Print

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

[NW_Kohaku]

i think you may be right about arguing about different things

lets start with a list shall we?

the way i see it the problems are:
1. farms are too small
2. not enough variety (lack of differentiating variables)
3. not enough input from the dorfs.

Well, I agree with 2.  I don't really care too much about 1, and only care about 3 so much as it would involve some kind of player interaction. 

The thing is, the net effect is I'm only really going to respond to 2.  Fortunately, we're not at cross purposes, because if we were, it would turn into what's happening in other threads where nothing gets done.

i would love it if water slowly leaked out of ponds, and think it should be implemented. also, replenishment of said pond is already implemented. if you order dorfs to fill a pit they will keep it topped off at 7/7 until you order them to stop. i think that would satisfy your requirement?

and the bucket brigade *is* designed to be a stopgap measure, not only for the dorfs, but for the player as well. it is dorf power intensive, but requires zero effort from the player. it is there to help the noobs, and as an emergency measure in case you accidentally drain your irrigation ditches.

 the reward for setting up an irrigation system is that you have more dorfs to do other things, making your fort more efficient.

You're not looking at this the right way:

If you have magma, why should you ever burn a tree to make charcoal to smelt metals (at least non-steel related ones where it is required)?  A lack of a reward is the same as a punishment. 

If we set up a system where all you have to do is dig a single tile pit, and make them fill "ponds", which will water more tiles with less work than either pure bucket brigading or a complex irrigation system, then why do anything else?

i agree that crops need to be more diverse, but i don't think it needs 3, or even 2 soil quality tags. i think the combination of grow timers, fertilization and moisture requirements are enough. higher value crops have a tighter tolerances 9like say, only growing in moist fertile soil, and dying if that range is ever not met), longer grow times, and deplete the soil more. i absolutely do not have any issue with cheep crops that boost soil quality, i think it is a great idea.

a multi variable soil quality system would be fun. . . for someone who knows how it works. it would be hell on the noobs. one is simple enough, but adds enough variation in my opinion.

I have to disagree.  According to what you say, any periodically placed single tile pit with 7/7 water seems to be enough to feed entire farms, regardless of plant type.  That means that watering makes no difference. 

Currently, we have crops with different growing cycles... but without tending requirements, (and without a need to water, we're back to no tending requirements,) they would be as meaningless as they are now: The difference between a "quick" crop and a "slow" crop is simply in how much land you need to give to it.  Quick crops might "grow quicker", but it takes the same labor to produce the same size stack and the same labor to harvest it.    This is a meaningless differentiation, and players probably have little regard for the difference between a pig tail and a rope reed because of it.

That leaves only soil type to differentiate.  Now, yes, you could have some differentiation.  You could make higher-quality crops take some fallow time in between plantings, while low-quality crops don't.  Still, that's no reason to care about your farms, except in just making farm space a little bigger so you have fallow space.  Still no reason to really consider the hassle of fertilizer when you could just expand your farm a little more.

Now, I know I've pretty much gone on record against complexity for complexity's sake, or realism for realism's sake, but I think there's a genuine difference that can be made with a notion of crop rotations. 

Multiple soil types actually gives you a chance to make crops that would interact with one another.  Yes, it would be more complex, and a little bit more for a noob to learn, and noobs have a hard enough time as it is... But right now, the only thing to learn about farms is "aboveground or belowground", and "plant a seed, and it will turn into a crop".  Again, even the complexity that I am suggesting isn't a terribly difficult concept for anyone who is going to be capable of dealing with all the other aspects of the game, anyway.  What's more important, however, is that it would actually involve the player more in the way that their crops are grown. 

I am dissapointed currently in the way that all my clothes are either midnight blue or emerald green (no evil biomes in my embark).  Yes, I could mod in more colors, but if they have no real differentiation, what's the point?  I have strawberries and prickle berries, but if strawberries are ALWAYS better, what's the point? Having crops affect how well the next crop will perform will actually make something of an (admittedly fairly simple) puzzle as to what players want out of their farms, and what they can produce.  It isn't simply complexity that makes you go through a more cluttered menu, it actually changes the way a player wants to play the game.

i don't think this has anything to do with the size of the farm. it has more to do with the skill of the farmer. there should be a drawback to employing low skill farmers, other than they are just slow. this suggestion makes that happen. if this was implemented it would give some real incentive to bringing a skilled farmer other than just increased yield.

Umm... increased yeild isn't enough for you?  We're talking about a farmer producing between 4-6 crops as opposed to 0 and 1 crops.  That's roughly 10 times the crops (which is assuming even distribution, which it isn't) from a legendary compared to a dabbling. So... you want it to be ramped up to 23 times as big a difference?  Honestly, I think the difference between legendary and dabbling is extreme enough already.

[Darbuk.Ubildolush]

I'm just wanting to chime in on this.  I started reading the first 8 or so pages of this thread, and will finish the others over the rest of the evening and morning.  I'm going to go ahead and present my ideas, mostly as a show of support for ideas already presented, and perhaps adding something to these debates.

My concept for farming does indeed mirror a number of the base concepts for this thread...

Field Size and productivity:
     I absolutely feel that the farm plots produce far too much food, making 32 4x4 plots capable of producing all the necessary food for the Fortress with only 5 workers working those plots in a fortress of 150 to 200.  With this and a healthy potash production/import I'm able to maintain not just enough food and booze, but excess that I could trade if so inclined, without ever laying a hand on my booze supply for cooking, or my seeds.  Add in the animals as a source of food (delicious delicious cats and puppys) and food is the one element of my fortress I never have any concern with.  This is an untenable state of affairs.
      It would be my preferred state of affairs that between 15 to 20 Dwarves working the soil would be necessary to produce the amount of food I am now, and even then only with proper management of the soil.  Setting up and forgetting my farms from the end of the first year is not interesting, or challenging, and feels particularly unrealistic.  This isn't even soft realism, this is merely a blatant disregard for it.
      There are several elements I would see added to alter this, and make the whole process more interesting.

Fertilizing, Crop Rotation, and Ph Balance:
     Using four values for the soil would be my preference, possibly even five.  Potassium, Nitrogen, PH Balance, Soil Moisture, and Drainage.  Potassium and Nitrogen would be managed through a selection of fertilizers, specifically bone meal, potash, and animal excrement (I acknowledge this would need to be added).  PH would be managed through applications of Lye and Vinegar (A base and an acid respectively)
      Now, this wouldn't require any additional 'min-management' on the part of the leader beyond producing the required materials.  The Dwarves would know what they needed to do to make the soil tenable for the plants they were working with, and would make the required adjustments. 
       The same would go for drainage, take those rock you have, bust them down at the masonry bench to gravel, and mine some clay, the Dwarves would then apply these two items to make the soil have the proper drainage.  Now all of this would take time, so having dedicated fields would be wise otherwise the entire growing season might be spent preparing the soil.  (Which, like fertilization, is an option you should be able to turn off).  Additionally, aquifers would become a liability rather than a flat out benefit, as having too much water in the soil is as bad as too little, so building it on an aquifer tile could result in root rot (read: lower yields).
         As a balancing act to preserve the learning curve, no field would ever provide *no* harvest (barring environmental conditions, diseases, and pests) because of improper soil management, it would simply provide less.  And this brings us on to.

