn to be preserved.
Quite true. If you have an underground storage, even non-preserved foods will last a long time, especially when you consider that a cut of meat that a modern person would throw away as disgusting, someone from the time period would simply decide to cook first, as it's going to go bad soon.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Jiri Petru on July 12, 2010, 04:06:06 am
Nil Eyeglazed: OK, we understand each other now. You last post was precise. Thanks  :) So the way I see it is you're against this idea because it adds no benefits, or the benefits are small. Something like dyeing. Even though both would be "build-and-forget" automated affairs, they would distract dwarves and reduce effectivity, and the benefit wouldn't be worth it. Well... I guess I can live with that  8) As Kotaku said, there are people less concerned about effectivity who build things not because they're effective but because they're pretty, cool, or whatever. I always use dyed clothes only because I can. I decorate as many items as I can. I build nice hallways and rooms, etc. etc.

So even if cooking added only small benefits, I think it's allright. Look at it from the other point of view: that would mean you wouldn't have to build a kitchen/pot/etc. The game would become easier to manage, and the only cost would be a minor happiness hit. Cooking would technically be optional, and made only for the sake of happiness - that's not necessarily a bad thing, is it?

(BTW, It would still be easy to find jobs for full-time cooks - remember they would have to dry meet, salt fish, pickle fruit, etc...)

The problem I'm trying to solve is not much of a gameplay problem, it's a problem of realism or believability. I simply don't like how we cook stews or roasts, then store them in barrels or sell them to caravans. It breaks my suspension of disbelief. This system was intended to fix that, make the game less bland and more interesting - the new cooking, the salting, drying, pickling... - though the end result is pretty much the same (dwarves are fed). As I've said, it's very much a cosmetic thing.

Quote from: Slink
I see in my mind's eye my eldest aunt's cold cellar (...).

Thanks. I'm a villager myself and we used to can pretty much everything  :) Still, I'm not sure if people in history could can as easily as we can ( ::)). I mean, you need glass jars to can things in, right? How common would glass jars be around 1400? Not much I think. So when I wrote "with difficulties and in small amounts", I meant that and should have been more direct. "Small amounts" is to avoid canning whole barrels at once, and "with difficulties" = requires glass jars you need to create in your glass smelter first.

However, that made me look up canning at wikipedia. Turns out it was invented in 1809, which means we might have to omit it completely. The problem is I guess that you need an air-tight container. While dwarves could probably invent something along the lines, I'm not sure how Toady feels about modern inventions in the game (he doesn't like steam power, though dwarves could invent that too).

Quote from: Slink
That completely overlooks dried fruit, vegetables, and mushrooms, which are also possible.

I omitted that to avoid too much complexity. If we could can/pickle everything, there would be no need for just another way of preservation, right? But now that we might have to forget about canning, drying seems the way to go. Although I'm not sure. You can't dry everything - you can dry mushrooms, but not carrots or potatoes. How to handle that in game and not make it confusing? Ideally, one way of preservation would apply to a whole category of foods, not to specific examples. That way, you would be able to dry mushrooms, but not fruit nor vegetables. How does it sound?
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: NW_Kohaku on July 12, 2010, 09:05:20 am
I'm against a complex nutrition system. Why? It makes the game too realistic. While some would say nothing can be too realistic, i contend that we play games because they don't accurately model life. Why? As the famous sayings go, "life is hard" "life is unfair". If you make the game very realistic, then it becomes hard and unfair. Not that it isn't that already, but we don't want it even more hard and unfair.

Then why are you even playing this game to begin with?

Toady's stated goal for it is to be the "most realistic fantasy (lol) simulator", and the tagline of the game is "Losing is Fun!"  Were you confused, and thought this was another game?

While it's possible to make a worthwhile argument against realism for realism's own sake (something I've done in the past), you are going to the opposite irrational extreme - arguing for abstraction for abstraction's own sake.  (That realism is evil in and of itself, with no rational explanation to back that up... again, while voluntarily playing a game where realism is one of the stated goals.)
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: slink on July 12, 2010, 09:51:34 am

Quote from: Slink
I see in my mind's eye my eldest aunt's cold cellar (...).

Thanks. I'm a villager myself and we used to can pretty much everything  :) Still, I'm not sure if people in history could can as easily as we can ( ::)). I mean, you need glass jars to can things in, right? How common would glass jars be around 1400? Not much I think. So when I wrote "with difficulties and in small amounts", I meant that and should have been more direct. "Small amounts" is to avoid canning whole barrels at once, and "with difficulties" = requires glass jars you need to create in your glass smelter first.

However, that made me look up canning at wikipedia. Turns out it was invented in 1809, which means we might have to omit it completely. The problem is I guess that you need an air-tight container. While dwarves could probably invent something along the lines, I'm not sure how Toady feels about modern inventions in the game (he doesn't like steam power, though dwarves could invent that too).

I had forgotten that the game was supposed to be set in 1400.  Very well then, no canning in the modern sense.  But food was still preserved in pottery containers by candying, pickling, salting, and even, in the case of eggs, liming.  Those methods only required immersion in a material and a cover to keep flies out.  Am I correct that we don't have to limit ourselves to the continent of Europe, where at that time people were dying of bubonic plague and suffering from a mini-ice age?

Quote from: Slink
That completely overlooks dried fruit, vegetables, and mushrooms, which are also possible.

I omitted that to avoid too much complexity. If we could can/pickle everything, there would be no need for just another way of preservation, right? But now that we might have to forget about canning, drying seems the way to go. Although I'm not sure. You can't dry everything - you can dry mushrooms, but not carrots or potatoes. How to handle that in game and not make it confusing? Ideally, one way of preservation would apply to a whole category of foods, not to specific examples. That way, you would be able to dry mushrooms, but not fruit nor vegetables. How does it sound?

You can dry carrots and potatoes if you slice them thinly in the same way you slice fruit for drying.  People usually don't though, because root crops store well in root cellars, along with apples (but not in the same section because of the ethylene given off by ripe apples).  If the climate allowed, cabbages were left in the garden but covered with straw so that they could be dug out for eating "fresh" even when snow covered the ground.  Which comes to another point.  As long as all crops grow at all times of the year, waste won't change anyone's playing style other than forcing them to make huge refuse piles.  In 40d, I often had a lot of rotted vegetation on my refuse piles until I learned how small a plot was actually needed.  When I first started playing, I was making 11x11 plots for each type of plant.  Now I plant everything in 3x3 plots inside one 11x11 room.  If you want a more realistic food supply, one place to make changes is in the growing seasons.  At the end of 40d's lifetime, I was playing with a farming mod that changed the seasons and the yields for every crop.  To that I added a couple that I favored (honey and chocolate). 

I quite enjoy seeing the various dishes that emerge from the larger variety of edible animal parts.  If I had a wish that could be fulfilled, it would be for more realistic descriptions of the dishes that are cooked.  Calling something made of intestines, grain, and meat, "stew", when it could be a perfectly good sausage, seems like a waste of the variety that now exists in the game.  Also, the word "roast" does not bring to my mind a dish made of four items.  A roast is a hunk of meat.  I think when the new version settles down that I will change those to "snack", "meal", and "banquet".  It still won't be a fully correct description, but it will be less wrong.  But recipes are a different topic from your premise, as I understand it. 

I haven't read the discussions in this thread other than to skim over them to see if my point on food preservation had been made.  Therefore, my comments now may be duplicates and most certainly a ramble through my opinions.

If caravans are not going to buy preserved foods, on the basis that foods are grown and preserved for local use and won't survive transit, then they also cannot bring any foods.  That ought to apply to booze as well, because beers and wines did not travel well in barrels and casks.  That is why so many local "labels" sprang up.  We had to wait until modern times to make beers and wines so bland and tasteless that they won't suffer from being delivered by UPS (company slogan: "If it was damaged in transit then it wasn't packaged well enough").   :P

It seems then that the only food-related things the caravan can carry are seeds, spices, and salt, which is again historically accurate.  Marco Polo didn't bring back cellophane packages of pasta.  He brought back the idea of pasta, and possibly the spices with which to season the sauces.  The life-saving effects of the first caravan in spring, after a tantrum spiral killed off all but a man and two boys, will therefore be greatly reduced.  Of course, caravans in European history were long-distance travellers.  Local villages carried produce to nearby large cities, for sale.  Perhaps the Elves are to be considered as natives living in the woods, trading their harvested nuts and berries to the Dwarven settlers in return for beads made of stone.  Then what are the Humans?  And how close is the parent Dwarven civilization?

I am all for greater variety in food preparation.  It would require that we be able to make our own reactions involving food in containers.  Once that is done, we can make our own custom workshops that create edible foods.  It would be easier if there was an edible food type raw file other than the blanket "2=biscuit, 3=stew, 4=roast".  However, there needs to be a simpler underlying mode in which beginning players can learn the game.  And as long as there is a simpler underlying mode, such as living entirely on plump helmets and water, people who don't like to bother with the cooking aspect can leave it that way. 

No one should be forced to play with a complicated food system if they don't want to, or with any other aspect of the game that they dislike.  The introduction of randomly constituted Forgotten Beasts and Fun House Clowns comes close to violating that principle for me with regards to combat, because I can't change the raw files to prevent them from being a hazard.  This effectively closes off magma to me in the game because I simply don't ever get my military up and running in time to defend against those things.  I had already given up adamantine, which didn't bother me since it was only used for combat purposes unless there was a mandate.  I wouldn't like the same thing to be done to me in the food arena, ie, the removal of free choice in how I play the game.  As long as your proposed improvements leave loopholes for those who don't want to use them, I don't see that they hurt anything and they might actually improve recipies.   ;D

A side-note on loopholes.  DF is a single-player game.  There is no point in hunting down "exploits" in a single-player game, because we aren't in competition with each other.  We are playing the game for individual fun and satisfaction.  If people join a contest then there must be rules and then can be cheating and "exploits".  Otherwise, there is just "my set of conditions" for each person.

Edit:  Not all of us think "losing is fun".  We don't mind that Tarn Adams uses that for a slogan.  We appreciate that he gives us methods by which we don't have to lose, so we are not forced to lose in order to start a new fortress, which is in fact a lot of fun.  The broad-based appeal of DF is due to its flexibility.  It has always amazed me that this forum can contain the broad spectrum of attitudes that it does, but somehow Bay12Games makes it work.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Lord Shonus on July 12, 2010, 06:28:43 pm

If caravans are not going to buy preserved foods, on the basis that foods are grown and preserved for local use and won't survive transit, then they also cannot bring any foods.  That ought to apply to booze as well, because beers and wines did not travel well in barrels and casks.  That is why so many local "labels" sprang up.  We had to wait until modern times to make beers and wines so bland and tasteless that they won't suffer from being delivered by UPS (company slogan: "If it was damaged in transit then it wasn't packaged well enough").   :P

It seems then that the only food-related things the caravan can carry are seeds, spices, and salt, which is again historically accurate.  Marco Polo didn't bring back cellophane packages of pasta.  He brought back the idea of pasta, and possibly the spices with which to season the sauces.  The life-saving effects of the first caravan in spring, after a tantrum spiral killed off all but a man and two boys, will therefore be greatly reduced.  Of course, caravans in European history were long-distance travellers.  Local villages carried produce to nearby large cities, for sale.  Perhaps the Elves are to be considered as natives living in the woods, trading their harvested nuts and berries to the Dwarven settlers in return for beads made of stone.  Then what are the Humans?  And how close is the parent Dwarven civilization?


That's not accurate at all. Exotic food and drink made up a huge amount of trade as far back as Phoenician times. Greek and Egyptian ships have been found that show evidence of carrying far more food than would be neccessary for ships's stores. In more modern times, the Byzantine empire (in what is now turkey) grew more than ninety percent of it's grain in Egypt and even further south, a practice that ended only when Egypt was conquered in the 1200s. The reason so many local vitners and distilleries cropped up was beacause shipping was expensive, not because you couldn't ship drinks. Most kinds of grain could be shipped by land (sea shipping is more difficult because of moisture, but doable) as could dried fruit, preserved meats (although shipping on the hoof is easier and more economical), cheeses, oils, and booze.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: NW_Kohaku on July 12, 2010, 06:39:31 pm
Salted cod was one of the original exports of the American colonies, shipped in such quantities that they were able to pay for the northern colonies' upkeep - they survived 1-month trips across the Atlantic.  (The south paid its way with tobacco.)

In the early years of America, when the Appalachains were being crossed by settlers, the inacessable areas of places like West Virginia or Kentucky or Tenessee were major moonshining country because the primary crop in the area was corn, which would not make it to market, but corn-fed hogs and home-distilled whiskey would survive a journey of a couple of months.  (A tax on this whiskey was seen as such a threat to the lifestyle of those who had ventured beyond the Appalachains that it caused the so-called Whiskey Rebellion, and the first major challenge to national sovereignty.)
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Lord Shonus on July 12, 2010, 06:45:26 pm
I considered those poins, but I wanted too avoid anything too modern.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: NW_Kohaku on July 12, 2010, 06:54:29 pm
I considered those poins, but I wanted too avoid anything too modern.

Packing salted fish in a barrel is hardly technology beyond dwarves, even if it took place outside the stated arbitrary timeline whose main purpose is to exclude the likes of steam powered trains or guns.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Lord Shonus on July 12, 2010, 07:25:25 pm
No, but the ships they used were much more advanced, technologically, than older ones, and I wished to eliminate that possible counter argument.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: NW_Kohaku on July 12, 2010, 07:35:45 pm
The Chinese Junk was an oceangoing vessel that was probably at least on par with the European oceangoing vessels of the day, and possibly even more seaworthy, thanks to its airtight bulkheads.  They were in use until the end of the age of sail power, and actually still continue to see use, if not in as prominant a role.  The same basic design has been in use since about 200 BCE.

