Print

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

[Bumber]

The rabbits could cannibalize each other. They are known to eat their stillborn young.

There are also the practical issues of which animals have access to which food, and how rabbits are territorial, but I don't want to get further involved.

[Starver]

Spoiler: Could we perhaps relax back into the tea? (click to show/hide)

[Batgirl1]

Strength/Weakness of tea could probably be switched out for Quality, as with other foodstuffs.  "This is a masterwork oolong", for example.

The idea of combining multiple plants for different blends, the way Dorfs already combine multiple foods when cooking meals, could also add an interesting facet: "Lavish" blends of 4 plants, if we're directly mapping from the Meal template, could generate a happy thought *almost* but not quite on par with alcohol, for instance.  Although, this does bring up the question of how fine-tuned Dwarfs' happiness-meters are; how many levels exist between "Had a non-awful glass of water" and "YAY! BOOZE!"?

Also: Perhaps include broth as a kind of meat-based tea?

[GoblinCookie]

True, just like DF has no separate variables for how "juicy" or "marbled" a cut of meat is, or how "fresh" or "bursting with flavor" the veggies are, etc.-- it's all just *quality*, and that's good enough for the likes of us. If we want to introduce quality levels for tea, we'll just say that the Herbalist picked the leaves when they were at the right/wrong point in development (for that kind of tea), or dried & processed them correctly/incorrectly, etc.

But as for all the biology-related stuff, you'll have to move it to a separate thread if you want me to read it, as it has no place here.

As interesting as it is, it is really off-topic altogether.  I was going to reply by PM but since I am clearly right the discussion would probably spiral into recrimination rather fast. 

The rabbits could cannibalize each other. They are known to eat their stillborn young.

There are also the practical issues of which animals have access to which food, and how rabbits are territorial, but I don't want to get further involved.

To clarify, the problem is that the rabbits in Six of Spades parable don't just starve, they also consume 100% of the food in the process.  Eating 100% of the food means extinction for the plants that rabbits eat and this extinction is irreversible.  Any rabbits that manage to survive by eating the other rabbits, simply starve to death last because the overpopulated rabbits drove all their food plants extinct.  It does not matter that there are now only a few rabbits, because there is now food for 0 rabbits. 

Spoiler: Could we perhaps relax back into the tea? (click to show/hide)

 

Strength/Weakness of tea could probably be switched out for Quality, as with other foodstuffs.  "This is a masterwork oolong", for example.

The idea of combining multiple plants for different blends, the way Dorfs already combine multiple foods when cooking meals, could also add an interesting facet: "Lavish" blends of 4 plants, if we're directly mapping from the Meal template, could generate a happy thought *almost* but not quite on par with alcohol, for instance.  Although, this does bring up the question of how fine-tuned Dwarfs' happiness-meters are; how many levels exist between "Had a non-awful glass of water" and "YAY! BOOZE!"?

Also: Perhaps include broth as a kind of meat-based tea?

I don't see how stronger tea is necessarily of higher quality than weaker tea.  It seems a matter of personal and cultural preference, some people like it strong and some people like it weak. 

[Batgirl1]

@goblincookie: Fair point. Perhaps then "strong" tea would just be a fine/lavish blend where every ingredient is the same plant, e.g. "it's brewed from a blend of quarrybush leaves, quarrybush leaves, and quarrybush leaves."

[therahedwig]

Ah, I see we've returned to the actual topic of tea.

The strength of tea uses the same mechanic as that of coffee, leave the tea higher in a smaller amount of water and you get more strong tea.

The difference between loose tea, tea cakes and bags is that the taste of the former two is indeed more pronounced, but the same can be said for different ways of preparing food. So perhaps instead...

This is masterful oolong tea. It was brewed masterfully from it's components of dried tea leaves and water. The dried tea leaves were masterfully prepared from high quality tea leaves, and left to ferment for 3 days in a summer sun before being rolled. The water is of a high quality.

This drink is highly caffeinated.

This could then also extend to booze.

This is masterful malt whisky. It was distilled expertly from malt. The malt was masterfully brewed from quality grain and quality water. The water is from aquifer water. The whisky was aged for 1 year in a casket made from oak.

This drink is highly alcoholic.

Maybe it might be an idea to take a peek at the tea processing wikipedia page to get an idea of what makes different teas different.

Though, I am not sure if it makes sense to state 'is highly <chemical>', as the game doesn't conceive of the effects that way, nor does it make much sense for the histfigs to conceive of the effects that way...

[GoblinCookie]

@goblincookie: Fair point. Perhaps then "strong" tea would just be a fine/lavish blend where every ingredient is the same plant, e.g. "it's brewed from a blend of quarrybush leaves, quarrybush leaves, and quarrybush leaves."