Environmental conditions, diseases, and pests
        Having farms react to the already extant weather conditions is the first method of making farming more challenging.  Is there a drought and insufficient irrigation?  Was there a late/early snow storm?  Does the rain just not quit?  All of this would later the ultimate outcome of your fields.  Now, since a 'no yield' field would not be a guarantee under the worst of conditions; having a larger field area to accommodate poor harvests by having extra chances to produce yield would become viable, and encourage/necessitate larger plots.
        Diseases could occur such as black spot, root rot, and the like.  These could be resolved either through skillful plant thinning on the part of the farmers, or you could implement treatments produced via the alchemists shop utilizing gathered plants and extracts from plants.  Planting plants in fields that are not optimized for them would increase the likelihood that diseases would take hold and spread.
      Pests would function very similarly as diseases, only keeping certain animals penned on your fields could help reduce the issue (such as chickens), or again, pesticides from your alchemists workshop.

Animals requiring feed:
      Requiring feed for animals puts another pressure on your farms, especially if you hope to keep any kind of diversity in your Dwarves diet.  Seeds for the birds, grain for the meat, dairy, and work animals.  There really isn't much more that needs to be said on this as an idea beyond number crunching and balancing.

Underground farms:
      There is a fallacy in the concept that underground farms would remain unaffected by external conditions.  Increased rainfall outside can result in additional water within the caves as it trickles down through soil and rock.  While this isn't an issue in all areas that have caves, it is certainly not a NON-issue.  Weather changes outside will certainly have little to no effect on the temperature within the caves, or at least nothing significant.
       The idea of having to use logs to create underground farms is a good one, as is the necessity of providing mud and fertilizer to keep them producing.  The natural formations that would occur underground in this hypothetical world would likely be insufficient to supply a hold of any real size, so agriculture would have to take hold.
        Like surface plants, soil quality, in all it's elements except drainage (since the mushrooms will be growing on raised logs) will be an issue.  So apply much of the above situations to underground farming.

Potential future issues:
      With current additions, namely medicine, we are going to have an increased requirement for certain materials such as pig tail and rope reed. These will be needed to craft bandages and thread to treat injured dwarves.  This is one example of a potential future issue that can create additional stresses on the farming infrastructure.  This is something I can only encourage.
      It is my hope that including things like medicines, alchemical treatments for various things such as blight and pests, and perhaps even additional ways of adding value to items with enameling and the like.  If we can add scents and treatments to soap to create higher quality and more effective soaps, that'd be another stress to consider, especially if those scents and such come from plants.  Include concepts like those presented by the previous poster, new dyes and the like, and there's limitless ways to use this element to strain farming as well.



That's it in a relative nutshell.  Before the argument is put forth (to me) I would have no desire to see that last option used as the way of balancing the farming issue.  It's not just about making farming more necessary and having to produce more, but making the process to produce more interesting.

For those things I have repeated that have been discussed, I apologize, and I hope this post will add to the conversation and continue development of this idea.



    

[immibis]

Lye and Vinegar (An acid and a base respectively)

Lye is a base and vinegar an acid.

[Darbuk.Ubildolush]

Lye and Vinegar (An acid and a base respectively)

Lye is a base and vinegar an acid.

It was very very early... Thank you for that correction.. XD

[NW_Kohaku]

I'm just wanting to chime in on this.  I started reading the first 8 or so pages of this thread, and will finish the others over the rest of the evening and morning.  I'm going to go ahead and present my ideas, mostly as a show of support for ideas already presented, and perhaps adding something to these debates.

Protip:  If you are skipping pages in a thread, you should skip pages 2 through (n-4), where "n" is the final page. 

In the months that this thread has been active, we've left quite a few of those ideas, and those posters, for that matter, behind.  People who are reading a thread, which is to say the people who are going to respond to it, are probably going to largely forget what was buried 15 pages ago since they read that months ago, but will still remember what happened 2 pages ago.

----

What you've said is functionally little different from what Silverionmox said a few pages back, which is, in itself, only a slightly more complex version of what I've been proposing.  (In fact, we largely argued over how, exactly, to model irrigation.)

With regards to some of the different things:  You cannot assume players will have access to clay.  players may very well have only one soil type in their entire embark point, and that may be sand.

Now, while it's a little odd that players may have no access to sand, and hence, no way to make glass, if you make clay an important step in something as basic as farming, you darn well better make sure it's available to everyone.

Also, if we're seriously going to rely upon rain in this game, instead of just irrigation, we're going to need weather that behaves a little more regularly.  In my shrubland biome (which is the second most "wet" biome), it only rains once every one or two years.  That means "don't even bother" unless you're living in a swamp or forest.

The idea of making weather affect underground farming seems a little too subtle.  If we're just going to force players to irrigate, anyway, this is something so subtle and beyond the ability of players to manage that it seems not worth even trying ot manage.

With regards to the "more dwarves should be required for subsistance", keep in mind that some people do want to farm pig tails for cloth for export.  I have a farm that is easily four times the size it needs to be because I have a large textile mill, and I have 8 planters, 9 millers or plant processors (they share that job), 5 weavers, 5 dyers, 5 clothiers, 3 cooks, and 3 brewers.  Yeah, sure, it's only "8 farmers", but since I've made crops a major cornerstone of my industry, I have roughly 38 dwarves involved in the "farm industry" even with our current "plant and forget" method of farming.  If we make players require logs to fuel underground farming, then we need more woodcutters as well as whatever additional farmers you will be adding in.  If we need alchemy to adjust certain soil levels, then keep in mind that alchemy is not available to all players currently, as it requires clear glass vials, and then we need more alchemists, which needs whatever products will go into the reaction.  Basically, just remember that industries in this game are inter-dependent when you start talking about needing to put more dwarves to work.

As it stands, however, I don't think players are going to have enough logs to spare for underground farming.  (And really, what's the difference between using a log to replenish soil, and using potash to fertilize soil?)  What's wrong with using the current animal chunks from butchers that have no other purpose?  Why can't the rotting stuff we currently have fuel our mushrooms?

[Darbuk.Ubildolush]

Protip:  If you are skipping pages in a thread, you should skip pages 2 through (n-4), where "n" is the final page. 

Thanks for the tip.

