Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[catten]

one problem with realistic food is that it's much harder to balance. 2-3% of the population means that if for some reason you have a temporary food issue that needs to double the labor, it's still 4-6%, and the game is playable. If you need 50-80%, and suddenly temporarily you need double the labor due to a balance issue, you now need 100-160% of the population, and half your fort dies.

Sounds like Fun!

Fortunately, my proposal only keeps 20-30% of the population busy producing food. If disaster strikes, you can either rely on food storage (you are saving for a rainy day, aren't you?) or conscript everyone who likes to eat into the food industry until the crisis has blown over.

Besides, how is that different than needing 50-80% of your population for military, and suddenly finding them all dead/hospitalized after an ill-fated encounter with a syndrome-spewing FB or a squad of goblin lashers and bowmasters? Or a tantrum spiral over an unfortunate incident involving a magma-filled minecart and the mayor's pet kitten?

IMO, failing to prepare for a hiccup in food production *should* be just as dangerous as failing to train and equip a military and/or build static defenses to welcome baddies who decide to pay your fort a visit, and a major famine should lead to decision-making dilemmas and angst-filled outcomes similar to a tantrum spiral. There aren't actually many unpredictable outcomes in food production anyway (yet), short of letting a bunch of your farmers get killed, so it should be much less difficult to deal with your first food shortage than surviving your first military engagement or tantrum spiral. Unless, of course, it's a real siege where the invaders actually manage to threaten your food supply and kill the mayor's pet kitten that wandered outside to hunt hamsters. Then you would have to deal with all three crises at the same time, which would be extra Fun.

[GavJ]

you are saving for a rainy day, aren't you?

Not if 30% of my population is required for breaking even! Okay well maybe actually if 30%. But not if 60%, etc. I might not be able to afford anyone else. Somebody has to make clothes and dig and so on! The higher you go, the more you need storage, and the less you can manage to get storage.

30% may be a fair compromise, I don't know.

Besides, how is that different than needing 50-80% of your population for military

It isn't. But note that I'm not saying that 50% for agriculture would be bad in the first place, so arguing analogies is beside the point. 50% agriculture would be cool. I'm just saying it's hard to code and maintain in balance with new changes. Which might be why Toady seems to have put it off and may continue to do so.

[Enchiridion]

I'm still flabbergasted as to why subterranean plants have seasons.

THERE IS NO WEATHER IN THE UNDERGROUND.

I would also like the ability to take a block of sand/soil/clay and move it elsewhere for farming purposes.

[GavJ]

I would also like the ability to take a block of sand/soil/clay and move it elsewhere for farming purposes.

This isn't any more realistic than pouring water on the rocks. The soil would be very quickly depleted of nutrients, so in either case, you still have plants growing on make-believe energy. So I'm not sure it's worth the effort to replace one unrealistic mechanic with another unrealistic mechanic, in the name of realism...

If you have to haul in more soil every growing cycle, then okay that would make sense.

[Enchiridion]

I would also like the ability to take a block of sand/soil/clay and move it elsewhere for farming purposes.

This isn't any more realistic than pouring water on the rocks. The soil would be very quickly depleted of nutrients, so in either case, you still have plants growing on make-believe energy. So I'm not sure it's worth the effort to replace one unrealistic mechanic with another unrealistic mechanic, in the name of realism...

If you have to haul in more soil every growing cycle, then okay that would make sense.

Fair point. Then again, it is a magical world... 
I suppose fertilizer would work but I don't like the idea of having to waste my logs on fertilizer...
Hmm... To spite both my parents being agricultural experts I really don't know how to make it more "realistic". The obvious and most simple way is to increase food consumption and reduce food production. However the whole nutrient thing is still there. If soil nutrition were a thing, then I already forsee it being another fps dump. Imagine now having to calculate a strange nutrition/biomass stat for half the map.

Side thought: Shouldn't overgrown caverns have soil layers or pockets of some form of subterranean soil or something that can function as soil for underground plants?

[karhell]

I would also like the ability to take a block of sand/soil/clay and move it elsewhere for farming purposes.

This isn't any more realistic than pouring water on the rocks. The soil would be very quickly depleted of nutrients, so in either case, you still have plants growing on make-believe energy. So I'm not sure it's worth the effort to replace one unrealistic mechanic with another unrealistic mechanic, in the name of realism...

If you have to haul in more soil every growing cycle, then okay that would make sense.

Agreed for hauling more soil in. That, or potted plants (which would still require soil changing every now and then).

[Enchiridion]

Would having a flowing source of water nearby count as revitalizing for the soil?

Side thought: if it did, how cool would it be for there to be a soil type that needs a flowing source of magma nearby. XD

[Chimerat]

Would having a flowing source of water nearby count as revitalizing for the soil?

I'd think only if you used it to flood the nearby land. Like the Nile.

[Enchiridion]

Would having a flowing source of water nearby count as revitalizing for the soil?

I'd think only if you used it to flood the nearby land. Like the Nile.

So basically irrigation...
Though I don't really see mushrooms as needing water channels.

[GavJ]

flood plains aren't the same as "just irrigation." The floodplains carry large amounts of sediment inland that return depleted nutrients to the land. By contrast, a fast, narrow channel as is typical for manmade irrigation will drop out all of its sediments pretty quickly and end up arriving as mostly just water.  Also, the flood waters leave by drying out or filtering down to the aquifer, thus they don't continue to wash that same sediment away again. Whereas large volumes of irrigation water arriving and then leaving again might even if they carry sediment just remove it again uselessly.

Since the mushrooms need the nutrients, and not really the water volume, typical irrigation would be useless, and flood plain irrigation might work wonderfully.

You could also do this artificially, but it would definitely have to be on purpose, and would be much more complicated to purposefully deliver mud instead of water. Like, you'd have to churn it up every so often along the way, or something, I don't know. If you screw up, you end up with pure water and then a clogged pipe.

[Witty]

Definitely support. There are so many good farming rework ideas on this board already, I think increasing the consumption amount would be a good first step towards a greater overhaul.

[Bumber]

I suppose fertilizer would work but I don't like the idea of having to waste my logs on fertilizer...

You could feasibly use refuse and corpses as compost. There's also bone meal, which is currently unused at the moment.

[Adrian]

Definitely support. There are so many good farming rework ideas on this board already, I think increasing the consumption amount would be a good first step towards a greater overhaul.

Increasing consumption also means that dwarves will take more breaks from work to eat.

[catten]

Increasing consumption also means that dwarves will take more breaks from work to eat.

Not having that problem was specifically part of the original proposal:

The frequency of meal/booze breaks seems about right---just often enough to be annoying---so eating more often wouldn't work well. Instead, they should eat about 10x more food/booze at each sitting. No need to implement multi-hauling: eating a small stack would just leave the dorf hungry and looking for another helping.

[Chimerat]

It could also work with more breaks that last less long. (They are Dwarves. Shouldn't they be inhaling their food!? )