The problem with arbitrary year cutoffs on technology is that not all technologies advance at the same rate when you have isolated populations. 

Just as there is no real technological difference between the barrels used in the 1200s and the 1800s, there really isn't a technological difference between the way that ships were made in Greco-roman times and the Age of Exploration, excepting how they armed the ships.  The reason Europeans didn't have much by way of oceangoing vessels in the dark ages is simply because Europeans wouldn't travel any water but the Mediterranean at that time.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Lord Shonus on July 12, 2010, 09:27:24 pm
Actually, it was a lack of charts and accurate clocks, but we digress. Me and you are on exactly the same page on this, I think, and hijacking the thread is unneeded.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: slink on July 12, 2010, 10:55:26 pm
I think this involves the matter of distance that I referred to in the part of my post that you quoted.  Are we talking about a trek on foot to Europe across all of Asia and Asia Minor, or a shipboard jaunt across the Mediterranean in the shorter direction?  It's clear that in the absolute lowest limit, people traded all kinds of goods including perishables.  How long are the trade routes in DF?

Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: NW_Kohaku on July 12, 2010, 11:03:15 pm
I think this involves the matter of distance that I referred to in the part of my post that you quoted.  Are we talking about a trek on foot to Europe across all of Asia and Asia Minor, or a shipboard jaunt across the Mediterranean in the shorter direction?  It's clear that in the absolute lowest limit, people traded all kinds of goods including perishables.  How long are the trade routes in DF?

That depends on what you want to count as a "trade route"...  Either to the edge of the map, or "as long as it needs to be".

Caravans in-game are spawned on the edge of the map, and all its contents are spawned with it at around the beginning of the season.  When they walk off the map's edge, they vaporize and report back to their home civ.

In terms of how far they stretch, it is, again, as far as it needs to be, either one map tile over, or across the world, although there are no such things as boats in DF, so no sea trade exists.

The caravan arc, when it is completed, should hopefully make these have real answers...

If we are to take their overland speed from how they move in fortress time, however, it would take them a few months to traverse a single region tile on the map, which would almost certainly mean years of travel between any two cities, although I would suspect that caravans would probably travel at rates more similar to the rate that adventurers travel overland, except at a slightly slower speed, as wagons seem to travel at around 2/3s or 1/2 the rate of normal dwarves.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Kilo24 on July 12, 2010, 11:50:34 pm
Kohaku, I'm afraid I have to distance myself from your nutritional idea.  :P It would require overtly complex underlying mechanisms noone would be able to remember, and the only visible end result would be that one dwarf eats 3 foods per meal, while another one eats 5. Which is IMHO wrong! All dwarves need to eat 1 food exactly. The disparity would make the stocks screen and the number of stockpiled food completely useless. The player would have no way to tell how much food there is and how long the stocks will last. Making Dwarf Fortress more obscure is not what we want.

But I'm also afraid Toady agrees with you because I seem to remember he wrote somewhere he wanted to implement a nutritional system. My two cents are: I don't really care about nutritional system, as long as it works in the background, is completely automated and doesn't make the game any more complicated. All I am willing to do is to provide different food sources - if the dwarves handle the rest automatically, so be it. But if I'm required to monitor their food intake, carefully prepare recipes for a balanced diet and whatnot, I'm probably quiting the game.

I agree with a realistic comprehensive food system being a bad idea.  Lumping on diseases and attribute penalties due to various vitamin deficiencies would have to be handled delicately and in a highly user-friendly, automatic manner to avoid being a much bigger problem than the value it adds to the game.

I'd far prefer to keep it a happiness bonus/penalty when the happiness values get to be relevant.

Actually, I tend to disagree, and think that this game needs to be refocused down on the individual dwarf...
Myself, I tend to agree or disagree based on the system being proposed, not upon the area it's focused on.  Specifically, I like adding things which give interesting new opportunities for the player to do.  Conquer an enemy, build an empire, set up a trading route, or manipulate a dwarf into being a great leader or madman, create personality-based or religious tension between dwarves to resolve, or ...  Not to control nutrition to prevent scurvy, re-irrigate farms, or personally make sure each and every uniform is dyed.

Micromanagement should be kept as unnecessary as possible, because otherwise Dwarf Fortress will collapse under its own weight with all the features that accumulate.

Edit:  Not all of us think "losing is fun".  We don't mind that Tarn Adams uses that for a slogan.  We appreciate that he gives us methods by which we don't have to lose, so we are not forced to lose in order to start a new fortress, which is in fact a lot of fun.  The broad-based appeal of DF is due to its flexibility.  It has always amazed me that this forum can contain the broad spectrum of attitudes that it does, but somehow Bay12Games makes it work.
I believe that you can wall off any passages you make into the underground fairly easily.  It's what I did my first fortress, anyways.

And yes, this is part of what I'm talking about.  The more systems that you *need* to worry about to simply be able to play the game, the harder it will be to learn, and the less fun it will be to people who don't like some systems.  The more systems that benefit you to learn/implement, the more fun the game will be to people who want to play with those.

I also recall a quote a while back that asked to make thoughts from food for the first year or so less detrimental.  I'd prefer to just add a thought that hits all the founders immediately upon arrival that gives a significant happiness boost like "[Name] is eager to work with the founding of [Fortress Name]", so that it covers a number of problem like having no beds and other things that founding dwarves shouldn't expect to immediately have.

More directly on topic:  I do like the proposed prepared food system.  It provides a better system than the current one; having a kitchen becomes a luxury, not a way to preserve food indefinitely.  As such, it's pretty much only a happiness boost (spices would fit well here, btw.)

However, I am worried about requiring players to put more dwarves on food production, since stockpiling is harder.  Maybe meat gets smoked as part of the preparation and as such, it doesn't spoil?  And baking hardtack biscuits can't spoil either, but most dwarves would prefer something else (they give a low amount of happiness)?  Crops would spoil, of course, and dwarves would generally prefer food that would be prone to spoiling over other food for practical reasons.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Jiri Petru on July 13, 2010, 05:17:23 am
Kilo: Thanks for popping in!

Having a kitchen becomes a luxury, not a way to preserve food indefinitely.  As such, it's pretty much only a happiness boost (spices would fit well here, btw.)
Yeah, that's about what I had in mind.

However, I am worried about requiring players to put more dwarves on food production, since stockpiling is harder.  Maybe meat gets smoked as part of the preparation and as such, it doesn't spoil?  And baking hardtack biscuits can't spoil either, but most dwarves would prefer something else (they give a low amount of happiness)?  Crops would spoil, of course, and dwarves would generally prefer food that would be prone to spoiling over other food for practical reasons.

I'm not sure how much harder would it be to obtain and keep food. Perhaps the same, perhaps a bit harder. If it gets harder, you could either devote more dwarves to food production, or arrange caravans with food supplies. Toady wants to get some "population sprawl" in the next series of releases, which would probably mean your fortress could easily get food from outlying villages (unless besieged). I would actually like this, but in the end it's Toady's decision how he handles the economy, the fortress dependence on outside world, etc. I think he could probably implement this suggestion in such a way that it wouldn't require more farmers. Anyway...

You're right, meat could get preserved automatically as part of butchery. Ideally, the butcher's workshop would double as a smokery and a saltery (?). The butcher would cut the animal and automatically preserve all meat... either by putting it into barrels along with salt, or by smoking it.

This would probably mean the "butcher an animal job" would have some prerequisites, though. Either salt and a barrel for salting, or a piece of wood for smoking. Should we still allow butchering without any of these, ie. butchering that yields rw meat? Raw meat is useless, spoils too quickly and can't be stored (unless you have a freezer). So what's the point in allowing it? I think we might want to let it in for the rare famine where you butcher a cow and want to cook it immediately (which shouldn't require salt nor wood). But I'm not sure how to handle this in terms of automation. We don't want butchers automatically creating useless raw meat when you don't have means to dry/salt it, and when you don't need to eat the meat right now. Any ideas?

-----------------

As we're talking about economy, caravans and travel distances, what do you all think about this? Would you change/add/remove anything?

  • Grain, vegetables and fruit are cheap and available in huge supplies. They are only traded in the raw form.
  • Since fruit and vegetables are spoilables, they should have limited caravan "range". Caravans would take them only short distances. Grain doesn't spoil and can be shipped all over the world.
  • Addendum: I think the problem with fruit/vegetables transport wasn't just time, but perhaps more importantly the hazards of medieval travel - insects, bumping and other nasty things that would destroy the fruit after quite a short distance
  • Raw meat and raw fish are average priced and can be traded only extremely short distances since they spoil too fast. Prepared organs fall into this category as well, so you wouldn't be able to buy sausages for example.
  • Meat instead gets traded in livestock form  :)  If you want sausages, you have to butcher the pig yourself! Livestock is expensive and can be traded short distances (I guess?).
  • Preserved (smoked, salted...) meats and fish are expensive but can be traded all over the world.
  • Milk is extremely short distances only.

-----

Also, as a separate issue, how could we preserve fruit and vegetables if we decide not to use canning (as it was invented in 1809)? I'm still skeptical about drying, as I'm not sure how many foods you can realistically dry. But perhaps someone would illuminate me?
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Nil Eyeglazed on July 13, 2010, 05:27:13 am
Excuse me if I'm mistaken-- but isn't the original point of cooking to destroy pathogens?  Old meat can give a heck of a tummy-ache, but not if you boil it before eating it.  Happiness doesn't really enter the picture.  You know what I'm talking about if you're as big of a fan of sashimi as I am.

If your goal has something to do with realism, it might involve preparation of rotten foodstuffs.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Lord Shonus on July 13, 2010, 05:33:51 am
The "original point" of cooking meat was probably to make it taste better and be easier to chew. It didn't take long for the proto-humans who discovered it to realize that cooked food lasted a lot longer. Cooking as a means of avoiding pathogens is a fairly recent concept.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Nil Eyeglazed on July 13, 2010, 05:52:23 am
Using language like "pathogens" is probably inappropriate of me.  Obviously, people didn't think they were killing germs when they were cooking meat, say, ten thousand years ago.

But they were probably perfectly aware that stinky meat made them sick, and that there was nothing wrong with stinky meat if they got really hot immediately before being eaten.

Cooking, in the sense of getting food hot, doesn't really make food last any longer, except to the extent that it also dries the food.  It doesn't help to cook food before putting it in the storeroom.  (It does help to cook it before putting it in your mouth, of course.)

I can't imagine the purpose of cooking to be either taste or easier chewing.  Taste is really culturally dependent, and people tend to like what is commonly available; it's hard to imagine that people didn't think that cooked food tasted bad when they were used to raw food.  While there are exceptions, novelty is usually a turn-off rather than a turn-on.  (For us: mm, insects!)  Maybe its just that I personally prefer more raw foods, like I mentioned in my sashimi example.  Regarding chewing: I have this feeling that people started cooking before they started living long enough to lose significant amounts of teeth.  Maybe I'm wrong.  Of all the kinds of physical labor I try to avoid, chewing isn't one of them.  Maybe because I just tend to swallow giant hunks whole :)

But this has me super curious.  I'm reading the wikipedia article on cooking right now. 

Later: but it doesn't shed any light on anything.  I'm not sure anybody knows why people started cooking food instead of eating it raw; clearly, even in regards to that, we've made different decisions about what foods should be cooked.  More, it reminds me that this is a potentially controversial topic, with regards to raw foods activists.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Lord Shonus on July 13, 2010, 05:56:52 am
Besides being easier to chew (seriously, try eating a raw steak) and lasting longer (cooked food does last longer than raw) a major attraction of cooking would have been that it makes the meat more compact. When you have to carry everything on your back, mass-cooking the animals you just killed simplifies the task considerably.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Jiri Petru on July 13, 2010, 06:06:41 am
Besides being easier to chew (seriously, try eating a raw steak) and lasting longer (cooked food does last longer than raw) a major attraction of cooking would have been that it makes the meat more compact. When you have to carry everything on your back, mass-cooking the animals you just killed simplifies the task considerably.

Are you really sure you're talking about cooking, and not about drying, salting or other ways of preservation? I can't imagine any food that last longer after being cooked. Vegetables definitely not, meat I don't think so (it rots quickly no matter what).

Anyway... Nil, the point about cooking and diseases is a good point. It feels like a separate suggestion, though - it's basically adding a new system. I'm trying to keep this suggestion as simple as possible, but I'm sure if Toady later decides to implement food diseases (or for example nutrition), it could easily be added to this system. Much easier than to the current one, by the way  :) Killing bacteria by cooking and then storing the meal in barrel for a couple of months doesn't sound reasonable.

EDIT: By the way, I keep editing the first post to reflect the discussion and make it more understandable. You might want to reread it occasionally.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Lord Shonus on July 13, 2010, 06:13:21 am
Cooking is an extremely complicated chemical process. The heat of cooking also kills the bacteria in the food, delaying decomposition. Cooked meat will, generally, last four or five days longer than raw meat before becoming inedible. This is nowhere near as long as a proper preservation method will give you, but it does last longer.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Nil Eyeglazed on July 13, 2010, 06:19:43 am
I'm not in the habit of eating raw steaks.  I am, however, in the habit of eating raw vegetables, raw fish, and raw fruits.  I guess I've eaten a few raw mammal muscles, but usually pretty heavily prepared.  While I'm prepared to admit that a raw steak might be more difficult to chew, I guess that it's hard for me to envision cooking as a procedure that's ultimately labor-saving.  (I've eaten a few over-cooked steaks as well, and I don't think cooking arose in the presence of very accurate thermostats.)  But if what you're saying is right, then cooking should serve a purpose: it should take less time to eat prepared meals than it takes to eat meals that aren't prepared.