With regards to some of the different things:  You cannot assume players will have access to clay.  players may very well have only one soil type in their entire embark point, and that may be sand.

Now, while it's a little odd that players may have no access to sand, and hence, no way to make glass, if you make clay an important step in something as basic as farming, you darn well better make sure it's available to everyone.

One cannot assume that players will have access to clay, this is true.  If this were to be implemented I would imagine *perhaps wrongly* that it would be relatively trivial to include clay as a tradeable substance, just like sand will be in the next release.

Also, if we're seriously going to rely upon rain in this game, instead of just irrigation, we're going to need weather that behaves a little more regularly.  In my shrubland biome (which is the second most "wet" biome), it only rains once every one or two years.  That means "don't even bother" unless you're living in a swamp or forest.

The idea of making weather affect underground farming seems a little too subtle.  If we're just going to force players to irrigate, anyway, this is something so subtle and beyond the ability of players to manage that it seems not worth even trying to manage.

True, and I'm all for weather getting an upgrade.   As for the underground thing, sure enough, and I'm happy to leave it aside.

If we make players require logs to fuel underground farming, then we need more woodcutters as well as whatever additional farmers you will be adding in.
 If we need alchemy to adjust certain soil levels, then keep in mind that alchemy is not available to all players currently, as it requires clear glass vials, and then we need more alchemists, which needs whatever products will go into the reaction.  Basically, just remember that industries in this game are inter-dependent when you start talking about needing to put more dwarves to work.

Logs are frequently available, inexpensively, from traders.  This means trading would be that much more important, which I only see as a good thing.  Most of my charcoal, potash, and wood production comes from purchase logs.
Apply these same principles to alchemy and purchased items.

As it stands, however, I don't think players are going to have enough logs to spare for underground farming.  (And really, what's the difference between using a log to replenish soil, and using potash to fertilize soil?)  What's wrong with using the current animal chunks from butchers that have no other purpose?  Why can't the rotting stuff we currently have fuel our mushrooms?

Incidentally, at no point did I say that logs would be required for SUSTAINING underground farms, simply building them.  Perfectly happy to stick with using potash to continue fertilizing fields, in conjunction with the other elements listed above.

I like animal chunks being able to be used as a feed for animals, but not so much as a fertilizer.   The idea of using raw meat straight from the butcher as a fertilizer doth offend my sense of realism a bit much. (Many things I can let go, this is a bit far, simply because I've worked with organic gardening and processing meat into compost and know that it takes a goodly long time to become usable).

[NW_Kohaku]

One cannot assume that players will have access to clay, this is true.  If this were to be implemented I would imagine *perhaps wrongly* that it would be relatively trivial to include clay as a tradeable substance, just like sand will be in the next release.

Since starting a farm is a fairly basic thing, you would probably need to embark with clay if it wouldn't be available where you were going.  Home civs never have everything, though.  It's possible you wouldn't have it at all, in fact. 

Sand, and hence, glass, you can live without.  Farms are pretty much required, especially if you're going to make butcherable animals require feed. 

We were talking earlier about how requiring water would make farming in a desert too difficult, and the argument against that was "well, shouldn't it be?"  When the difference between a fort with a mighty agricultural base and one without it is whether or not they have access to clay and other types of soil, as well, it's getting a little weird.

Logs are frequently available, inexpensively, from traders.  This means trading would be that much more important, which I only see as a good thing.  Most of my charcoal, potash, and wood production comes from purchase logs.
Apply these same principles to alchemy and purchased items.

As you already say, though, you're already using the logs that you purchase.  Logs are fairly heavy (meaning they take up much more room than other products players may request).  You're saying we should put a significantly larger strain on what is already a limited resource (on an annual basis).

Likewise, if we are punishing a player for embarking when their civ is at war with elves or humans, that creates the same problem as with clay - farms are such a basic necessity of DF that it really shouldn't make farming too difficult without relying upon an embark parameter.

Incidentally, at no point did I say that logs would be required for SUSTAINING underground farms, simply building them.  Perfectly happy to stick with using potash to continue fertilizing fields, in conjunction with the other elements listed above.

That's the problem with "realism" as a design goal - things that one person considers realistic often leaves in things that are highly unrealistic in other aspects, and the "realism" often leaves in severe game imbalances that are, themselves, fairly unrealistic.  Still, I'm really sounding like a broken record talking about how realism alone should never be a design goal.

If logs are the fuel for building a farm, why wouldn't they require replacement?  If the basis of a farm is a rotting log, wouldn't that log eventually be eaten all the way through?

This also makes subterranean farming require above-ground resources (excepting, perhaps, tower caps), which may be realistic, but I think part of the concept of dwarves currently is that they can be entirely subterranean creatures, realism be darned.  (Of course, I still like the chemosynthesis based upon volcanos as a possible source of a subterranean ecosystem's energy.)

I like animal chunks being able to be used as a feed for animals, but not so much as a fertilizer.   The idea of using raw meat straight from the butcher as a fertilizer doth offend my sense of realism a bit much. (Many things I can let go, this is a bit far, simply because I've worked with organic gardening and processing meat into compost and know that it takes a goodly long time to become usable).

If animal chunks are unsuitable for you as direct fertilizer, that's fine, just shove in a middle step.  Have a worm farm for a workshop that can decompose bodies into usable soil.  Can work for "solid waste" as well if we ever get sewage as part of DF.

Collectors may bring chunks to the worm farm, and, when they have decomposed properly (changes to miasma would be nice, so that ventilation can be worked out), they can be used as fertilizer.

---

Anyway, you should be able to find what I proposed for a system for the past few pages.  I agree with a step up in complexity in general, however, I have no particular fondness for realism per se, I simply want a more involving system.  (I'm perfectly fine with just having three factors of soil quality, that can just be called "mineral A" "mineral B" and "mineral C" for all I care, plus whether they had been watered recently or not.)

I don't really think fertilizer should be a required aspect of the game (although underground farming does seem to call for it, doesn't it?), and would be happy with just plain crop rotation. 

I'm also a little leary of irrigation, as either it will be a matter of simply digging a couple holes you fill with water, or you will actually have to micromanage exact water levels of ditches feeding specific crops, which seems to be what you want, which will be a micromanagement nightmare if you put in crop rotations, which is something I would really like to see.

The idea of going all the way with setting up specific drainage systems is going a little far in my book - they not only take quite a bit more manual labor to set up (and farming is a basic necessity that people will want to set up quickly), but would require destroying your farms to change drainage systems between crops.  (Which again, is very bad for crop rotation.)

Also, I am no real expert on medieval agriculture, but I don't really think this was acutally a technique used by the sort of culture DF is modeled upon.  I believe medieval farmers largely just cleared the boulders away and plowed the land.  Rice farmers certainly worried about this sort of thing, but we're dealing with a much more wheat (and mushroom) based agriculture, here.