The issue here is about how the game economy works (incorrectly).  The stronger tea is of higher value because it contains a greater quantity of tea leaves but it is potentially of low quality than weaker tea.  In reality quality is quite separate from value (or if you prefer a different type of value) but the game conflates the two things, which results in silly situations when people prefer drinking weaker tea but will pay a lower price than they will for stronger tea.  In reality the unwanted stronger tea will still have higher value, but nobody would buy it. 

[Batgirl1]

New Idea:  Watered Down Drinks.

A dwarf in the kitchens/still/whathaveyou will brew one unit of either strong tea or strong alcohol.  This can then be further combined with fresh water to create several units of the weaker stuff.  In alcohol, this will be of lesser value, but in tea, this will be no change except for dwarfs who "prefer" weaker tea.  Of course, since tea is only slightly better than well water anyway, this doesn't make too much more of a dent in the economy than drilling a well for endless  water.

[Starver]

New Idea:  Watered Down Drinks.

You are cordially invited to implement that.

[SixOfSpades]

What I find oddly intriguing about this topic is how it is so conducive to thread derails and other tangents. I had a thought about how the speed & simplicity of preparing tea & coffee might induce dwarves to make it in their own individual bedrooms, but the notion of bedroom cooking (no matter the scale) seemed likely to re-open the whole "light and ventilation" can of worms. I considered that dwarves might enjoy the energizing effects of tea/coffee with their morning meal, and drink alcohol primarily just before bed, but of course that would spiral off into the wholly separate discussion of having dwarves eat/sleep/drink a realistic number of times per month, and the flow of time itself in Fortress mode. Because dwarves work *faster* when drunk than they do while sober, I pondered whether stimulants should likewise work opposite than expected, affecting dwarves in the same way that intoxicants affect humans--but I didn't want to turn this into a debate on human vs. dwarven metabolism, and what sort of liver a half-dwarf might have, etc. And as we all know, somehow or other this thread got onto the subject of grazing, prompting GoblinCookie's still-inaccurate hot take on surviving food shortages.

The idea of combining multiple plants for different blends, the way Dorfs already combine multiple foods when cooking meals, could also add an interesting facet: "Lavish" blends of 4 plants, if we're directly mapping from the Meal template, could generate a happy thought *almost* but not quite on par with alcohol, for instance.

Ehhh, I personally have so much distaste for how cooking is currently handled that all ideas associated with it look bad by default. An infusion with 4x the minimum amount of plants would most likely either be too strong to drink, or potentially toxic. It's a far better route to simply have a number of set recipes for tea, and have the additional ingredients (like milk & sugar) optional to suit the (intended) drinker's taste preferences. (Similarly a "bread" recipe might be very basic, but include options for flavoring items such as cheese, cinnamon, raisins, nuts, rosemary, etc. Flavored bread might be more desirable than plain bread, but combining flavorings should not always result in a higher-demand item: One dwarf might like blueberry muffins, while another likes salty pretzels, but who's going to want both flavors at once?)

Perhaps include broth as a kind of meat-based tea?

I'd class that as one of the simplest soup recipes, myself.

But as for all the biology-related stuff, you'll have to move it to a separate thread if you want me to read it, as it has no place here.

As interesting as it is, it is really off-topic altogether.  I was going to reply by PM but since I am clearly right the discussion would probably spiral into recrimination rather fast.

"since I am clearly right" -- Oh, now that is just precious. I'll have to file that right alongside Don Trump's self-assessment of "being, like, really smart." After all, you both use the exact same fact-checking service to verify your accuracy. As for recrimination, I assure you that I have no qualms about shaming you in public, as well as privately--this simply isn't the place for it.
 

I don't see how stronger tea is necessarily of higher quality than weaker tea.  It seems a matter of personal and cultural preference, some people like it strong and some people like it weak.

Agreed. As I've mentioned before on other food-related threads, procedurally giving each dwarf their own taste preferences (some like tangy foods, some like mellow smoothness, some like it bland, some like it hot & spicy, etc.) makes a lot more sense than each dwarf liking just 1 specific food--and once this system is in place, we can easily fit it to drinks as well as foods. Dwarves who prefer foods with sharper, stronger tastes would naturally like a more intense brew, as well.

The strength of tea uses the same mechanic as that of coffee, leave the tea higher in a smaller amount of water and you get more strong tea.

Or if you let the tea steep for a longer time, but that tends to lead to . . .

I am not sure if it makes sense to state 'is highly <chemical>', as the game doesn't conceive of the effects that way, nor does it make much sense for the histfigs to conceive of the effects that way.

Letting tea brew for too long can indeed cause a bitter (after)taste, possibly because of some compounds that take longer to dissolve. And the dwarves could easily be using "caffeinated" not in reference to any specific chemical, but merely as shorthand for its known effects of causing alertness and a jittery mood.

The issue here is about how the game economy works (incorrectly).  The stronger tea is of higher value because it contains a greater quantity of tea leaves but it is potentially of low quality than weaker tea.  . . . In reality the unwanted stronger tea will still have higher value, but nobody would buy it.