I'm also a little skeptical of the idea that the reason to cook food is because cooked food is more compact.  Yes, cooked food is more nutritionally dense, but only because it contains less water, and water happens to be pretty important too (we get most of our water needs from the food we eat).  So if you're trying to carry less, all cook-and-carry does is make it so you need to carry more water.  (That's not true of basic preparation and cleaning, which sheds the non-edible parts of animals.)

Of course, if what you want to do is carry food in its most nutritionally dense form, your best bet is to just eat it all as soon as it becomes available.  You'll shed the roughage, and transform excess protein and carbohydrates into more calorically dense fat.  The only time you wouldn't want to do that is if you're trying to make the food last longer than your body can maintain stores of protein and vitamins, which is a matter of months, certainly longer than cooked meat would last.  Which is why even territorial animals do exactly that, and a good theory for why humans so frequently become dysfunctionally fat when exposed to plenty.

EDIT:  Cooking tends to reset the bacteria count in a piece of meat-- but there's no bacteria in the muscle of a freshly killed, healthy animal.  So cooking delays composition, but immediately cooking a freshly killed, skinned, healthy animal doesn't do anything.

Jiri: My apologies if I'm hijacking-- it just seems like this is as good of a place as any to talk about exactly how cooking should be handled, even if that isn't in line with your particular recommendations.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Lord Shonus on July 13, 2010, 06:28:34 am
You also would want to carry the food in the densest possible for if you're not teh only one who's going to eat it. If you've got five or six hunters out obtaining food for a village of twenty, you want to maximize how much you can carry back. Generally, settlements were near a water source, but would have to go out and get food.


(Also, a thermostat is completely unnecessary for proper cooking, and can, in fact prevent you from cooking the meat right.)
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Nil Eyeglazed on July 13, 2010, 06:36:57 am
That sounds reasonable to me.  But aren't ancient firepits found most commonly surrounded by other artifacts of civilization?  Pottery and other tools?  And water sources?  Suggesting that cooking isn't something primarily happening in the field, but something happening in the center of communities?

Still, again, if you're right, you've suggested yet another function for cooking in DF: reducing the weight of slain corpses.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Lord Shonus on July 13, 2010, 06:44:00 am
From what I've read of late stone age peoples (including the Amerindians), local kills were cooked at the main camp, but at a mass kill, the animals were butchered and cooked near the food site. This allowed them to discard meat not worth bringing back, and served to keep scavenger species away from the fresh kills.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Jiri Petru on July 13, 2010, 06:57:51 am
Jiri: My apologies if I'm hijacking-- it just seems like this is as good of a place as any to talk about exactly how cooking should be handled, even if that isn't in line with your particular recommendations.

You're not hijacking. We can keep all food-related discussion here, unless someone really wants to make a separate food degradation thread. It's actually pretty interesting. I'm just not adding it to the first post, that's all  ;)

EDIT: Also, I'm not sure what you to are suggesting in the last couple of posts.  :P
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Aquillion on July 13, 2010, 11:11:13 am
One thing that has to be remembered in any modification to the cooking system:

Currently, one of the best parts about the cooking system is that it allows you to combine huge amounts of food together into prepared, preservable stacks, which saves system resources and makes them easier for the game to manage.  Unless actual stacking is added, I would strongly oppose any solution that didn't allow raw food to be processed and combined in some fashion into a large preservable combination stack.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: NW_Kohaku on July 13, 2010, 12:01:36 pm
One thing that has to be remembered in any modification to the cooking system:

Currently, one of the best parts about the cooking system is that it allows you to combine huge amounts of food together into prepared, preservable stacks, which saves system resources and makes them easier for the game to manage.  Unless actual stacking is added, I would strongly oppose any solution that didn't allow raw food to be processed and combined in some fashion into a large preservable combination stack.

Kind of goes against what this thread has been going towards, with the exception of making more food rot would likely reduce the memory load of multiple food items.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Jiri Petru on July 13, 2010, 04:54:40 pm
Wait, why is it against what this thread is going against?  ???
Being able to stack more raw resources in a single square sounds great. I don't know about actual stacking (creating one item from several), Toady seems to have some concerns about the implementation. But faux-stacking (allowing more than 10 items in a barrel, say 20 or even 50) might work too.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: NW_Kohaku on July 13, 2010, 05:38:18 pm
Wait, why is it against what this thread is going against?  ???
Being able to stack more raw resources in a single square sounds great. I don't know about actual stacking (creating one item from several), Toady seems to have some concerns about the implementation. But faux-stacking (allowing more than 10 items in a barrel, say 20 or even 50) might work too.

Well, generally speaking, what this game really does need is actual stacking.  However, by removing the way in which preparing food currently is effectively a way to turn two to four food item stacks into a single food item stack (while also making its trading value skyrocket), this suggestion is going against the idea of creating those taller, indefinitely preservable food stacks by the very fundamental principle of the suggestion.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: loose nut on July 17, 2010, 03:17:20 am
It strikes me that a mature dwarven fort would want to have a granary, basically, filled with one of several granary-appropriate crops like cave wheat, and that would be the main long-term stockpile(s) of food in the fortress. Other crops, meats, extracts that don't keep as long would be added to the staple crops in the meal-serving process. If you don't have stuff to add to your staple crop stockpiles for over a few seasons, it begins to have deleterious effects on your dwarves, weakening them, making them sleep longer, etc. But non-staple crops might not keep for more than a season or several.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: monk12 on August 09, 2010, 01:27:07 am
Your ideas interest me, and I wish to subscribe to your thread or newsletter.



In regards to the topic, I figured I'd throw in my two cents. Warning; written while rather tired!

First, I'll pin down some definitions so folks know what I'm saying.

Raw food is food that is edible immediately after harvesting. Strawberries would be an example of raw food.
Raw ingredients are food items that are not edible. They must be prepared or cooked to be made edible. Raw meat, fish, and grains are common examples of raw ingredients.
Prepared food is raw ingredients that have been made edible. For example, intestines are a raw ingredient, and sausage can be made from fish. Another example, cave wheat is a raw ingredient, which can be made directly into beer or into flour (another type of raw ingredient) and flour can be made into bread, a prepared food.
Cooked food is raw food, ingredients, or prepared foods that have been further prepared through the application of heat or the addition of other raw/prepared ingredients. For example, fish is a raw ingredient. It can be prepared into prepared fish (sashami, I believe), and the addition of rice/seaweed/tofu/whatever would make it cookable into sushi. Or, in the examples the OP is fond of, prepared meats can be combined with potatoes to make a steak and potato meal.
Preserved foods are foods that have been processed in order to slow spoilage, maintain nutritional value, and become storeable for long periods of time.. Smoked meats, jerky, fruit preserves, and so on are preserved foods.

Next, its important to talk about why we prepare and cook things. Prepared foods are easy; if not prepared, the food is useless to the eater. Quality levels do not come into play when discussing prepared food; either it is prepared appropriately and is edible, or it is not. Cooked foods, however, are somewhat different. They are almost entirely value dependent, and improperly cooked foods may in fact become inedible. Cooking is a luxury performed solely for enjoyment, and adds little to the actual value of the meal. Finally, preserved foods are what you get when you have too much food to use while it is fresh. When you butcher a cow, you end up with a bunch of meat, organs, fat, etc. Although you can prepare and eat most of it right off the bat, it is unlikely you'll eat the entire cow before it goes south. Instead, you enjoy your fresh meat while you can and once it begins to spoil you preserve the rest by smoking, curing, etc.

Which brings us to the topic at hand. Mechanically speaking, dwarves should be fine eating raw and prepared foods. Raw food can be had by just picking it up, and prepared food can be produced by existing processes. Butchers automatically cut the inedible bits of nervous tissue out of your roasts when they butcher the whole cow, fish cleaners prepare raw fish, so on and so forth; those bits are already in game. What really gets changed by this suggestion is cooked food and food preservation, and the cooking profession.

What I see happening is that your cook essentially becomes a busier fellow than he currently is. First, if employed he would work in the kitchen until there were some settable number of meals cooked, perhaps defaulting to 5. The cook would then spend the bulk of his time making sure that there was always a cooked meal in the kitchen. Dwarves would prefer cooked meals to raw meals, unless preferences come into play. If there are no cooked meals available, either because the cook is on break, asleep, or nonexistent, then the dwarf would just find a prepared or raw food item as normal. Because cooked meals spoil more quickly than preserved foods, they would be worth less in Dwarfbucks. This loss of value would be compensated by the happy thoughts dwarves get from well crafted meals.
Second, the cook would be in charge of preserving food. Preserving food would fill much the same role that Prepared Meals serve in the game now, in that they are trade goods and space savers. Preserved foods, unlike cooked foods, have no quality levels; they are the skill training "rock blocks" of the culinary world, a task that can be carried out most of the time. Food would go through three stages; fresh, stale, and rotten. Stale food generates a Preserve job at the kitchen automatically. The Preserve job extends the shelf life of food tremendously, and reduces the amount of space that food takes up. Think about it; the baskets of strawberries that make up a few meals are much more compact once they are brought down to jam form, and those delicious hunks of meat need much less space when its made into jerky. The preserve job could also be used to enhance the value of food in some cases, for example when preserving food by curing it with syrup instead of just smoking it. I also foresee a "Dwarves all Preserve" option similar to the "Dwarves all Harvest" option, since especially in small fortresses it is entirely likely that the whole population turns out for food storage in much the same way they all turned out to harvest it in the first place.

By dividing up food this way, you accomplish the goal of making food preparation more realistic as a representation of a luxury good while preserving the existing utility of food preparation in terms of tradeability and space saving. You can get by without an experienced cook preparing meals in addition to preserving foodThe problem of preserved foods being able to buy out caravans because they are the end of a long production chain is slightly mitigated, and is really the concern of general caravan overhauling in the first place.

As regards the whole "Dwarven Nutrition" system, I'd be alright with it if it didn't get much beyond a simplified food pyramid. As in, your dwarves can eat the staff of life (plump helmets, obviously) 6/8 meals, and the other two they seek out a meal of fruit or meat. Inability to get a meal of each type in the course of the meal would give a mild unhappy thought, which gets worse and maybe has physical impacts after a few years of buildup. Basically, just enough to encourage diversification of foodstuffs without getting into tracking nutritional supplements and vitamin deficiencies yourself. I would not want to see this implemented before fruit trees get working so that dwarves have a more reliable source of the three food groups.


So far as that little aside at the end there, nomadic cultures who make a big kill first prepare the meat in order to get rid of the useless stuff so they can bring what they need back to the tribe; from there, the prepared meat is eaten in a big happy feast before everybody sets to work preserving it so they last until the next kill. This is one of the reasons that I declared my definitions at the beginning of the post, since what they did we'd likely just call cooking.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: TolyK on November 06, 2010, 11:03:52 am
+1 to all the above. epic.

note: this will get a bit off-topic.
the question now is whether we should have the outer world also getting stuff done/made (only much more simplified) or keep it auto-genned like it is now. if the former, then this stuff should apply to them too.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Zrk2 on November 06, 2010, 07:43:16 pm
I think a simple answer to this would be to redesign how the "cook" labour works. Before the economy you could just build a "restaurant" and a cook could owrk at it and make a meal for anyone who comes to get one. After the economy comes in the restaurant could be owned by someone else and it would cost quite a bit to buy a meal. But to counteract this you could also have "food stalls" which are just like the normal shops only you could buy raw food there and then eat it in the dining hall.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Nilsou on August 01, 2017, 08:58:45 am
Hi,
Just want to up this old suggestion as i was writing exactly the same thing before i try searching for existing suggestion.

I think the first post is a good point for begenning a change in the food system. Also i want to add that Farming field should be entirely redone to ensure a good difficulty level and plausibility.
In real life you have to have a good layer of organic before being able to plant something. As DF now manage the fall of flowers/leaf it could be easy to extend this system to manage the appearance or "disapearance" of  loam tiles. By disapearance i mean transformation into sterile tile of course, not making void :p .

Of course, a part of this system exist with the implementation of the necessity of bringing mud on floor when you want to create subterran farm. But mud stick on floor infinitly even if your plantation, in real life, will not be able to recreate enough organic layer to save you for bringing new mud. This is notably the case in mushroom culture in underground carry in real life (there are a lot around my place, so i am very familiar with this topic ^^ )

One other thing is the yield of farm in the game, which is far too much important considering thec flow of time in dwarf and the dwarf eating. Here, few tile can bring enough food in your fortress to feed a lot of dwarf...
Maybe it could be "solved" simply by upgrading the quantity dwarf have to eat each time (and not the frequency) to a better/bigger number...

Well, just some idea for improving this suggestion ;)

Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 02, 2017, 12:05:34 am
Wow, this thread brings me back...

Hi,
Just want to up this old suggestion as i was writing exactly the same thing before i try searching for existing suggestion.

I think the first post is a good point for begenning a change in the food system. Also i want to add that Farming field should be entirely redone to ensure a good difficulty level and plausibility.
In real life you have to have a good layer of organic before being able to plant something. As DF now manage the fall of flowers/leaf it could be easy to extend this system to manage the appearance or "disapearance" of  loam tiles. By disapearance i mean transformation into sterile tile of course, not making void :p .

Of course, a part of this system exist with the implementation of the necessity of bringing mud on floor when you want to create subterran farm. But mud stick on floor infinitly even if your plantation, in real life, will not be able to recreate enough organic layer to save you for bringing new mud. This is notably the case in mushroom culture in underground carry in real life (there are a lot around my place, so i am very familiar with this topic ^^ )

One other thing is the yield of farm in the game, which is far too much important considering thec flow of time in dwarf and the dwarf eating. Here, few tile can bring enough food in your fortress to feed a lot of dwarf...
Maybe it could be "solved" simply by upgrading the quantity dwarf have to eat each time (and not the frequency) to a better/bigger number...