[Mad.Hatter]

This is a pretty cool idea all around.

[Darbuk.Ubildolush]

I feel it necessary to put this part of the response at the top:
Logs, Fertilizer, Drainage:  Neither of these would be *required* to have a functioning farm, it merely increases the efficiency of any given plot of land (as appropriate). 

Currently the position stated by many opponents to farm complexity seems to be that the intention here is you either do all the elements of farming perfectly to barely maintain your fort, or you die of starvation.  Neither of these is my intent, nor inherent to my design. 

A basic farm under the vision I see would result in farmland being VERY inefficient, but far from impossible to support your fort on.  A basic farm with no real modification to the soil would be able to provide *some* of any crop you plant on it with any luck.  It is also nearly inevitable that any soil type (with the exception of desert sand or solid stone), would be capable of supporting some form of plant life at at least a just sub-middling level.

This may mean that without engaging in the more complex elements of farming you are limited to one or a handful of plants that your land happens to be suited for.  Not good for variety, but it'll keep your dwarves alive.

What engaging in a detailed interaction with your farms will provide is a highly successful fortress agriculture with a variety of plants being grown and frequent bumper crops.  If you aren't interested in selling crops for profit, it at the very least would require less land to support your fortresses needs than merely shoving seeds in the dirt. 

Now, that being said, on to a blow by blow response with NW Kohaku.

We were talking earlier about how requiring water would make farming in a desert too difficult, and the argument against that was "well, shouldn't it be?"  When the difference between a fort with a mighty agricultural base and one without it is whether or not they have access to clay and other types of soil, as well, it's getting a little weird.

Requiring Clay is in no way more weird than requiring water.  It's basically returning to the same concept, drainage is important for plants (whether they want more or less of it).  As stated above, preparing your soil optimizes your yield, but you can scrape by with other methods.

As you already say, though, you're already using the logs that you purchase.  Logs are fairly heavy (meaning they take up much more room than other products players may request).  You're saying we should put a significantly larger strain on what is already a limited resource (on an annual basis).

I can't count the number of times I have heard, felt, and experienced the Trading caravans being more nuisance than assistance.  I don't *NEED* them currently, buying wood, charcoal, and potash from them at this point is merely a convenience.  And considering that 9 times out of 10 what the traders are carrying is fluff items (like artifact bags, tools I can make, craft goods I don't want or need, etc).

Likewise, if we are punishing a player for embarking when their civ is at war with elves or humans, that creates the same problem as with clay - farms are such a basic necessity of DF that it really shouldn't make farming too difficult without relying upon an embark parameter.

If a players civilization is at war with the Elves or Humans, it *SHOULD* make things more difficult, especially if they're relying on trade, that's the nature of war and trade. 

If logs are the fuel for building a farm, why wouldn't they require replacement?  If the basis of a farm is a rotting log, wouldn't that log eventually be eaten all the way through?

In the passing of tens of years, yes.  Seed logs are used through repeated harvests where mushrooms are concerned.  This isn't something most DF fortresses would live to see.

This also makes subterranean farming require above-ground resources (excepting, perhaps, tower caps), which may be realistic, but I think part of the concept of dwarves currently is that they can be entirely subterranean creatures, realism be darned.  (Of course, I still like the chemosynthesis based upon volcanos as a possible source of a subterranean ecosystem's energy.)

And this is possible, I think I would be comfortable with an underground farm being built with logs as an enhancement item better anyway.  This allows anyone to build an underground farm, but increases production if they utilize logs.  Incidentally, as a matter of clarity, Dwarves in classical literature were never purely underground beings, they just *lived* underground.  Fuel for their forges and various aspects of their food supply were almost always pulled from the surface.

If animal chunks are unsuitable for you as direct fertilizer, that's fine, just shove in a middle step.  Have a worm farm for a workshop that can decompose bodies into usable soil.  Can work for "solid waste" as well if we ever get sewage as part of DF.

Collectors may bring chunks to the worm farm, and, when they have decomposed properly (changes to miasma would be nice, so that ventilation can be worked out), they can be used as fertilizer.

Absolutely, I'm a big fan of composting bins, stockpiles, or workshops in the game.  (which could be enhanced by hunting out and putting worms into them. (New labor for Farmers and fisherman 'find worms'.)

Anyway, you should be able to find what I proposed for a system for the past few pages.  I agree with a step up in complexity in general, however, I have no particular fondness for realism per se, I simply want a more involving system.  (I'm perfectly fine with just having three factors of soil quality, that can just be called "mineral A" "mineral B" and "mineral C" for all I care, plus whether they had been watered recently or not.)

I don't really think fertilizer should be a required aspect of the game (although underground farming does seem to call for it, doesn't it?), and would be happy with just plain crop rotation. 

I'm also a little leery of irrigation, as either it will be a matter of simply digging a couple holes you fill with water, or you will actually have to micromanage exact water levels of ditches feeding specific crops, which seems to be what you want, which will be a micromanagement nightmare if you put in crop rotations, which is something I would really like to see.

The idea of going all the way with setting up specific drainage systems is going a little far in my book - they not only take quite a bit more manual labor to set up (and farming is a basic necessity that people will want to set up quickly), but would require destroying your farms to change drainage systems between crops.  (Which again, is very bad for crop rotation.)

No, you wouldn't have to destroy your farms to change drainage systems. In RL the major factor of soil drainage is soil composition.  You could add gravel and/or sand to make it drain better, and clay to help reduce drainage to create the perfect soil for a particular crop.  This could all be done without the need to 'destroy' your farms, it'd be handled just like adding potash.

Also, I am no real expert on medieval agriculture, but I don't really think this was acutally a technique used by the sort of culture DF is modeled upon.  I believe medieval farmers largely just cleared the boulders away and plowed the land.  Rice farmers certainly worried about this sort of thing, but we're dealing with a much more wheat (and mushroom) based agriculture, here.

Behold... The lesser oracle, consult it frequently my friend.  Crop Rotation and fertilizer are millenia old.

[NW_Kohaku]

I feel it necessary to put this part of the response at the top:
Logs, Fertilizer, Drainage:  Neither of these would be *required* to have a functioning farm, it merely increases the efficiency of any given plot of land (as appropriate). 

Currently the position stated by many opponents to farm complexity seems to be that the intention here is you either do all the elements of farming perfectly to barely maintain your fort, or you die of starvation.  Neither of these is my intent, nor inherent to my design. 

An "opponent to farm complexity" am I?  Do note that what I proposed was largely similar.  I am not opposed to complexity, I am simply trying to stress-test ideas, and I don't take "realism" as a valid reason, on its own, for anything.

