Print

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

[Grendus]

I would suggest giving each item a food type tag. So, for example, booze could be used as a basis for stews, but not for, say, a roast. Likewise, you can't use plump helmets as a glaze or to add flavor, but you could use dwarven syrup or dwarven sugar.

Different recipes could be added via the raws. So, for example, players could mod in Kebabs, which take two stacks of [EDIBLE_RAW] foods, or Dwarven Salads, which require three leaves (couldn't find a tag for that) and two [EDIBLE_RAW] food. Cakes could require one [FLOUR] type food and three generic [EDIBLE_WHEN_COOKED] or [EDIBLE_RAW] foods. Roasts might require two [MEAT], two [EDIBLE_RAW] or [EDIBLE_WHEN_COOKED], and one [GLAZE] food. Etc.

Although this could be exploitable (players adding recipes that take hundreds of generic foods or that use nothing but booze), it's no worse than current modding, and you could add in safeguards. For example, a recipe could have a cap (say 5) ingredients that could be used, or the recipes could be genned by the dwarves with an algorithmic design forcing certain food types to be used. That might also open up the possibility for cooking as a moodable skill.

[Igfig]

I can see the appeal in the "specific recipes" model, but I'm not a fan of it.  If every meal has to follow a specific recipe, then your food variety is limited by your imagination.  In a more freeform system like my own, however, you're limited only by the RNG's imagination, which is most likely a lot bigger.

[Theoclymenus]

I don't make fancy meals very often but I know for a fact that when you cook with wine it almost entirely reduces. Is'nt a sensible fix for massive booze stacks to divide their size by 10 in respect to how many portions of food you actually get.

I do like the idea of having a primary ingredient and then secondary ones. Maybe each food should have a rank - meats are high and so take precedence over seeds or booze for a meal. That way you still get your foods named even if the main ingredient is cheese or potato or whatever - it just takes the one with the highest rank.

[Shurhaian]

I don't think approaching foods from the idea of "what can they be cooked into?" is a good one.

Play CivForge or anything else that expands on item_food and you'll see why.

Instead, it should consider "How can this ingredient be prepared?" Milled seeds are good. So are whole ones or crumbled ones(rock nuts instead of walnuts?). In fact, letting the cook do the grinding, rather than having EVERY seed be millable, would be good; mass milling reserved for things that are ONLY used that way, never as whole seed.

And then, the item_food definition could specify what cooking methods/ingredients are allowed. Biscuits wouldn't have a sauce(but a more-complicated variant might). Roasts wouldn't use more than a unit of flour(for gravy etc), whereas biscuits might ALWAYS require flour and be primarily made from it. And so on. With enough possibilities, the procedural definition could still result in some interesting and/or impractical outcomes, but less so than biscuits made entirely of minced booze.

Edit: Forgot to fit this into the original thread. Anyway, this notion would involve a great many more COOKABLE_* tokens, which then are parsed by the individual recipes for the particular food the cook has decided on. COOKABLE_SEED_GARNISH, for instance, could allow seeds for a particular plant to be used as a whole or milled seasoning; COOKABLE_NUT might imply the same but also suggest that the seed has more "meat" and could thus be crumbled, rather than only ground or whole; etc.

[aepurniet]

i love this idea.  there are a lot of ways it could be implemented as evidenced by the suggestions, but the root of the idea is gold.  one or more main ingredients and then zero or more flavor ingredients that dont influence stack size (the same way) of the final prepared meal (just value).  i would like the EDIBLE_INGREDIENT tags in the raws to have a number associated with them to specify how many of that particular ingredient we need to make a flavor.  maybe it would only take 1 quarry bush leaf to add flavor (like a bay leaf), but 10 cave wheat seeds (like sesame seeds).  while this whole system wont perfectly describe the way us humans cook and judge food, it would be a huge step compared to the current system.

[Pilsu]

Decorating a beef roast with spikes of potato wouldn't add to the meal's volume anymore though

[Igfig]

Alternately, let all the ingredients with EDIBLE_COOKED contribute to the size of the meal stack, but not the ones with EDIBLE_INGREDIENT.  Or something like that, there're a lot of variants.

This would let the potato spikes contribute to the meal volume, I believe.