Well, just some idea for improving this suggestion ;)

Speaking of keeping older threads alive, have you seen The Improved Farming Rebooted Thread (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=76007.0)?  It's a rather exhaustive look at exactly the problem you mention, brought about as the fruit of a tremendous amount of discussion on the subject.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Nilsou on August 02, 2017, 09:16:55 am
Didn't seen it but i think the regulation of Hunger should be the priority because why making a better, complex farming if your fortress cas survivre with picking two random stack of fruit every month or with crappy farm field, even with a complex faming system, the badest farming field should be sufficient to feed dwarf with the current food consumtion of dwarves.

So it could be a better option to
First : making Dwarves food consumption more credible.
Second : Complexify the farming system to more real life like.

I really think the two have to come together to be usefull.
However, it could be really complex to modelize, even roughly, interaction that lead to degradation or not degradation of organic matters to good soil...
Maybe it could be done by simply suppose that leaf (and other things) degradation are faster on good soil and very very slow on bad soil, that it depends on presence of water or not.

But the major problem in this point of agriculture (and forestry) is that DF lack of a good simulation of "layers" that are smaller than one tiles. You have the water system, that subdivise tiles in seven, but it does the work poorly and have a problem of lisibility if it comes to superpose differents layers on tiles. Of course, a temporary solution is the one used by toady for the new tree system : use the tile system to represent layers, even if you change scale a little in comparaison to the dwarf fortress past. But if it works with big tress, large root system and one or two layer of "good soil", it may fail poorly to represent superposition of two or three small layers that have NOT the height of a "wall" :p

I don't imagine a good solution to the problem, even an ad-hoc one, without a more subtle gestion of subdivision in tiles. (note that this pack with other problem like representation of big or high creatures etc..)...

So well, i think all of this come to another suggestion that have to come first :p
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 02, 2017, 04:12:54 pm
Didn't seen it but i think the regulation of Hunger should be the priority because why making a better, complex farming if your fortress cas survivre with picking two random stack of fruit every month or with crappy farm field, even with a complex faming system, the badest farming field should be sufficient to feed dwarf with the current food consumtion of dwarves.

So it could be a better option to
First : making Dwarves food consumption more credible.
Second : Complexify the farming system to more real life like.

I really think the two have to come together to be usefull.
However, it could be really complex to modelize, even roughly, interaction that lead to degradation or not degradation of organic matters to good soil...
Maybe it could be done by simply suppose that leaf (and other things) degradation are faster on good soil and very very slow on bad soil, that it depends on presence of water or not.

But the major problem in this point of agriculture (and forestry) is that DF lack of a good simulation of "layers" that are smaller than one tiles. You have the water system, that subdivise tiles in seven, but it does the work poorly and have a problem of lisibility if it comes to superpose differents layers on tiles. Of course, a temporary solution is the one used by toady for the new tree system : use the tile system to represent layers, even if you change scale a little in comparaison to the dwarf fortress past. But if it works with big tress, large root system and one or two layer of "good soil", it may fail poorly to represent superposition of two or three small layers that have NOT the height of a "wall" :p

I don't imagine a good solution to the problem, even an ad-hoc one, without a more subtle gestion of subdivision in tiles. (note that this pack with other problem like representation of big or high creatures etc..)...

So well, i think all of this come to another suggestion that have to come first :p

With regards to the soil qualities in the Improved Farming suggestion, I basically suggest treating the topsoil as a sort of contaminant, not terribly unlike the way that grass is treated, currently.  It's not actually a part of the soil "wall" tile making up the ground, it's an item sitting on the "floor" tile above the "wall" of soil. 

This actually makes a fair deal of sense, as even loamy soil isn't what plants really need to survive, but the carbon-rich topsoil, which even in rich farming land is only an inch or two deep, so it wouldn't make sense to keep it a tile or even a fraction of one.  Topsoil depth is one of the major variables for the NPK+ system I back in that thread, so it needs to be maintained to keep most plants growing.  (Barring "ground cover" plants that specifically live in barren soil and repair it, of course...)

And beyond that, yes, both factors need to be covered.  So far as food goes, the game is ludicrously unbalanced, since you can easily bring a mating pair of geese with you to embark, and feed your entire fortress entirely on eggs for the rest of the game without ever touching the farming mechanics.  Cows need large pastures to be fed and need manual milking to produce milk, but you can easily ranch large predators that need no food and produce far more meat. 

Toady has simply been working in a piecemeal way, introducing systems that will all eventually add up to something that makes sense and works, but because only half the features are there, it creates an odd and disjointed system, at least in the moment, but it's not like it's wrong try working towards it one piece at a time.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Nilsou on August 02, 2017, 04:53:59 pm
I'm pretty OK with your point, the default with using the contaminant system is that it prevent you for have "leaf that recover leaf" whcih is fairly important to degrade organic matters. But it could be possible by tuning the degradation law if you have access to the age of leaf (state of degradation) so it's fine, finally ^^.

Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Nilsou on August 02, 2017, 04:59:40 pm
For the Toady organisation of work, you're true. Personally i have nothing to blame as i work in the same way. But it could lead to infinite problem popping if you create "perfect sub-system" that is finally perfect in its branch but that just not fit at all because it fit bad with others branch. It's like making a gigantic tower in lego with platinium pieces designed all in once with no plan, no little model etc...
With infinite amount of time you eventually succeed,  but you lose a looooot of pieces designed with love for YEARS in the process, when you have to throw "defectuous idea" just because you forget a little thing that make the piece obsolete.

It's the problem with this approach...

But as i said, i have the same, sooooo :p
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Tristan Alkai on August 02, 2017, 10:37:42 pm
While the thread is near the top, I have been looking at the problem from a slightly lower level. 

Jiri Petrew has covered the economics and specialization of cooking well enough that I do not feel the need to add much, beyond my own personal preference for the “communal cooking” mess hall option (although that might have something to do with the fact that, under the current interface, it is really the only workable one).  I will focus instead on recipes and reactions: more details on the many possible methods of preservation that would probably be available at the tech level of Dwarf Fortress, and more detailed descriptions of the individual prepared meals, along with how to implement the reactions to make all of them.  This will be a long one, so I will use spoiler tags to condense it into manageable sections. 

Further reading: Cooking techniques other than “mincing” (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=20434.0) and A Gastronomic Adventure Into DF (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=147117.0). 

Many preservation techniques call for fermentation, which is much closer to real life with the option of long term unattended reactions (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=139552.0). 

To start off, I will review the methods of preserving food, gathering as many as possible into one place for later reference. 

Food Types
To avoid confusion, here is a list of food types, to clarify terms used in subsequent sections. 

Plants cluster:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Meat cluster:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Preservation methods
There are a lot of different options for preserving food.  Each option works better on some food types than others. 

0. Whole livestock: “Keep the animal alive, so its own immune system keeps the meat fresh, and butcher it just before eating.” 
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Cooling Series
Most food items spoil more quickly while warm.  Therefore, storing food in a place that is reliably less warm will make it last longer. 
> The game apparently does track temperature and heat flow, but it does not display this information to the player.  Proper implementation of cooling as a preservation method will require this information to be displayed, so cold rooms can be positioned and designed correctly. 

1. Root cellars: “Store food away from the heat of the day.  With a bit more work, it can even be kept away from the heat of the summer.” 
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

2. Ice box: “Store the food in a box with ice at the top, which will keep it colder.” 
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

3. Evaporative refrigerator: “Humans sweat to cool off, and a porous container can leak to similar effect.” 
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Drying Series
As a rule, dried goods are both lighter and smaller than they were moist.  The catch is that moist food can provide a substantial amount of water in the overall diet, and if food is consumed dry then the removed water will need to be drunk directly.  In other words, eating dry food seems likely to increase thirst. 
> The math also works if eating moist food reduces thirst, while dry food does not, but making dry food increase thirst should reduce walking by prompting a need to drink shortly after eating; normal design will helpfully put drinks near the usual eating spots. 
> Drying is an IMPROVEMENT reaction that significantly changes the properties of the improved item.  Both the base item being improved and the exact improving reagent are significant, and should be tracked in the finished product.  Compare dye and glaze, which also display both of these behaviors. 

4. Sun drying: “Simply leave the food exposed to sun and wind to allow the moisture to be carried off.” 
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

5. Smoking: “Dry the food over a fire.  The coating of smoke helps too.” 
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

6. Salt curing: “Add salt to draw water out of the food by osmosis.” 
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

7. Sugar curing: “Add sugar to draw water out of the food by osmosis.” 
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Pickling Series
Food is stored under a “pickling liquid,” which slows or prevents spoiling and often provides an environment for the food to ferment somewhat, changing its flavor and texture.  All pickled products will need to be stored in water-tight containers. 
> The pickling series was items 8-14.  I ran out of space in this post (limit 40,000 characters), and decided that the pickling series should be kept together. 
> Several pickling liquids are possible, and each works best with a certain range of foods.  I identified seven segments, and ten reactions.  Details in a future post. 

Others

15. Potted meat: Meat is cooked (boiled or similar), then a layer of molten fat is poured over it.  The fat is a type that is solid at room temperature, and after it hardens it forms an airtight barrier. 
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

16. Sausage: Animal intestine is used as a casing for other food items.  I assume that the standard sausage of DF will be cooked and smoked before storing, and thus have a relatively long shelf life. 
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 03, 2017, 01:13:21 am
Jiri Petrew has covered the economics and specialization of cooking well enough that I do not feel the need to add much, beyond my own personal preference for the “communal cooking” mess hall option (although that might have something to do with the fact that, under the current interface, it is really the only workable one).   

Additionally, the introduction of taverns really pushes the idea of communal dining forwards.  It makes far more sense to have a few cauldrons of stew, (mystery) meat pies, and kegs of various fermented things on tap in a big legendary mead dining hall, especially now that we have taverns and all the associated entertainment options they present implemented.

2. Ice box: “Store the food in a box with ice at the top, which will keep it colder.” 
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Keep in mind, the nethercap is a perfectly-efficient, zero-maintenance, wholly renewable green (anti-)energy source.  Nethercap wood (even after processing) keeps everything nearby at ice-cold levels. (Literally 0 centigrade) It wouldn't be hard to mitigate the effect of a nethercap wood "freezer" by driving it as a stake into the ground to take advantage of the massive heat-absorbing capacity of layer stone, and as such raise the temperature of things you don't want actually frozen to mere "cold" levels like 5 centigrade.  Even in giant refrigeration rooms, just having a few planks of nethercap wood lying around in a big, reasonably sealed room is all it takes to keep the whole cavern at near-freezing.

The mere existence of nethercap makes any more complicated system like this ice water system you describe a lot of coding for an already-obsolete system. Nethercaps appear in infinite supply in any game that has access to caverns (at least 2 of them unless you mod nethercaps to be shallower).  There's really little reason to bother coding what it takes to make more complex systems when nethercaps are so obviously superior to any other solution, and will always be available to any player who digs deep enough (just like magma).
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Nilsou on August 03, 2017, 02:50:42 am
For eggs, you can note that preservations technik exist, there are just not common in "west". For example in Asia, eggs are buried to let fermentation process do their trick.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_egg

Note that all the ingredient are available in the early game and that it seems to be "easy" to implement.

In the same way, for plants you have only cite west common technik, Japan conserve a lot of leaf/floyer type in salt. Which work well.

We can also notice that dwarves have, in fact, technique to make glass can. (they master in glass making and metals so...)

In the same way, Fish can be conserve like "Garrum" (Roman like) or Nioc Mam (same thing, asia like) sauce. Which is the more common method to conserve fish.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 03, 2017, 01:24:05 pm
1. Root cellars: “Store food away from the heat of the day.  With a bit more work, it can even be kept away from the heat of the summer.” 
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Oh, and I might as well mention this as well...

At least in the current game, all tiles marked "underground" have the same temperature.  (IIRC, 7 centigrade.) It doesn't matter if you're 10 feet below the surface of arctic tundra or blasted desert, much less daily fluctuations of temperature, it's the same hard-coded temperature unless it's near magma or nethercap or something else that forces temperature changes.  You can replace the idea of a "root cellar" with literally any underground storage area (which would, by extension, be any storage area not created by people explicitly doing aboveground "challenge" fortresses).

If you would want something different, it would take explicitly asking for a change in the game's mechanics.  (Likewise, using nethercap wood to keep things cool only keeps things in the same tile at 0 centigrade, and that has no impact on the temperature even a single tile away.)
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Tristan Alkai on August 03, 2017, 02:29:17 pm
Okay then, replies and more details. 

For eggs, you can note that preservations technik exist, there are just not common in "west". For example in Asia, eggs are buried to let fermentation process do their trick.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_egg

Note that all the ingredients are available in the early game and that it seems to be "easy" to implement.

In the same way, for plants you have only cite west common technik, Japan conserve a lot of leaf/floyer type in salt. Which work well.

We can also notice that dwarves have, in fact, technique to make glass can. (they master in glass making and metals so...)

In the same way, Fish can be conserve like "Garrum" (Roman like) or Nioc Mam (same thing, asia like) sauce. Which is the more common method to conserve fish.

A lot of this was in the pickling section that got cut for space.  I did try to draw attention to its absence. 
Pickling Series
(...)
The pickling series was items 8-14
This line was bold for a reason!  On the other hand, I do admit to focusing mostly on the techniques I am familiar with, which means western Europe. 

My notes also include a dairy products section, but I knew it wouldn’t fit even before I had to cut the pickling section. 

2. Ice box: “Store the food in a box with ice at the top, which will keep it colder.” 
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Keep in mind, the nethercap is a perfectly-efficient, zero-maintenance, wholly renewable green (anti-)energy source.  Nethercap wood (even after processing) keeps everything nearby at ice-cold levels. (Literally 0 centigrade) It wouldn't be hard to mitigate the effect of a nethercap wood "freezer" by driving it as a stake into the ground to take advantage of the massive heat-absorbing capacity of layer stone, and as such raise the temperature of things you don't want actually frozen to mere "cold" levels like 5 centigrade.  Even in giant refrigeration rooms, just having a few planks of nethercap wood lying around in a big, reasonably sealed room is all it takes to keep the whole cavern at near-freezing.