Anyway, you said that logs would be required to build a farm, though.  That sounds pretty much like a requirement to avoid starving to me.

Also, especially if you make all these little changes that make farming require more space and more farmhands and more resources (including side-industries), then the loss of a benefit will eventually mean that you're dealing with farms that are so large and labor intensive that smaller fortresses will not be able to field the sort of defense forces that can repel early attacks.

A basic farm under the vision I see would result in farmland being VERY inefficient, but far from impossible to support your fort on.  A basic farm with no real modification to the soil would be able to provide *some* of any crop you plant on it with any luck.  It is also nearly inevitable that any soil type (with the exception of desert sand or solid stone), would be capable of supporting some form of plant life at at least a just sub-middling level.

This may mean that without engaging in the more complex elements of farming you are limited to one or a handful of plants that your land happens to be suited for.  Not good for variety, but it'll keep your dwarves alive.

I would hope that this level of subsistance be reduced only to "challenge biomes" like deserts or glaciers, however, not easily habitable land.

What engaging in a detailed interaction with your farms will provide is a highly successful fortress agriculture with a variety of plants being grown and frequent bumper crops.  If you aren't interested in selling crops for profit, it at the very least would require less land to support your fortresses needs than merely shoving seeds in the dirt. 

Preaching to the choir.  Again, I would want something fairly similar, but I disagree on minor issues.

Now, that being said, on to a blow by blow response with NW Kohaku.

... Are you really talking to anyone besides me, here?

Requiring Clay is in no way more weird than requiring water.  It's basically returning to the same concept, drainage is important for plants (whether they want more or less of it).  As stated above, preparing your soil optimizes your yield, but you can scrape by with other methods.

Requiring something that most players don't have is a problem.  Most players who aren't purposefully embarking in a challenging biome are going to have water.  Most players do not have clay, and this sets up scenarios where you will forever be penalized (and anything that isn't optimal is a penalty) because of the way that the game unrealistically handles soil types.

I can't count the number of times I have heard, felt, and experienced the Trading caravans being more nuisance than assistance.  I don't *NEED* them currently, buying wood, charcoal, and potash from them at this point is merely a convenience.  And considering that 9 times out of 10 what the traders are carrying is fluff items (like artifact bags, tools I can make, craft goods I don't want or need, etc).

And they're going to continue bringing those items, even after you request every item that you need, and don't request the items like craft items.  If you need steel, you can push that slider up all the way, but that doesn't mean you're going to get enough steel to fully outfit your army with the half dozen of steel bars they'll bring you. 

Basic self-sufficiency (I don't mean bare minimum sustainance, I mean capable of making a farm that handles food and textiles and further goods without need for trade) should be fairly easy in virtually any area with water that isn't too hot or too cold and has even remotely decent soil (which shouldn't require loam AND sand AND clay).

If a players civilization is at war with the Elves or Humans, it *SHOULD* make things more difficult, especially if they're relying on trade, that's the nature of war and trade.

It should be more difficult militarily, but it is "unrealistic" for a medieval-style society to rely upon imported goods just to feed themselves.  Setting players up to force them to rely upon something that may fall out from under them without any input on their part is just adding in a little extra masochism that doesn't really add anything to the game, and can't even claim "realism" as refuge.

In the passing of tens of years, yes.  Seed logs are used through repeated harvests where mushrooms are concerned.  This isn't something most DF fortresses would live to see.

Umm... being as these trees grow in only a couple years, I would suspect they could decay in at least as little time. 

Further, I have to ask why you would set this requirement up for "realism's sake", but then leave out the realism at this point?  This is exactly why I don't like using "realism" as a reasoning - it's always left off before its logical conclusions.

And this is possible, I think I would be comfortable with an underground farm being built with logs as an enhancement item better anyway.  This allows anyone to build an underground farm, but increases production if they utilize logs.  Incidentally, as a matter of clarity, Dwarves in classical literature were never purely underground beings, they just *lived* underground.  Fuel for their forges and various aspects of their food supply were almost always pulled from the surface.

Well, can you tell me what mythos, exactly, dwarves are completely faithfully pulled from for DF?  Because it sure seems to me that Toady has been blending in parts that he likes from various sources...

Being as dwarves in this game trade using products that come solely from underground sources, I think it's safe to say that dwarves in DF are meant to be at least capable of prolonged life underground, and very likely underground life is the standard dwarfy way.  In fact, it's a character trait when they "don't mind being outside/aboveground", since that's uncommon in a dwarf.

Anyway, you should be able to find what I proposed for a system for the past few pages.  I agree with a step up in complexity in general, however, I have no particular fondness for realism per se, I simply want a more involving system.  (I'm perfectly fine with just having three factors of soil quality, that can just be called "mineral A" "mineral B" and "mineral C" for all I care, plus whether they had been watered recently or not.)

I don't really think fertilizer should be a required aspect of the game (although underground farming does seem to call for it, doesn't it?), and would be happy with just plain crop rotation. 

I'm also a little leery of irrigation, as either it will be a matter of simply digging a couple holes you fill with water, or you will actually have to micromanage exact water levels of ditches feeding specific crops, which seems to be what you want, which will be a micromanagement nightmare if you put in crop rotations, which is something I would really like to see.

Did you mean to write a response here?  You just put a quote from me in response to a quote from me.

No, you wouldn't have to destroy your farms to change drainage systems. In RL the major factor of soil drainage is soil composition.  You could add gravel and/or sand to make it drain better, and clay to help reduce drainage to create the perfect soil for a particular crop.  This could all be done without the need to 'destroy' your farms, it'd be handled just like adding potash.

Which is still too much work for a proper crop rotation system.  Seriously, if you had to swap out the entire soil composition just to plant a new type of crop, when the point of planting new types of crops was to help change the soil composition, you just shot the whole point of the thing dead right there.

Behold... The lesser oracle, consult it frequently my friend.  Crop Rotation and fertilizer are millenia old.

I wasn't talking about crop rotation and fertilizer, which I know were used for millenia.  I was talking about advanced drainage systems of gravel, clay, and soil, with exact water levels, the way that rice paddies are worked, and which you were talking about in other parts of the post.  Rice paddies are a pretty extreme example of farms that require serious work to build properly, and most crops don't require it.

[Darbuk.Ubildolush]

[quote author=NW_Kohaku link=topic=22015.msg1101277#msg1101277 date
An "opponent to farm complexity" am I?  Do note that what I proposed was largely similar.  I am not opposed to complexity, I am simply trying to stress-test ideas, and I don't take "realism" as a valid reason, on its own, for anything.
[/quote]
I can accept that.  And I wasn't specifically referencing you, but others who have stated the position throughout the thread at large.  Hence the 'opponents' as opposed to merely 'NW_Kohaku'.  I'm not bound to realism as the end all be all either, though I do appreciate it's inclusion.