Yes. On a related note, a single unit of tea made from 4x tea leaves should be absolutely identical (assuming similar quality levels) to 4 units of 1x tea leaves. The price shouldn't magically rise simply because you tamped it down in the barrel.

[GoblinCookie]

"since I am clearly right" -- Oh, now that is just precious. I'll have to file that right alongside Don Trump's self-assessment of "being, like, really smart." After all, you both use the exact same fact-checking service to verify your accuracy. As for recrimination, I assure you that I have no qualms about shaming you in public, as well as privately--this simply isn't the place for it.

If you are absolutely certain you are right, then it is a bad idea to continue a discussion with a person that disagrees with you.  That is because you will have a correct answer to everything they say, meaning they have no choice but to resort to recriminations.  As you are already doing by comparing me to Donald Trump. 

There are rather few actual facts, so any fact-checking service is simply a disguised propaganda outlet for somebody.  Since Edward Bernays day the propagandist has made great currency out of wheeling out cherry-picked experts to back up a claim in order to get the gullible to believe whatever they want. 

Yes. On a related note, a single unit of tea made from 4x tea leaves should be absolutely identical (assuming similar quality levels) to 4 units of 1x tea leaves. The price shouldn't magically rise simply because you tamped it down in the barrel.

Are you are seriously arguing that finished goods are worth the same as their raw ingredients?  Why are the raw ingredients worth anything?

[SixOfSpades]

Yes. On a related note, a single unit of tea made from 4x tea leaves should be absolutely identical (assuming similar quality levels) to 4 units of 1x tea leaves. The price shouldn't magically rise simply because you tamped it down in the barrel.

Are you are seriously arguing that finished goods are worth the same as their raw ingredients?  Why are the raw ingredients worth anything?

Yes, sorry, I should have clarified--I was thinking of cured & processed dry tea, meant for sale & transport, as opposed to already-brewed tea ready for immediate consumption. I'd assumed that my use of the word "tamped" would be enough to indicate the distinction (you can't tamp a liquid), but I see I should have spelled it out. Anyway, my point was that if various "tea" recipes have leaves blended together, then DF's current model of food preparation (wherein the added ingredients are treated as decorations on the main ingredient, and have their values multiplied accordingly) would mean that [1] unit of (+tea leaves+, +tea leaves+, +tea leaves+, and +tea leaves+) would cost far more than [4] units of (+tea leaves+). I was just saying that this was silly; 40 leaves' worth of dry tea should always cost the same as 40 leaves' worth of dry tea, no matter how it's grouped.

Unfortunately, it's at this point that my post ceases to have anything to do with tea.

There are rather few actual facts, so any fact-checking service is simply a disguised propaganda outlet for somebody.  Since Edward Bernays day the propagandist has made great currency out of wheeling out cherry-picked experts to back up a claim in order to get the gullible to believe whatever they want.

Well, well, well! Sounds like somebody finally did some actual research, and didn't like what they found. This must have presented a nice little dilemma for you: If you were unable to unearth any reputable sources that supported your claims, but you did discover several sources that supported mine, you could either

• Grudgingly admit that you were wrong about something, or
• Discredit the entire idea of independent sources and expert opinions as something untrustworthy.

By the way, which of these tactics comes closer to the default strategy of Don "Fake News" Trump? Now, granted, I'll be the first to say that you, GoblinCookie, are FAR more intelligent than he is. (I realize that that's incredibly faint praise, but hey, what do you expect from me, right?  ) But there's another similarity, as well: You both strongly believe a number of things which are objectively and provably false, and will stubbornly cling to those beliefs in spite of all evidence to the contrary. (Perhaps that's what motivates my personal grudge against you: Fighting you feels so much like fighting him.)

Well, guess what; I'm calling your bluff. You say that experts can be cherry-picked to back up practically any viewpoint? Well then, you'd better have some references that are more reputable than your own ass, which is literally the only source you've cited so far. I have my own, of course, but have refrained from mentioning them simply because, as I keep saying, the debate does NOT belong in this thread.

Speaking of which: I was going to bring up my old threat about taking our ongoing rivalry and moving it to its own thread, which would be located somewhere more appropriate, like General Discussion. But in GD's Forum Guidelines, I see that Rule #1 is "Do not pick a fight," which is directly against the nature of what would literally be a SixOfSpades vs. GoblinCookie thread. So I admit I'm a bit unsure of where to continue . . . which is the only reason I'm talking so much about it here. What do you think--should we move this to a PM, with the eventual loser agreeing to come back out in public, and metaphorically heap dung upon his head?

[scourge728]

I think you guys should not take it to pm, mostly because I find these fights entertaining to read 

[Batgirl1]

Syndrome Associate with Tea: Argumentativeness.  Dwarfs who consume too much tea will begin shouting at each other about politics, rumor verification, and cannibalistic rabbits.  Cured by either alcohol, or a visit from the Hammerer. 

[Egan_BW]

Not sure if alcohol would sure it, but now I want to see these two argue while drunk.