The mere existence of nethercap makes any more complicated system like this ice water system you describe a lot of coding for an already-obsolete system. Nethercaps appear in infinite supply in any game that has access to caverns (at least 2 of them unless you mod nethercaps to be shallower).  There's really little reason to bother coding what it takes to make more complex systems when nethercaps are so obviously superior to any other solution, and will always be available to any player who digs deep enough (just like magma).

Two replies here:

1. Inferior =/= Obsolete: In worldgen, even most dwarves don’t dig deep enough to get nether-cap (which is why it doesn’t show up in caravan inventory or the embark screen), let alone humans.  Even if the nether-cap version is obviously superior for fortress mode, the ice version should still be relevant to the cities that an adventurer wanders through.  On a related note, people in the world would know about snow and ice, but I don’t see how they could know about nether-cap, so why would they think to dig for it? 

2. Secondary freezing and melting effects: With heat of fusion properly modeled, ponds and rivers will freeze slowly and from the top, not instantaneously and all the way through.  This means that frozen murky pools are no longer impromptu drowning traps, and avoids the adventure mode YASD of swimming to boost stats when the pool freezes without warning.  The icebox can wait; I want realistic slow freezing and thawing so temperate climates are safe.  Thinner ice also allows tricks like ice fishing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_fishing).  With fishermen tracking the ice, even thin ice does not present nearly as much drowning hazard as instant complete melting does now. 

1. Root cellars: “Store food away from the heat of the day.  With a bit more work, it can even be kept away from the heat of the summer.” 
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Oh, and I might as well mention this as well...

At least in the current game, all tiles marked "underground" have the same temperature.  (IIRC, 7 centigrade.) It doesn't matter if you're 10 feet below the surface of arctic tundra or blasted desert, much less daily fluctuations of temperature, it's the same hard-coded temperature unless it's near magma or nethercap or something else that forces temperature changes.  You can replace the idea of a "root cellar" with literally any underground storage area (which would, by extension, be any storage area not created by people explicitly doing aboveground "challenge" fortresses).

If you would want something different, it would take explicitly asking for a change in the game's mechanics.  (Likewise, using nethercap wood to keep things cool only keeps things in the same tile at 0 centigrade, and that has no impact on the temperature even a single tile away.)

Huh.  So that's why digging down to magma is such a massive undertaking on Earth but routine in DF. 

I can wait for a change in that mechanic.  Heat transfer is still tracked somewhere, so modifying the interface to display it in Look{k} mode should be a quick tweak.  Since most of the underground is a single fixed temperature, exceptions are always significant.  Meanwhile, allowing us to directly see the temperature outside is the start of a weather-based civilian alert (too hot or too cold for people to live long). 

With those comments made, on to the pickling series:

Pickling Series
Food is stored under a “pickling liquid,” which slows or prevents spoiling and often provides an environment for the food to ferment somewhat, changing its flavor and texture.  All pickled products will need to be stored in water-tight containers. 
> Like drying, pickling is an IMPROVEMENT reaction that needs to track both the improved item and the reagent used to improve it. 
> In biochemical terms (which is not the same as programming terms), pickling processes largely collapse into two broad categories: in “chemical pickling,” the active ingredient directly inhibits problematic microbes (possibly assisted by boiling and airtight containers).  In fermentation pickling, the pickling liquid fosters microbes which leave the food in an edible state after they are done processing it. 
> Pickling involves several distinct chemical processes, and there might need to be a list of REACTION_CLASS tokens to reflect this (both the processes that work well for this food item and the process that this liquid can provide).  Each reaction token (except lye and maybe brine) has several options that should qualify.  This hierarchy also applies to smoking and sugar curing, and possibly to salt curing as well (sea salt and rock salt in that case). 
> Some processes produce a slurry or paste (jam and soy sauce, for example), but if the food remains relatively intact, so it can be removed from the container separately from the pickling liquid, it may be possible to re-use the pickling liquid.  Sometimes this will require removing surplus water. 
> Many pickling recipes also call for secondary spices or herbs as supplemental preservatives, or simply for flavor.  Examples include ginger, garlic, cloves, and cinnamon (cucumbers are frequently pickled with brine as the main agent and dill as an additional spice). 
> Some pickle recipes also call for more than one type of food (counted separately from spices) to ferment in the same container, so pickle recipes can approach the complexity of some stews. 
> In general, most pickling reactions probably shouldn’t take much skill; exceptions will be mentioned as they come up.  Adding secondary spices and preservatives may pull in Cooking skill. 

8. Jam: “Fruit is preserved by sugar (or syrup) and partial drying.” 
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

9. Brine: Similar to salt curing, brine pickling draws water out of the food and any microbes that might rot it. 
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

10. Syrup: Syrup pickling draws water out of the food and any microbes that might rot it, similar to salt curing, sugar curing, and brine pickling. 
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

11. Alcohol: Alcohol is toxic to most microbes. 
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

12. Vinegar: Vinegar is not implemented in the game yet, but in practical terms should be fairly easy to produce, both at the intended technology level and within the game’s code. 
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

13. Lye: While the use of lye to preserve food is not common, it does work: the high pH inhibits microbes, similar to the low pH given by vinegar. 
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

14. Vegetable Oil: Certain oils do have anti-microbe properties (olive oil was mentioned in particular), and most exclude oxygen from the food to be preserved more effectively than a water-based solution would. 
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Summary: There are at least six pickling liquids, and at least 10 relevant reactions. 
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 03, 2017, 03:25:50 pm
Two replies here:

1. Inferior =/= Obsolete: In worldgen, even most dwarves don’t dig deep enough to get nether-cap (which is why it doesn’t show up in caravan inventory or the embark screen), let alone humans.  Even if the nether-cap version is obviously superior for fortress mode, the ice version should still be relevant to the cities that an adventurer wanders through.  On a related note, people in the world would know about snow and ice, but I don’t see how they could know about nether-cap, so why would they think to dig for it? 

2. Secondary freezing and melting effects: With heat of fusion properly modeled, ponds and rivers will freeze slowly and from the top, not instantaneously and all the way through.  This means that frozen murky pools are no longer impromptu drowning traps, and avoids the adventure mode YASD of swimming to boost stats when the pool freezes without warning.  The icebox can wait; I want realistic slow freezing and thawing so temperate climates are safe.  Thinner ice also allows tricks like ice fishing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_fishing).  With fishermen tracking the ice, even thin ice does not present nearly as much drowning hazard as instant complete melting does now. 

It's one thing to propose slower freezing mechanics (which I'm sure Toady wants to get around to, anyway), as a mechanism for realism and not having a YASD because the temperature magically freezes your adventurer in carbonite ice, but it's another to propose a complex system of deliberate creation of a building that requires the AI to understand melting and keep replenishing ice to meet its preservation needs, but which would almost never actually be done by players because it's instantly obsolete.

Yes, worldgen characters don't have access to nethercaps, but for that argument to matter, you have to be saying that worldgen humans DO create freezer lockers out of mined-out lake ice transported by caravan to their desert cities... and that's kind of a tall ask, especially since this kind of thing is beyond the tech cutoff date. 

It's not like freezing preservation methods are necessary, as you have already listed a rather exhaustive list of alternatives.  Freezing exists mainly for preserving meats (that you didn't butcher then eat right away instead of shipping the full animal, as you already said they should do) or fruits (that you can also preserve by making into jam). 

If the mechanics by which making something like a freezer room become possible through more advanced thermodynamic mechanics somewhere further down the road, that would be fine as emergent gameplay behavior that exist within the player's realm of normal behavior, but much like pump stacks and Boatmurdering, it's not something that you should expect worldgen to do. 

At best, all you should be asking for is a heat variable for rotting, which would be a much simpler way for the root cellar mechanic and the nethercap freezer mechanic to be implemented.  It could hypothetically allow for that same ice room freezer, as well, once melting isn't instantaneous. 

Generally, I think it would be best to start thinking in terms of actual player interaction with these things, and the actual mechanics they demand.  A giant list of possible preservation methods is nice, but you just need to work out what, exactly, a player is doing with all these things.  If we have a smoking house for making dried meats with a little salt and some fire, why not just make jam the same thing with a container and some extra sugar, so that it's done using the same mechanics and workshop, and not utterly overwhelm the player with 800 new food workshops, for example.  Many of these list members could basically be streamlined into a just different names placed upon the same mechanics with differing reagents.  (Making food processing jobs that just mean fish takes salt to preserve, fruit takes sugar (made from processed sweet pods or sugar cane or sugar beets) and a container and heat to preserve, pickling takes a vegetable (or egg or other picklable) and a container and vinegar to preserve...)
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: StagnantSoul on August 04, 2017, 12:23:41 am
Came to throw tomatoes, left wanting to cook tomatoes.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Tristan Alkai on August 04, 2017, 04:02:05 pm
Two replies here:

1. Inferior =/= Obsolete: In worldgen, even most dwarves don’t dig deep enough to get nether-cap (which is why it doesn’t show up in caravan inventory or the embark screen), let alone humans.  Even if the nether-cap version is obviously superior for fortress mode, the ice version should still be relevant to the cities that an adventurer wanders through.  On a related note, people in the world would know about snow and ice, but I don’t see how they could know about nether-cap, so why would they think to dig for it? 

2. Secondary freezing and melting effects: With heat of fusion properly modeled, ponds and rivers will freeze slowly and from the top, not instantaneously and all the way through.  This means that frozen murky pools are no longer impromptu drowning traps, and avoids the adventure mode YASD of swimming to boost stats when the pool freezes without warning.  The icebox can wait; I want realistic slow freezing and thawing so temperate climates are safe.  Thinner ice also allows tricks like ice fishing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_fishing).  With fishermen tracking the ice, even thin ice does not present nearly as much drowning hazard as instant complete melting does now. 

It's one thing to propose slower freezing mechanics (which I'm sure Toady wants to get around to, anyway), as a mechanism for realism and not having a YASD because the temperature magically freezes your adventurer in carbonite ice, but it's another to propose a complex system of deliberate creation of a building that requires the AI to understand melting and keep replenishing ice to meet its preservation needs, but which would almost never actually be done by players because it's instantly obsolete.

Yes, worldgen characters don't have access to nethercaps, but for that argument to matter, you have to be saying that worldgen humans DO create freezer lockers out of mined-out lake ice transported by caravan to their desert cities... and that's kind of a tall ask, especially since this kind of thing is beyond the tech cutoff date. 

It's not like freezing preservation methods are necessary, as you have already listed a rather exhaustive list of alternatives.  Freezing exists mainly for preserving meats (that you didn't butcher then eat right away instead of shipping the full animal, as you already said they should do) or fruits (that you can also preserve by making into jam). 

If the mechanics by which making something like a freezer room become possible through more advanced thermodynamic mechanics somewhere further down the road, that would be fine as emergent gameplay behavior that exist within the player's realm of normal behavior, but much like pump stacks and Boatmurdering, it's not something that you should expect worldgen to do. 

At best, all you should be asking for is a heat variable for rotting, which would be a much simpler way for the root cellar mechanic and the nethercap freezer mechanic to be implemented.  It could hypothetically allow for that same ice room freezer, as well, once melting isn't instantaneous. 

Generally, I think it would be best to start thinking in terms of actual player interaction with these things, and the actual mechanics they demand.  A giant list of possible preservation methods is nice, but you just need to work out what, exactly, a player is doing with all these things.  If we have a smoking house for making dried meats with a little salt and some fire, why not just make jam the same thing with a container and some extra sugar, so that it's done using the same mechanics and workshop, and not utterly overwhelm the player with 800 new food workshops, for example.  Many of these list members could basically be streamlined into a just different names placed upon the same mechanics with differing reagents.  (Making food processing jobs that just mean fish takes salt to preserve, fruit takes sugar (made from processed sweet pods or sugar cane or sugar beets) and a container and heat to preserve, pickling takes a vegetable (or egg or other picklable) and a container and vinegar to preserve...)

1. Instantly obsolete: I have to disagree with the “would never be done by players” part.  I know I don’t speak for everyone, but I routinely take a game year or more to build infrastructure and defenses before I even start looking for the first cavern, let alone breach the third. 
> Nether-cap only makes ice obsolete after it becomes available, and that takes a specific and deliberate effort.  I originally pulled in NPCs in adventure mode for this, but I will concede the point of adventurers not interacting enough with the building to make it worthwhile.  That just leaves my own habits, and my assumption that I am not alone. 
> I personally am not part of the group that would think “nether-cap is an exploit, but ice is acceptable,” but I assume there is one. 
> I do yield the point about pickling making ice redundant. 

2. Hauling ice: The icehouse does not always require hauling ice long distances.  If the site gets snow during the winter, it can be gathered locally, hopefully enough of it so some will last trough the summer.  Unfortunately, that part will require re-working how the “clean” function works.  Lake and river ice can be implemented faster, preferably with a check to make sure mined ice drops a boulder from every mined wall (partial thickness of ice over water may need to be taken into account). 
> This was why I specifically mentioned that the icehouse does not require a desert climate to work (evaporative refrigerator, part C (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=60681.msg7526243#msg7526243)).  Evaporative cooling helps, but the important part of that design is using the melted water for counter-current heat exchange with incoming air. 