Anyway, you said that logs would be required to build a farm, though.  That sounds pretty much like a requirement to avoid starving to me.

Aye, I did say that initially, as you can see below, I indicated I can see a point and reason to revoke it.

Also, especially if you make all these little changes that make farming require more space and more farmhands and more resources (including side-industries), then the loss of a benefit will eventually mean that you're dealing with farms that are so large and labor intensive that smaller fortresses will not be able to field the sort of defense forces that can repel early attacks.

An interesting point, and one that deserves looking at.  However, I have yet to suffer any real difficulty from having my dwarves meet the troubles of the first year with a couple of Wood Cutters in leather armor quickly called to the militia.  In my experience, by the time major troubles arrive sufficient immigrants are typically available to begin training a military force.  This is usually sufficient for defense, especially if proper defenses have been implemented in the form of cage traps and walls with gates.

This may mean that without engaging in the more complex elements of farming you are limited to one or a handful of plants that your land happens to be suited for.  Not good for variety, but it'll keep your dwarves alive.

I would hope that this level of subsistance be reduced only to "challenge biomes" like deserts or glaciers, however, not easily habitable land.

The "standard Biomes" would likely be more compatible with a variety of the more common plants, and likely be not just compatible but good (if not perfect) for a smaller selection, so I could say yes to that.

Preaching to the choir.  Again, I would want something fairly similar, but I disagree on minor issues.

Now, that being said, on to a blow by blow response with NW Kohaku.

... Are you really talking to anyone besides me, here?

Yep, anyone who's reading.

Requiring Clay is in no way more weird than requiring water.  It's basically returning to the same concept, drainage is important for plants (whether they want more or less of it).  As stated above, preparing your soil optimizes your yield, but you can scrape by with other methods.

Most players do not have clay, and this sets up scenarios where you will forever be penalized (and anything that isn't optimal is a penalty) because of the way that the game unrealistically handles soil types.

This is a point you and I will have to disagree on.  I have never agreed with 'anything less than perfect is a penalty'.  I am far more of the 'anything less than average is a penalty', and on a agriculture friendly biome average results should be easily accessible for a number of crops.

And they're going to continue bringing those items, even after you request every item that you need, and don't request the items like craft items.  If you need steel, you can push that slider up all the way, but that doesn't mean you're going to get enough steel to fully outfit your army with the half dozen of steel bars they'll bring you. 

Nor should you necessarily, just because you need a material doesn't mean that the traders are inevitably going to have it available in the quantities you require.  I for one do not see this as a problem, but another example of your 'anything less than optimal' statement, which I will state again I don't agree with.

Basic self-sufficiency (I don't mean bare minimum subsistence, I mean capable of making a farm that handles food and textiles and further goods without need for trade) should be fairly easy in virtually any area with water that isn't too hot or too cold and has even remotely decent soil (which shouldn't require loam AND sand AND clay).

I agree that is shouldn't require sand AND loam AND clay, Loam by it's nature is one of the best growing mediums. Again, consult ye the lesser oracle, loam is considered ideal for gardening for almost every kind of common plant.  Sandy loam may require a little clay, loamy clay may require a little sand, but loam would be the ideal for almost every form of surface plant.  As you can see, all of these soil types are accounted for here.

If you already have loam, or even sandy loam or Clay Loam, your only real concern for plants that aren't corner cases would be fertilizer and water.

It should be more difficult militarily, but it is "unrealistic" for a medieval-style society to rely upon imported goods just to feed themselves. 

Actually, it's entirely acceptable for a medieval-style society to rely on imported goods to feed themselves.  Cities frequently had large import/export organizations to facilitate that exactly (see the Hanseatic League), and there were massive seasonal fairs for this purpose.

Where this breaks down is the fact that we're dealing with a Fortress with a typical maximum capacity of 200 Dwarves.  A town of 200 people SHOULD be able to feed themselves, provided the crops are good.  The crops fail, and hamlets of 15 have starved.

In the passing of tens of years, yes.  Seed logs are used through repeated harvests where mushrooms are concerned.  This isn't something most DF fortresses would live to see.

Umm... being as these trees grow in only a couple years, I would suspect they could decay in at least as little time.

Further, I have to ask why you would set this requirement up for "realism's sake", but then leave out the realism at this point?  This is exactly why I don't like using "realism" as a reasoning - it's always left off before its logical conclusions.

Because sometimes it's logical conclusion, if implemented in a game, is masochism for masochism's sake.  I'm a fan of keeping things fun as much as you are, and I think implementing logs as a way to enhance underground mushroom farms is fun and interesting, making the players replace those logs at anything but an exceptionally infrequent basis would be crossing that line.   On the other hand, I don't think having to replace all your logs in a farm every 3 years is an unrealistic expectation.

Well, can you tell me what mythos, exactly, dwarves are completely faithfully pulled from for DF?  Because it sure seems to me that Toady has been blending in parts that he likes from various sources...

Being as dwarves in this game trade using products that come solely from underground sources, I think it's safe to say that dwarves in DF are meant to be at least capable of prolonged life underground, and very likely underground life is the standard dwarfy way.  In fact, it's a character trait when they "don't mind being outside/aboveground", since that's uncommon in a dwarf.

I admit they are a blending without reservation.  However, saying they trade using products that come solely from underground sources overlooks the fact that the use mules to pull their wagons, dogs to protect their forts, and cats as companions.  Add in that leather seems to be very much a part of their society (available at embark in a panorama of sources even), and I think that kinda punches a hole in the idea that they trade using products that come 'solely from underground sources'.  We can also add fishing to this list, and their abundance of available meat products from start as well.

My estimation of DF Dwarves is that they are very much a dual lived people, their homes and preferred dwellings are underground, but they are very much in touch with tapping and utilizing the resources of the surface.

Anyway, you should be able to find what I proposed for a system for the past few pages.  I agree with a step up in complexity in general, however, I have no particular fondness for realism per se, I simply want a more involving system.  (I'm perfectly fine with just having three factors of soil quality, that can just be called "mineral A" "mineral B" and "mineral C" for all I care, plus whether they had been watered recently or not.)

I don't really think fertilizer should be a required aspect of the game (although underground farming does seem to call for it, doesn't it?), and would be happy with just plain crop rotation. 

I'm also a little leery of irrigation, as either it will be a matter of simply digging a couple holes you fill with water, or you will actually have to micromanage exact water levels of ditches feeding specific crops, which seems to be what you want, which will be a micromanagement nightmare if you put in crop rotations, which is something I would really like to see.

Did you mean to write a response here?  You just put a quote from me in response to a quote from me.