3. A tall task: Hauling ice is a challenge, but an aqueduct (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aqueduct_(water_supply)) is not much easier, and lots of RL civilizations built those. 
> The qanat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qanat) variant is even harder than the regular aqueduct, but sometimes they were still the most practical way to move water to cities. 
> Water is a major cause of erosion in natural environments, so aqueducts will also require periodic inspection and maintenance.  Qanats often suffered from sediment deposition. 
> The relevant point is not tech, but how big a resource and labor base the engineer has available.  Hauling ice just requires good roads (or good sleds) for fast travel, and not too many stops along the way. 

In other news, the wagon is listed as having a “trade capacity” of 15,000.  This appears to be in kilograms, so one wagon can hold several tons.  Setting aside 1,000 units for insulation, the remaining 14,000 units of ice will take quite some time to melt (at least several days, possibly weeks).  Running at adventure mode speeds, the wagon should be able to cover several world tiles without losing too much ice to melting. 
> Depending on what else the caravan is doing, another option is carrying two wagons of ice, travel until both are half-full, and combine the two 7,000 loads into a single 14,000 load.  Loop as necessary. 

4. Player interactions: I did try to cover this in the pickling section and the cooling section.  I have edited the drying section to add similar notes. 
> I never expected a large number of new workshops.  Most of the work would happen at the existing Butcher shop, Fishery, Kitchen, and Farmer’s shop, and maybe some help from the Still.  The only part that really requires a new building is sun drying.  Smoking is a maybe. 
(Edit)> There would not be a large number of existing reactions, either.  It would be along the lines of
> There would not be a large number of new reactions, either.  There would be some, but they would be along the lines of the existing broad wildcard reactions: “smoke meat,” for example, does not need to be more detailed than the current “brew plant,” “brew fruit,” and “mill plants” reactions.  Even pickling is not much worse than glazing: there is an item to be glazed (or pickled), an item that becomes the glaze (or the pickling liquid), and fuel (pickling requires a water-tight container).  More complicated pickling recipes (adding spices) are entirely optional, and only players that care about it need to bother. 
> I estimate about a dozen new reactions (give or take a factor of two, depending on what gets lumped, what gets split, and which ideas don’t get implemented), spread across several different workshops.  That number is large by the standards of current food processing, but the Carpenter and Mason shops both have long lists of items they can make, let alone the craftsdwarf’s shop and glass furnace.  Interface complications from adding basic food preservation (not worrying about supplemental spices) would be, at worst, about even with current furniture production: there are a few reactions that are self-explanatory, and which almost everyone uses very frequently, plus a much longer list of more exotic options that are called for in certain circumstances. 
> Smoking does not merge with jam because they expect different things from the fire.  Jam uses the heat, and can be done indoors.  Smoking, naturally, produces a lot of smoke, and not all of it sticks to the smoked food; as a result, it is much safer in an isolated smokehouse, or at least outdoors.  (/Edit) I personally keep the butcher shop outside to avoid miasma, and smoke would be dispersed the same way, so a smokehouse is not inherently required. 

5. AI issues: I assume that some shops also deal in imported goods, regularly or exclusively?  Failing that, the economy arc will have to add that sort of functionality at some point.  That should give most of the code to keep the icehouse building supplied. 
> The version where snow is harvested locally during the winter and stored for the summer is even easier for NPC logistics.  The only tricky part is estimating demand (and loss, but compare food losses to rot and vermin) to allow a year supply or more.  Realistic crop growing times (the current times are way too fast) should have similar issues, leaving the unusual harvest time as the only remaining issue.
> Even the version where ice does need to be hauled can borrow to some degree from trade network logic once that is up and running (economy arc). 
> New code would be, at most, logic for workers to leave the map to harvest a specific resource from the wilderness.  There are other uses for such an ability (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=164642.msg7527170#msg7527170), both in world gen and in fortress mode.  I think I can safely assume that this ability will be in place by the end of the economy arc, whenever that happens. 
> With all of that logic up and running, all that’s left is defining the icehouse and ice closet as buildings that sites can contain.  It is within the cutoff date for technology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qanat#Ice_storage), although it probably does require a fairly large empire to pull off.  Medieval Europe did not have those, but Rome and Persia qualify. 
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 04, 2017, 10:51:31 pm
[...]

So far as worldgen goes, I'm specifically questioning whether ice houses are period-appropriate, or whether they're anachronistic. Yes, there may be (much) more labor going into an aquaduct than one convoy of ice, but your aquaduct doesn't melt in a week, and they could build it over the course of years.  Roman aquaducts still exist in places, and if they were putting those up on a daily basis, Europe would be floating away. 

Ice boxes and ice houses, to the best of my knowledge, didn't really become anything beyond a novelty for kings until after the invention of trains, because it takes tremendous amounts of labor to get 7 tonnes of ice carved, then loaded onto a 7.5 tonne "wagon" and sent hundreds of kilometers away.  And that's labor that needs to be supplied fairly continuously (at least, throughout the winter), which wouldn't have been terribly feasible to do on a large scale with serfs that generally didn't leave their hamlets in their whole lives, since they need to actually have a large farming community already in the area where you're harvesting ice. (I.E. a big lake.)  Ice houses didn't really take off until after the industrial revolution freed up more labor and created better forms of transportation.  (It also takes specific tools to cut tons of ice in a hurry.   They made ice-cutting saws -steam-powered ones- for that job. That takes past-the-cutoff-date commonly produced Bessemer steel to make common steel tools that won't break carving 1-ton slabs of ice economically feasible.)

As far as it goes for players, I think it comes down to the value of eggs or vegetables versus milk or honey in the current implementation of the game.  Eggs are easy, and can easily feed a whole fortress with minimal effort, and farmed crops are self-sustaining once set up, while milk requires constantly punching the button to milk the cows again and again every few game months, and beehives take forever to get up to the point where they provide even a tiny trickle of food.  If nethercap is going to be easier to set up, I don't see many people spending more effort to set up an ice house that will require continuous maintenance. 

Also on the same front is the fact that for anyone to even WANT to stuff their beef in the freezer, then jerky, pickles, and jam need to be made into somehow inferior foods.  After all, if I can preserve my fruit near-indefinitely as candied fruits or jam, my vegetables as pickles, my grain as just flat-out grain, and my meat as jerky, and all foods are totally equal, why should I bother with an ice house in the first place? (Especially if those other options are built on existing workshops I'll already have, while the ice house requires snow/ice collection labors and storage facilities.)

That said, if it is possible using the same general sets of rules as we're already going to get, that's fine, but again, I think it's more of the sort of thing that should be an emergent gameplay consequence of better rules regarding thermodynamics than an actual explicit gameplay feature that the game will demand you do (to the point of having AI routines just to understand what an icehouse is and how to maintain it), in much the same way that pump stacks, dwarven perpetual motion devices, and minecart shotguns are just emergent gameplay consequences of the rules of the game, rather than the explicit way the game expects you to play.
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: CLF3FTW on August 05, 2017, 11:38:10 am
If foods will become perishable, could we have temperature affect their shelf life? Seems like a great use for nether wart and glaciers and could be a window to an ice trade in the future (historically ice could be transported a fair distance in insulated containers), and you would want to store different things in different areas (you would put fruits, vegetables, and unpreserved meats underground where it's cold, while you'd put grains and salted meats outside in dry climates or on warm stone to keep them dry).
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Tristan Alkai on August 08, 2017, 10:26:19 pm
[...]

So far as worldgen goes, I'm specifically questioning whether ice houses are period-appropriate, or whether they're anachronistic. Yes, there may be (much) more labor going into an aquaduct than one convoy of ice, but your aquaduct doesn't melt in a week, and they could build it over the course of years.  Roman aquaducts still exist in places, and if they were putting those up on a daily basis, Europe would be floating away. 

Ice boxes and ice houses, to the best of my knowledge, didn't really become anything beyond a novelty for kings until after the invention of trains, because it takes tremendous amounts of labor to get 7 tonnes of ice carved, then loaded onto a 7.5 tonne "wagon" and sent hundreds of kilometers away.  And that's labor that needs to be supplied fairly continuously (at least, throughout the winter), which wouldn't have been terribly feasible to do on a large scale with serfs that generally didn't leave their hamlets in their whole lives, since they need to actually have a large farming community already in the area where you're harvesting ice. (I.E. a big lake.)  Ice houses didn't really take off until after the industrial revolution freed up more labor and created better forms of transportation.  (It also takes specific tools to cut tons of ice in a hurry.   They made ice-cutting saws -steam-powered ones- for that job. That takes past-the-cutoff-date commonly produced Bessemer steel to make common steel tools that won't break carving 1-ton slabs of ice economically feasible.)

As far as it goes for players, I think it comes down to the value of eggs or vegetables versus milk or honey in the current implementation of the game.  Eggs are easy, and can easily feed a whole fortress with minimal effort, and farmed crops are self-sustaining once set up, while milk requires constantly punching the button to milk the cows again and again every few game months, and beehives take forever to get up to the point where they provide even a tiny trickle of food.  If nethercap is going to be easier to set up, I don't see many people spending more effort to set up an ice house that will require continuous maintenance. 

Also on the same front is the fact that for anyone to even WANT to stuff their beef in the freezer, then jerky, pickles, and jam need to be made into somehow inferior foods.  After all, if I can preserve my fruit near-indefinitely as candied fruits or jam, my vegetables as pickles, my grain as just flat-out grain, and my meat as jerky, and all foods are totally equal, why should I bother with an ice house in the first place? (Especially if those other options are built on existing workshops I'll already have, while the ice house requires snow/ice collection labors and storage facilities.)

That said, if it is possible using the same general sets of rules as we're already going to get, that's fine, but again, I think it's more of the sort of thing that should be an emergent gameplay consequence of better rules regarding thermodynamics than an actual explicit gameplay feature that the game will demand you do (to the point of having AI routines just to understand what an icehouse is and how to maintain it), in much the same way that pump stacks, dwarven perpetual motion devices, and minecart shotguns are just emergent gameplay consequences of the rules of the game, rather than the explicit way the game expects you to play.

Period appropriate: Three Wikipedia links: Ice house#History (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_house_(building)#History), Qanat#Ice_storage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qanat#Ice_storage), and Yakhchal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakhch%C4%81l).  I haven’t managed to follow the citations (I tried, but the links didn’t help), but if this is accurate then ice houses were built and used by Babylonia, Persia, China, and Rome.  All of these are well before the cutoff date.  All of these were also large empires with large labor pools, as I mentioned in passing earlier. 

The yakhchal article also mentioned drawing water from the qanat in winter to freeze in prepared ponds or basins, located in the immediate vicinity of the “ice pit” (complete with a wall to block sunlight from reaching the ice pond, so ice freezes faster and deeper), then hauling it inside before the weather warms up.  Hauling ice from “hundreds of kilometers away” is not necessary, if the region has a winter season that is cold enough for ice to be produced locally.  The hauling can be done with wheelbarrows and buckets.  I admit that the cutting may be a bigger issue, but dwarven mining with a pick is ridiculously fast, so this idea should hold at least until that problem gets a more realistic balance; we can re-evaluate at that point. 

Toy for the wealthy: Storing ice when the ambient temperature is above its melting point is subject to the square cube law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square%E2%80%93cube_law), which produces a powerful economy of scale (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale), and the minimum viable scale is very large.  Leaving aside whether the above human civilizations actually did distribute the ice widely, dwarves seem to be much more egalitarian then humans (leaving aside your “Class Warfare” thread to make them less so).  If dwarves pull it off at all, it will be a community building, not just reserved for nobles. 

Meanwhile, a lot of DF players build silly projects just because they can (the wiki has three articles on the subject: Stupid dwarf trick (http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2014:Stupid_dwarf_trick), megaproject (http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2014:Megaproject), and playstyle challenge (http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2014:Playstyle_challenge)).  A proper ice house probably counts as a stupid dwarf trick, but it does not really need to be anything more.  People in real life got along fine with mostly drying and pickling, and DF can follow suit. 

The hungry hungry hominids thread did mention in passing an expectation that at least some types of preserved food would have lower happiness/flavor boosts than fresh, and the cooling series would count as fresh for this purpose.  The benefit is probably minor, but adding it is doable. 
As for the resulting values:

  • Dried food should lose value unless it's seasoned while drying. This is subsistence level food preservation for fortresses that either lack access to other additives for proper curing and pickling or for when times are tough.
  • Other food preservation methods should have a chance to appreciate the ingredient's value somewhat. Smoked and cured meats along with candied fruits and vegetables could potentially be more valuable than the ingredients that produced them, for example.
  • Cooking will always yield a much more valuable food item regardless.

Emergent gameplay: I already said that, at least for NPCs in adventure mode, the coding to keep an ice house supplied with ice should not be much different from the coding to keep a shop supplied with goods.  The version where ice is harvested from lakes or mountains can borrow from code for temporary logging camps, and the version with special freezing ponds can borrow code from farming crops (there is a designated area analogous to a field, plus distinct phases analogous to planting and harvesting, and the process can only be done at certain times of the year).  This shouldn’t be very hard. 

Most players will get along quite happily without one.  Some will build them to brag about the fact that they can, and the game’s diplomacy code might be able to use similar bragging (to other civs in the world).  An ice house would be far from the only brag-worthy construction project in either case. 

One convoy of ice: DF does not model erosion in fortress mode (just in world gen), but aqueducts in real life do need to be inspected and repaired periodically.  Rivers are subject to erosion, and for many purposes an aqueduct is an artificial river.  Some aqueducts have the opposite problem: deposits of silt or minerals from hard water. 

I admit that the aqueduct has a much larger front to load, but I was trying to draw a parallel between maintenance on an aqueduct (the qanat type is especially noted for silt deposits that need to be cleared) and convoying ice. 

If foods will become perishable, could we have temperature affect their shelf life? Seems like a great use for nether wart and glaciers and could be a window to an ice trade in the future (historically ice could be transported a fair distance in insulated containers), and you would want to store different things in different areas (you would put fruits, vegetables, and unpreserved meats underground where it's cold, while you'd put grains and salted meats outside in dry climates or on warm stone to keep them dry).

It’s been getting requested for a while, and I assume it’s planned.  Note the date on this quote from the “Hungry Hungry Hominids” thread:
Drying should be able to be made faster by heat. We may need a more finely-grained concept of fuel (I don't mean [just] the charcoal/coke type of fuel) for this to make sense.

Temperature should play a part in food rotting, which would also imply that freezing food (i.e. storing it in a freezing environment, i.e. a stockpile in a chamber dug out of a glacier) would make it not rot (but you could have a risk of freezer burn if it's not stored in barrels)

To avoid bogging down the thread any more than I already have, on with the “food reactions” series:

Prepared Meals
Prepared meals would need a much more detailed interface to work properly.  However, the majority of prepared meals can be collapsed into three main categories: Stews & related, Sandwiches, and Salads. 
> Note that not all recipes are for meals.  There are also intermediate products that are complex enough to require their own recipes.  The main ones are Breads and Sauces.  Adding secondary spices when pickling or making jerky (smoking or salt/sugar curing) would also pull in the recipe interface.  Some types of cheese also qualify, and I’m not sure where trail mix should go. 
> In all cases, the primary distinguishing feature of a recipe is that it makes most sense to design it with an in-game interface, rather than establish it beforehand in the raws or the game’s code. 
> Detailed commentary on exactly how the recipe interface should run fits better in this other thread on re-working the reaction system (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=144512.0). 

Stews and related
“Stew” is a set of ingredients boiled in a pot.  All stews (and related dishes like porridge and pudding) are eaten in a bowl with a spoon.  Most (but not all) are served hot.  A stew requires a broth, and usually includes a thickener and several different solid ingredients (which come in several different sub-types).  “Stews and related” can be savory or sweet. 
> This article on prepared meals covers stews first because most of the ingredient categories also apply to other recipe types, or at least have some analogue.  Analogues in other types of recipe will be mentioned as they come up. 
> With the exception of broth, all of the other ingredient types are optional in a stew recipe, although at least one should be present. 

1. Broth: The base of a stew is the liquid in which other ingredients are boiled. 
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

2. Base: Most recipes have a primary solid “base” ingredient; the details are determined by the context of the exact recipe in question.  I am assuming here that stews usually don’t have an equivalent, so they replace this slot with “Crust,” which is optional. 
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

3. Thickener: Added to slow the broth to a more viscous gravy. 
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

4. Meat: As a stew ingredient, this includes fish and most organs. 
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

5. Bulk Vegetables: A large portion of the calorie content of many stews is provided by vegetables of various sorts. 
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

6. Flavor Vegetables: Some vegetable ingredients are primarily added for flavor.  They are intermediate between bulk vegetables and spices. 
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

7. Beans and related: When beans are added to stews, they are usually in the form of whole (not milled) seeds. 
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

8. Noodles and related: Noodles and related items are covered in detail in the “Bread” section. 
> Other recipe types usually don’t have an equivalent. 

9. Spices and Herbs: These are added in very small quantities, not enough to increase the stack size of a prepared meal.  They do, however, add flavor and sometimes color, which increases the value per unit. 
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

10. Cheese: I am not personally familiar with any stew recipes that call for cheese, although that might just be my own small reference pool.  However, cheese is used in other types of prepared meal (salads and sandwiches), and qualifies as its own category of solid ingredient. 
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

11. Eggs: Eggs are liquid in the raw state (not counting the shell, which is usually discarded), but most bird eggs “set up” during cooking, and are relatively solid afterward.  This gives them distinct culinary properties. 
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

12. Oil: Stews don’t usually call for oil, but a lot of other recipe types do, and it offers unique features and benefits.  As I am using the term here, “oil” includes vegetable oils, tallow, and butter.  Some recipes may accept only a subset of this. 
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

A. Perpetual stew: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_stew) While this method of cooking is not familiar to modern players, it definitely deserves a mention, since it fits the time period that DF is intended to emulate; a discussion of foods in a medieval fantasy setting would not be complete without covering it. 
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: NW_Kohaku on August 11, 2017, 11:54:37 pm
Period appropriate:
[...]
Toy for the wealthy:
The point I'm trying to make is that the exclusivity of most of this to the wealthy for that same reason of economy of scale is why it shouldn't be an assumed part of every worldgen human civilization.

There were water clocks in atiquity, too, but they're only in the game as emergent gameplay because they're exceptional things that only a few people have ever done, and hence, they're unique selling points of individual player fortresses, rather than seeing giant pump-and-pressure-plate-based mechanical systems in every random fort or human town. 

Keeping ice houses strictly in the realm of emergent gameplay from player actions is where I think ice houses should go.  (Same with qanats, actually...)

To avoid bogging down the thread any more than I already have,

I wouldn't worry about bogging the thread down.  This thread is from years ago, and hasn't moved much since then, so it's not like it was going anywhere else for you to interrupt it, and you're bringing some vitality back to it.

Prepared Meals
Prepared meals would need a much more detailed interface to work properly.  However, the majority of prepared meals can be collapsed into three main categories: Stews & related, Sandwiches, and Salads.

Well, the rest of this thread covers this in pretty heavy detail, and I participated in it back then, too, so...

I think that's a rather gross oversimplification, as unless you count a roasted game animal as a "stew & related", it's not covered, and I know there were plenty of times people just had a shank of mutton.  Similarly, various forms of baked goods outside of (the somewhat anachronistic) sandwiches were very common foods.  That's not even starting on any culture that ate rice as their starch... Is pickled vegetables, a slice of grilled fish, some miso soup, and some rice, all separated into different dishes (the classic Japanese breakfast) a sandwich? A stew? A salad? Even if you say the soup is a separate stew, and the pickles are a separate salad, the rice is what, a sandwich? And some simply grilled fish is a stew?

Likewise, I'm not sure you would really want to go into the details on this, as it may require a vast amount of micromanagement on the player's account if it did.  I already don't ranch cows because they take up too much micromanagement needing to remember to milk them, and needing grazing pasture micromanagement, while just designating some land for farming and having the seeds to start growing is all I need to have an indefinite stream of food getting cooked.  The system should be designed with an eye towards how it will impact the player.

I'd rather see something more like the "mead hall" setup I mentioned earlier in this thread, where players set up several workshops in the back room of their tavern that have some broad guideline for what sort of food they are meant to produce, and then set it out as options for the dwarves (or other tavern guests) to choose from.  I'd also want to tie this in with ideas like flavor profiles (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=155850.msg6923542#msg6923542) (or alternately, nutrition systems), so that they work in conjunction to give players an idea of what to aim for.  I.E. you have players set up a workshop serving a spicy dish, one serving a sweet dish, one serving a salty dish, etc.  That way, you basically just set up however many workshops as it takes to satisfy the flavor categories, and just keep them stocked with ingredients to throw in their meals. 

> Most of the liquids listed in the Pickling section would probably work as the broth for a stew (lye is questionable, and oil requires different procedures). 

Remind me not to try your lye corn chowder if I ever come over to eat at your place.  :P

10. Cheese: I am not personally familiar with any stew recipes that call for cheese, although that might just be my own small reference pool.

Especially if you're throwing basically any sort of curry or roast with a sauce into the "stew" bin, there are tons of uses for cheese, mostly as a sauce.  You might want to look up, for example, alfredo sauce (and a ton of French or Northern Italian cooking), or pretty much anything paneer is used for.

Also, yogurt is used in a lot of similar ways, including as a marinade, at least in India.

Many types of sandwich use sliced cheese. 

Again, this is really anachronistic.  Sliced deli meats and cheeses are a modern invention.  The entire concept of a sandwich was invented in the 19th century. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Montagu,_4th_Earl_of_Sandwich#The_sandwich)

Historically, people ate pies.  Chicken pot pie is a decent example of a "main meal" pie, it has some meat and some vegetables.  Fruit pies existed back then too, of course. 

Pies also make a lot more sense as a means of storage and serving to large numbers of people in a dining hall, as you can just set out a pie on a table, people take a slice, and the pie is replaced as it is consumed.

11. Eggs: Eggs are liquid in the raw state (not counting the shell, which is usually discarded), but most bird eggs “set up” during cooking, and are relatively solid afterward.  This gives them distinct culinary properties. 
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Two words: Egg noodles. 

Egg drop soup, for example, is made with chicken broth brought to a boil, and then drizzling egg into the boiling soup so that they set into a solid as a train of thin noodles. 

Plenty of Chinese soups involve eggs.

12. Oil: Stews don’t usually call for oil, but a lot of other recipe types do, and it offers unique features and benefits.  As I am using the term here, “oil” includes vegetable oils, tallow, and butter.  Some recipes may accept only a subset of this. 
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

You can't have French cooking without tons of butter.  Likewise, stir-fries and fried chicken are apparently "stew" now, so you're definitely using plenty of fat or oil for that.

A. Perpetual stew: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_stew) While this method of cooking is not familiar to modern players, it definitely deserves a mention, since it fits the time period that DF is intended to emulate; a discussion of foods in a medieval fantasy setting would not be complete without covering it. 

This would definitely be period-appropriate, but it would be nightmarish to code.  We're dealing with dwarves reacting to foods of different quantities dissolving into one another, plus we're dealing with various things that rot, and the rates at which they rot.  Plus, if I have, say, a gallon of chicken soup, eat half that soup, fill it up with half a gallon of pea soup, eat half that chicken-pea soup, then fill in half a gallon of onion soup, then eat half that 1/4 chicken-1/4 pea-1/2 onion soup, then fill it with beef soup... at what point of dilution does the chicken soup stop counting as relevant, both for tracking purposes, and also for whether it triggers preferences for chicken because there was a drop of chicken soup in that everything soup?  What if it's a chunky stew, how do you differentiate between eating the last chunk of beef from a chunky beef soup versus a pea versus the broth, itself?  Do we need grain sizes for these things? 

It would make far more sense mechanically to have a system where a kitchen is tied to two or more tureens or cauldrons of soup, and when one is emptied, they cook another batch to fill it up, while cycling the next batch of stew to the front. (Which would be more like what a modern buffet does.)
Title: Re: More reasonable food system (aka Down with prepared meals!)
Post by: Tristan Alkai on August 15, 2017, 01:28:26 pm
Period appropriate:
[...]
Toy for the wealthy:
The point I'm trying to make is that the exclusivity of most of this to the wealthy for that same reason of economy of scale is why it shouldn't be an assumed part of every worldgen human civilization.

There were water clocks in atiquity, too, but they're only in the game as emergent gameplay because they're exceptional things that only a few people have ever done, and hence, they're unique selling points of individual player fortresses, rather than seeing giant pump-and-pressure-plate-based mechanical systems in every random fort or human town. 

Keeping ice houses strictly in the realm of emergent gameplay from player actions is where I think ice houses should go.  (Same with qanats, actually...)

I don’t think this debate will go any farther.  I draw analogies with versatile systems that are required for other aspects that are much more critical, and figure that extending them to something like this should be fairly easy.  You argue that they should be too expensive for NPCs to build.  I don’t think either of us will be convinced at this point. 

Qanats, on the other hand, are actually beyond the gameplay I can figure out.  The distances involved usually require sending diggers off the map, and last I heard that feature was only partially implemented.  Sending military squads to fetch artifacts is a good start, but not sufficient.  For that matter, a regular aqueduct would also involve sending workers and supplies off the map (building materials for the aqueduct itself, and food for workers and guards) and given the way construction and mining currently work (this to say, very unrealistically) a qanat is actually easier to build. 

There were circumstances in the real world that led to the development and use of both ice houses and qanats.  Dwarf Fortress is detailed and realistic enough that these circumstances can arise in its worlds, and the proper responses should be available. 

To avoid bogging down the thread any more than I already have,

I wouldn't worry about bogging the thread down.  This thread is from years ago, and hasn't moved much since then, so it's not like it was going anywhere else for you to interrupt it, and you're bringing some vitality back to it.

Thanks.  Good to know. 

> Most of the liquids listed in the Pickling section would probably work as the broth for a stew (lye is questionable, and oil requires different procedures). 

Remind me not to try your lye corn chowder if I ever come over to eat at your place.  :P

I did say “most.”  For that matter, even vinegar is usually more of a spice in the broth, rather than acting as broth itself.  I’m not sure about alcoholic drinks either.  I think I would mostly use whey once it is implemented and milking is properly automated. 

Egg noodles
11. Eggs: Eggs are liquid in the raw state (not counting the shell, which is usually discarded), but most bird eggs “set up” during cooking, and are relatively solid afterward.  This gives them distinct culinary properties. 
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Two words: Egg noodles. 

Egg drop soup, for example, is made with chicken broth brought to a boil, and then drizzling egg into the boiling soup so that they set into a solid as a train of thin noodles. 

Plenty of Chinese soups involve eggs.

I was under the impression that egg noodles were mostly flour (relatively conventional dough).  I seem to remember seeing “wide egg noodles” in dried form, which would have implied that. 
> Now that I have the reminder, I have eaten egg drop soup once or twice.  What I remember was a lot more homogeneous than the description I looked up said it should be. 

Prepared Meals
Prepared meals would need a much more detailed interface to work properly.  However, the majority of prepared meals can be collapsed into three main categories: Stews & related, Sandwiches, and Salads.

Well, the rest of this thread covers this in pretty heavy detail, and I participated in it back then, too, so...

I think that's a rather gross oversimplification, as unless you count a roasted game animal as a "stew & related", it's not covered, and I know there were plenty of times people just had a shank of mutton.  Similarly, various forms of baked goods outside of (the somewhat anachronistic) sandwiches were very common foods.  That's not even starting on any culture that ate rice as their starch... Is pickled vegetables, a slice of grilled fish, some miso soup, and some rice, all separated into different dishes (the classic Japanese breakfast) a sandwich? A stew? A salad? Even if you say the soup is a separate stew, and the pickles are a separate salad, the rice is what, a sandwich? And some simply grilled fish is a stew?