[/quote]

Yeah, I believe I did mean to respond to that, sorry!  In a way I agree with you, Irrigation would be a fickle bitch either a pain in the ass or so easy to utilize as to be trivial.  This doesn't mean I don't want it implemented, just implemented with care.  (And I just came up with a couple of management techniques for it actually, mostly involving ditches that you flood occasionally to water the entire farmplot, and then throw the floodgate to seal off until it's time to water again).

I do think that fertilization should be required for any kind of bumper crop yield, unless you're using crop rotation.  If you have crops slowly depleting and increasing various elements of the soil (PH and P/N levels) then fertilization could be avoided or at least utilized less, and crop rotation could happen in it's place.  Employing both of them for when deficiencies occur could produce an even more effective yield for the avid gardener, while leaving one option or the other open for 'above average but non-optimal yields'.

Which is still too much work for a proper crop rotation system.  Seriously, if you had to swap out the entire soil composition just to plant a new type of crop, when the point of planting new types of crops was to help change the soil composition, you just shot the whole point of the thing dead right there.

As stated above, you likely wouldn't, once you got a proper loam going on, it'd require only minor modification for optimal plant growth.  Little more sand, little more clay, and a little PH balance.  The avid farmer would be able to apply crop rotation to plots that grow specific kinds of plants.  (These plants like sandy loam, so I'll rotate these kinds of plants through this plot in an advantageous way.  These plants like clay loam, so I'll rotate them through this plot in an advantageous way).

Now, if the plants actually changed the composition of the soil (Which I don't think happens, changing it from clay loam to sandy loam for instance), you could apply this same technique.  But as far as I know plants don't tend to change the physical properties of the soil so much as the nutritional and chemical properties.

I wasn't talking about crop rotation and fertilizer, which I know were used for millenia.  I was talking about advanced drainage systems of gravel, clay, and soil, with exact water levels, the way that rice paddies are worked, and which you were talking about in other parts of the post.  Rice paddies are a pretty extreme example of farms that require serious work to build properly, and most crops don't require it.

I am inclined to believe this was done, but my current easily available resources indicate only that tillage and incorporation of manure, plant matter, and such goes back to 3000 B.C.E. in Mesopotamia.  One could extrapolate that they likely utilized methods of modifying soil to make it better suited for certain plants merely based on observation.

I will inquire of the Professor of my upcoming class this quarter, which focuses on agriculture.

[Silverionmox]

Concerning medieval agriculture, I did my thesis on the land management of a bailiwick of the Teutonic order. The first contracts with their tenants were very short, and apart from the place, term and expected return they explicitly mentioned nutrient management: the tenants were obliged to 'return the fat to the land', to spread pulverized limestone once every six years or so (to combat acidification resulting from demanding grains) and they were forbidden to sow in the fallow periods.

Irrigation systems were not necessary in a temperate climate, except to drain the water in lowlands near the coast. These areas were important and productive farmlands, and therefore the organizations that maintained these extensive systems developed early and remained powerful for centuries until they were absorbed into the state.

Concerning realism: it's not impossible to build a working car from scratch, but it's so much easier to use an existing one as a model, and make modifications according to taste afterwards. What we should aim for is not realism indeed, but verisimilitude and suspension of disbelief. Modelling after reality is the least likely to generate hidden imbalances we have to cure later.

[NW_Kohaku]

NW_Kohaku cancels post: Dangerous Wall of Text

Seriously, look how much of this page is just Darbuk and I...

Concerning realism: it's not impossible to build a working car from scratch, but it's so much easier to use an existing one as a model, and make modifications according to taste afterwards. What we should aim for is not realism indeed, but verisimilitude and suspension of disbelief. Modelling after reality is the least likely to generate hidden imbalances we have to cure later.

The problem is that this game is, try though it might, never going to be realistic. 

Consider tiles.  There are 50 "steps" (or turns, if you prefer that term like I do) in a game hour.  An average dwarf may move one tile once every 10 steps/turns.  This means they may move at a rate of 5 tiles per hour.  Considering average humans can easily walk around 2 or 3 miles per hour in a leasurely stroll, then should we assume that each tile approximately covers a distance of half a mile per side, for a total area of a quarter square mile?

That's the ultimate reason why I don't like strict realism - it has to interact with something unrealistic at some point, and you are either going to have to fudge something so that it fits with the unrealistic and at least makes a balanced (if not really realistic) game, or you're going to have a grossly unbalanced and (still) unrealistic game.

An interesting point, and one that deserves looking at.  However, I have yet to suffer any real difficulty from having my dwarves meet the troubles of the first year with a couple of Wood Cutters in leather armor quickly called to the militia.  In my experience, by the time major troubles arrive sufficient immigrants are typically available to begin training a military force.  This is usually sufficient for defense, especially if proper defenses have been implemented in the form of cage traps and walls with gates.

Do you play games in Terrifying biomes, with zombies scratching at your wagon the instant you embark?  Even without orc mods, it's possible to have a serious military challenge to a small fledgling fort.

Most players do not have clay, and this sets up scenarios where you will forever be penalized (and anything that isn't optimal is a penalty) because of the way that the game unrealistically handles soil types.

This is a point you and I will have to disagree on.  I have never agreed with 'anything less than perfect is a penalty'.  I am far more of the 'anything less than average is a penalty', and on a agriculture friendly biome average results should be easily accessible for a number of crops.

Nor should you necessarily, just because you need a material doesn't mean that the traders are inevitably going to have it available in the quantities you require.  I for one do not see this as a problem, but another example of your 'anything less than optimal' statement, which I will state again I don't agree with.

"Anything less than perfect" and "anything less than average" are very, very commonly one and the same.  When perfect is expected (and in the "when do you quit" thread, many DF players say that they will delete their entire fort if they make a mistake that may permanently mar the beauty of their fort...), then anything less than perfect is a punishment.

Let's not kid ourselves about what sort of people play DF: By hook or by crook, they will find a way to power their fortresses by perpetual motion device, build towers whose only support is a horizontal beam, or carve an entire fortress out of obsidian, completely surrounded by a giant, enlarged magma pipe (regardless of the fact that the fort would exist at 1100 degrees, celcius).

So yes, I do feel justified in saying that players will accept nothing less than perfect, and will be upset at not recieving it.

I agree that is shouldn't require sand AND loam AND clay, Loam by it's nature is one of the best growing mediums. Again, consult ye the lesser oracle, loam is considered ideal for gardening for almost every kind of common plant.  Sandy loam may require a little clay, loamy clay may require a little sand, but loam would be the ideal for almost every form of surface plant.  As you can see, all of these soil types are accounted for here.

If you already have loam, or even sandy loam or Clay Loam, your only real concern for plants that aren't corner cases would be fertilizer and water.

Please don't act like I don't know what I'm talking about, it's a little insulting.