Likewise, I'm not sure you would really want to go into the details on this, as it may require a vast amount of micromanagement on the player's account if it did.  I already don't ranch cows because they take up too much micromanagement needing to remember to milk them, and needing grazing pasture micromanagement, while just designating some land for farming and having the seeds to start growing is all I need to have an indefinite stream of food getting cooked.  The system should be designed with an eye towards how it will impact the player.

I'd rather see something more like the "mead hall" setup I mentioned earlier in this thread, where players set up several workshops in the back room of their tavern that have some broad guideline for what sort of food they are meant to produce, and then set it out as options for the dwarves (or other tavern guests) to choose from.  I'd also want to tie this in with ideas like flavor profiles (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=155850.msg6923542#msg6923542) (or alternately, nutrition systems), so that they work in conjunction to give players an idea of what to aim for.  I.E. you have players set up a workshop serving a spicy dish, one serving a sweet dish, one serving a salty dish, etc.  That way, you basically just set up however many workshops as it takes to satisfy the flavor categories, and just keep them stocked with ingredients to throw in their meals. 

10. Cheese: I am not personally familiar with any stew recipes that call for cheese, although that might just be my own small reference pool.

Especially if you're throwing basically any sort of curry or roast with a sauce into the "stew" bin, there are tons of uses for cheese, mostly as a sauce.  You might want to look up, for example, alfredo sauce (and a ton of French or Northern Italian cooking), or pretty much anything paneer is used for.

Also, yogurt is used in a lot of similar ways, including as a marinade, at least in India.

Many types of sandwich use sliced cheese. 

Again, this is really anachronistic.  Sliced deli meats and cheeses are a modern invention.  The entire concept of a sandwich was invented in the 19th century. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Montagu,_4th_Earl_of_Sandwich#The_sandwich)

Historically, people ate pies.  Chicken pot pie is a decent example of a "main meal" pie, it has some meat and some vegetables.  Fruit pies existed back then too, of course. 

Pies also make a lot more sense as a means of storage and serving to large numbers of people in a dining hall, as you can just set out a pie on a table, people take a slice, and the pie is replaced as it is consumed.

12. Oil: Stews don’t usually call for oil, but a lot of other recipe types do, and it offers unique features and benefits.  As I am using the term here, “oil” includes vegetable oils, tallow, and butter.  Some recipes may accept only a subset of this. 
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

You can't have French cooking without tons of butter.  Likewise, stir-fries and fried chicken are apparently "stew" now, so you're definitely using plenty of fat or oil for that.

Lots of related comments here. 

Micromanagement nightmare: A more detailed code for prepared meals means inns and such in adventure mode need to also have access to those reactions.  For the NPCs, world generation should produce at least a short list of recipes, potentially a lengthy one.  Presenting players with the same list would give a useful starting point, and the names should be self-explanatory enough that players that don’t care about cooking enough to dive into that section of the interface don’t have to. 

Multiple course meals: Grilled fish, pickled vegetables, rice, and a soup, all as separate dishes, would be a multiple course meal.  That is entirely outside the setup I gave above.  I ignored multiple course meals because I don’t see how to pull one off without tracking food in quantities less than one dwarf eats at a sitting.  Fortunately, that idea has come up in the thread before. 
I'm not actually suggesting dwarves should eat more food units in a single meal. I was suggesting to limit the supply of food in fortress mode by dividing all food sources by 10.
I envisioned it more in terms of cooks putting out prepared components for dwarves to assemble their own meals from (something along the lines of a modern salad bar or sandwich bar), but completely separate courses that dwarves take and consume simultaneously works too.  Jiri Petrew’s idea of more complicated individual cooking would also require the same feature

As a bonus, tracking smaller quantities of food would give benefit to butchering smaller livestock, such as rabbits, that give less than one dwarf meal’s worth of meat. 

It also shifts the dynamics when designing prepared meal recipes: smaller quantities become significant, especially for strongly flavored vegetables.  I personally would probably use meat this way as well. 

Roasted meat: Roasted meat was not covered in my list, since I never cook it that way, nor do I order steaks at restaurants (I’m not vegetarian, but a large chunk of just meat is not for me).  This is presumably not the only category that I did not think of when I was writing things up. 
> Writing the cooking and preservation interface, I would actually branch this function off smoking (I figure that the origin of smoking for preservation is the other way around).  It forms its own category of prepared meal.  The category also includes the grilled fish from the Japanese breakfast. 
> Smoked meat is a preserved food, while roasted meat is a prepared food.  Smoked meat is already edible as is, so going from there to roasted meat should be a relatively minor tweak, both in code and in “in universe” technique. 
> The location shifts from the Butcher shop to the Kitchen (or maybe not), and there is more freedom to add spices and sauces, but not all players will bother to go into that detail.  I personally would mostly avoid smoking in favor of sugar curing (given the way I play, sweet pod sugar is likely to be available in somewhat larger quantities than wood), but the option is there. 

That just leaves the question of how to implement the rice.  I am mostly familiar with rice as a base that something is poured over, similar to mashed potatoes.  The description you gave seems to indicate serving it cooked but plain, roughly equivalent to porridge.  Porridge is part of “stews and related,” so if this rice is presented similarly then I guess it follows suit. 

Simplistic categories: Yes, the categories are intentionally simplistic, and they don’t cover everything.  In all cases, the “and related” is there for a reason! 
> A curry with a sauce would indeed be listed here as a stew, since some admittedly hasty research failed to identify any reason not to. 
> Some curry recipes apparently boil off the water during cooking and are served relatively dry, which would be somewhat distinctive.  Still, while it falls off the Thickener scale as originally presented (soup > gruel > pudding > porridge), it can be implemented by extending that scale.  The rice from the “traditional Japanese breakfast” that you used for illustration also occupies this point of the scale. 
> Stir fry is similarly branched off stew, rather than truly part of it: the cooked components are significantly different if both flavor and texture than their counterparts in a boiled stew.  Cooking temperature and time are also different. 
> Sandwiches also have this sort of hierarchical categorization system. 

Anachronistic sandwiches:
Apparently I should have given an “and related” part to sandwiches.  The defining features are using bread to contain the other ingredients (and the mess of eating it), and that the unit is eaten by hand.  I lumped in both the burrito (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#History) and (some of) the pies you mentioned.  At least precursors to the burrito seem to be within the intended time frame (although they were Native American, not European). 
> Even if the invention of flat sandwiches did not actually occur until the 1800s, I don’t see any reason it couldn’t have occurred earlier, unless the habit of eating bread as slices from loaves is also unexpectedly recent.  For that matter, pancakes sturdy enough to serve are also probably old enough.  (I am told that some precursor to pancakes is the oldest recognizable form of bread.)  Breads thick enough to provide both sides, but no more, also should be available, such as pita (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pita). 
> Pies are a bit of a mixed bag.  I understand that the cornish pasty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasty) is eaten by hand, which qualifies it as part of “sandwiches and related.”  On the other hand, the chicken pot pie I am familiar with requires a bowl (“sandwiches and related” don’t, by definition). 
> The worst case scenario is allowing players to “invent” sandwiches in our forts, which is no more anachronistic than the various computers (http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2014:Computing) that players are already building, and I would argue it is a lot less. 

More comments on perpetual stew:
A. Perpetual stew: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_stew) While this method of cooking is not familiar to modern players, it definitely deserves a mention, since it fits the time period that DF is intended to emulate; a discussion of foods in a medieval fantasy setting would not be complete without covering it. 

This would definitely be period-appropriate, but it would be nightmarish to code.  We're dealing with dwarves reacting to foods of different quantities dissolving into one another, plus we're dealing with various things that rot, and the rates at which they rot.  Plus, if I have, say, a gallon of chicken soup, eat half that soup, fill it up with half a gallon of pea soup, eat half that chicken-pea soup, then fill in half a gallon of onion soup, then eat half that 1/4 chicken-1/4 pea-1/2 onion soup, then fill it with beef soup... at what point of dilution does the chicken soup stop counting as relevant, both for tracking purposes, and also for whether it triggers preferences for chicken because there was a drop of chicken soup in that everything soup?  What if it's a chunky stew, how do you differentiate between eating the last chunk of beef from a chunky beef soup versus a pea versus the broth, itself?  Do we need grain sizes for these things? 

It would make far more sense mechanically to have a system where a kitchen is tied to two or more tureens or cauldrons of soup, and when one is emptied, they cook another batch to fill it up, while cycling the next batch of stew to the front. (Which would be more like what a modern buffet does.)

Yes, programming this would be a nightmare.  I did try to give advice on how, but I definitely don’t expect to see it in the first pass of the cooking update, possibly not until version 1.0, if even then. 
> Thinking over the idea more, I remembered something that might be relevant: bug 3116 (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=3116).  A dwarf eating stew from the pot gets a random slice (random number from 1 to the total number of units of stew in the pot).  The upgrade to track food in quantities smaller than a dwarf eats at a time would be handy (allowing multiple independent rolls), but is not a strict requirement for this idea.  This sort of system would track ingredients for preference purposes. 

Preservation reactions: Spicing
I recently corrected a section that accidentally got dropped from an earlier post:
4. Player interactions: (. . .)
(Edit)> There would not be a large number of existing reactions, either.  It would be along the lines of
> There would not be a large number of new reactions, either.  There would be some, but they would be along the lines of the existing broad wildcard reactions: “smoke meat,” for example, does not need to be more detailed than the current “brew plant,” “brew fruit,” and “mill plants” reactions.  Even pickling is not much worse than glazing: there is an item to be glazed (or pickled), an item that becomes the glaze (or the pickling liquid), and fuel (pickling requires a water-tight container).  More complicated pickling recipes (adding spices) are entirely optional, and only players that care about it need to bother. 
> I estimate about a dozen new reactions (give or take a factor of two, depending on what gets lumped, what gets split, and which ideas don’t get implemented), spread across several different workshops.  That number is large by the standards of current food processing, but the Carpenter and Mason shops both have long lists of items they can make, let alone the craftsdwarf’s shop and glass furnace.  Interface complications from adding basic food preservation (not worrying about supplemental spices) would be, at worst, about even with current furniture production: there are a few reactions that are self-explanatory, and which almost everyone uses very frequently, plus a much longer list of more exotic options that are called for in certain circumstances. 

The analogy of furniture has a lot of other interesting parallels.  For example, both the Mason and the Carpenter have reactions to make chairs, tables, doors, and so forth: even if some of the products change names based on material, the two materials are still interchangeable for a lot of purposes.  Similarly, both meat and fish have reactions for smoking, salting, and sugar drying (and sugar drying also applies to some plants, especially fruit).  If the food preservation reactions are split across the Butcher shop, Fishery, Farmer’s shop, and possibly farther, then these sorts of duplicated reactions might push the number of new ones above the earlier high end estimate of two dozen. 

Continuing the furniture analogy further, spices are equivalent to decorations (for furniture, this is things like encrusting with gems and shells).  The basic product is perfectly usable without them, but the additions do increase its value, and the happiness of dwarves that use it. 
> The first complication comes from the fact that furniture is made, then decorated.  Spicing food does not have that separation of steps: preparing and spicing are done simultaneously, and the interface needs to reflect that.  Fortunately, the recently added “job details” menu should be up to the task. 
> I suspect that preservation reactions might replace the “minced” aspect of the current prepared meals, at least a large portion of the time. 

The next complication comes from the recurring nature of recipes: given shelf life issues being added back in, the current “repeat task” order is not a good solution.  It would be better to save the recipe to a separate list, from which it could be called up again later. 
> This is distinct from, for example, making a bunch of statues of a given god to put in its temple: the demand for those statues spikes for the current project, and is not likely to happen again at anything like the same scale anytime soon.  Even with an expectation of some future demand, individual statues have an indefinite shelf life, so a few extras during the project would be perfectly adequate. 
> A prepared meal is a different story: the current setup makes each prepared meal big enough to feed a small fortress for a season or more (an example from the current game: with 25 quarry bush leaves, 25 dwarven syrup, and two more ingredients, a total stack size of 60 isn’t very hard, and is enough to feed a fortress of 30 for a full season, 20 for considerably more).  The meal’s shelf life may be similar or inferior, so making a second one before the first is gone (or at least almost gone) is a bad idea.  Meals are made infrequently, and demand is much flatter.  If the exact same supplies are available (and, given that the first meal got made, they obviously were then and probably still are), it might be desirable to re-use the same recipe. 

Since it’s come up, I might as well add my notes on the Sandwiches category. 

Sandwiches and related
As the term is used here, all sandwiches can be eaten by hand; if it requires a knife, spoon or similar, (or a bowl, plate, or similar), it is part of a different category.  Sandwiches feature a crust, typically bread, which is used to contain the other food items, protecting both fingers and tables from the mess. 
> As a rule, sandwiches travel better than other types of prepared meals, which is relevant to soldiers, certain fortress workers (hunters, wood-cutters, and miners are among the more obvious examples), and merchants.  This role of sandwiches may lead to them being regarded as a lower-status food.  On the other hand, sandwiches may be an exception to Jiri Petrew’s declaration that prepared meals cannot be sold to caravans, even if the merchants will mostly buy them to eat on the road, rather than as a true trade good. 

1. Flat sandwich: “The stereotypical sandwich: two slices of bread with the filling between them.” 
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

2. Wrap: “One large piece of bread, wrapped around the filling.” 
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

3. Pies and related: “Dough is wrapped around a filling, and then the unit is cooked.” 
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

4. Cakes: “Other ingredients are mixed into the bread, rather than wrapped with it.” 
Spoiler (click to show/hide)