The problem isn't that clay or loam aren't theoretically available in DF.  The problem is that a wide variety of soils is generally only available to a fortress on an aquifer straddling two biomes, (and especially rare near a mountain, where players are going to embark most often, since they will have all the features players want in their maps) excepting psuedo-exploits by messing with worldgen or modding. 

unless...

Which is still too much work for a proper crop rotation system.  Seriously, if you had to swap out the entire soil composition just to plant a new type of crop, when the point of planting new types of crops was to help change the soil composition, you just shot the whole point of the thing dead right there.

As stated above, you likely wouldn't, once you got a proper loam going on, it'd require only minor modification for optimal plant growth.  Little more sand, little more clay, and a little PH balance.  The avid farmer would be able to apply crop rotation to plots that grow specific kinds of plants.  (These plants like sandy loam, so I'll rotate these kinds of plants through this plot in an advantageous way.  These plants like clay loam, so I'll rotate them through this plot in an advantageous way).

Now, if the plants actually changed the composition of the soil (Which I don't think happens, changing it from clay loam to sandy loam for instance), you could apply this same technique.  But as far as I know plants don't tend to change the physical properties of the soil so much as the nutritional and chemical properties.

Are you actually suggesting a system of changing what type of soil you have entirely?  That would be an entirely different suggestion.

Regardless, I would rather we simply have a system where soil quality was set (in matgloss_stone_soil.txt) for every type of soil (which I talk about in a different part of this post) when the farm is built, and simply let the soil mineral levels fluctuate, rather than worry about changing the name of the type of soil you are farming on (although saying that soil is becoming sandy in the description of the farm wouldn't be out of place as a part of mineral level description...) being mixed or molded or changed.

[/quote]I am inclined to believe this [advanced drainage systems] was done, but my current easily available resources indicate only that tillage and incorporation of manure, plant matter, and such goes back to 3000 B.C.E. in Mesopotamia.  One could extrapolate that they likely utilized methods of modifying soil to make it better suited for certain plants merely based on observation.

I will inquire of the Professor of my upcoming class this quarter, which focuses on agriculture.
[/quote]

At the very least, complex drainage systems should be put out.  Even if they were period-appropriate, they make notions of crop rotation too labor-intensive to be worthwhile, meaning it forces the unchanging crop types farm I wanted to avoid with a system that encourages crop rotations, and it replaces it with functionally mandated fertilization to combat soil depletion.

Actually, it's entirely acceptable for a medieval-style society to rely on imported goods to feed themselves.  Cities frequently had large import/export organizations to facilitate that exactly (see the Hanseatic League), and there were massive seasonal fairs for this purpose.

Where this breaks down is the fact that we're dealing with a Fortress with a typical maximum capacity of 200 Dwarves.  A town of 200 people SHOULD be able to feed themselves, provided the crops are good.  The crops fail, and hamlets of 15 have starved.

I think you just made my own argument to yourself, there.

I admit they are a blending without reservation.  However, saying they trade using products that come solely from underground sources overlooks the fact that the use mules to pull their wagons, dogs to protect their forts, and cats as companions.  Add in that leather seems to be very much a part of their society (available at embark in a panorama of sources even), and I think that kinda punches a hole in the idea that they trade using products that come 'solely from underground sources'.  We can also add fishing to this list, and their abundance of available meat products from start as well.

My estimation of DF Dwarves is that they are very much a dual lived people, their homes and preferred dwellings are underground, but they are very much in touch with tapping and utilizing the resources of the surface.

This is really only a relevant discussion with regards to the need to trade for sustainable farming, which is basically the quote above that one, but anyway...

Animals and animal products are just as capable of being forced to be subterranean as anything else in this game.  I don't know about you, but I'm not letting my cows roam around in pastures aboveground.  They're mostly sitting in cages where they don't hog FPS, or maybe following my miners around in the narrow passageways, creating a little traffic backup anywhere I didn't make the hallways wider.  Same goes for my pet alligators and black bears.

Because sometimes it's logical conclusion, if implemented in a game, is masochism for masochism's sake.  I'm a fan of keeping things fun as much as you are, and I think implementing logs as a way to enhance underground mushroom farms is fun and interesting, making the players replace those logs at anything but an exceptionally infrequent basis would be crossing that line.   On the other hand, I don't think having to replace all your logs in a farm every 3 years is an unrealistic expectation.

I would rather say that we can simply use a soil system (one that we, presumably, would already have if we are tracking mineral quality/quantity in soil) on farms - farms that are initially set up on little more than muddied stone simply start out with very poor soil for growing, and would require either fertilizer to kick-start the farm, or some special tending and (granted, unrealistic) nutrient-replinishing fallow-type crop to build up the soil to be ready for producing subterranean crops, rather than forcing one specific type of material be used to start a farm.  You can just make a log you set to rot in a subterranean field be a type of fertilizer.

Fair enough compromise?

Yeah, I believe I did mean to respond to that, sorry!  In a way I agree with you, Irrigation would be a fickle bitch either a pain in the ass or so easy to utilize as to be trivial.  This doesn't mean I don't want it implemented, just implemented with care.  (And I just came up with a couple of management techniques for it actually, mostly involving ditches that you flood occasionally to water the entire farmplot, and then throw the floodgate to seal off until it's time to water again).

I would still believe it ideal if there were either a forced bucket-brigade mechanic (no direct irrigation, realism be darned), so that farmers would have to water crops with buckets and access to water.  Watering in this way would just mean that more water-dependant crops would wind up taking more manual labor to water (unless you have really bad farmers who like over-watering crops), taking more trips to and from wells or water ditches.  This sort of Harvest Moon mechanic would prevent a "dig a ditch, fill it with water, and forget it forever" solution, and the labor it would take would reduce the need to force more labor from taking place in other forms of crop caretaking.

Alternately, I think for a "at least somewhat realistic" mechanic, it would be best for there to be a kind of irrigation ditch that would work at somewhat different rules than a normal floodgate and lever system that has to be worked by manual orders - an irrigation ditch and sluice gate (source of contention between myself and Silverionmox some pages back) would create a new system of a mock-ditch and fluid that would allow dwarf farmers to water crops and pull levers on their own accord without having to worry about them actually drowning themselves or requiring the sort of complex mechanics or CPU intensity of normal fluid movements.  Dwarves could simply have sluices near water supplies, and would automatically adjust sluices to feed water to an entire farm plot attached to that sluice, free of player control.

... Sadly, I doubt I can convince many people of that second idea, no matter how well that system solves the problem, just because it means treating a fluid as a non-fluid, and simply declaring that ditches consume a certain amount of fluid per unit time, which then produces properly irrigated fields, without an actual tracking of fluids moving across channels.

The sort of system where you actually have to dig an irrigation ditch, and fill it to exact levels, which then get depleted, requiring manual refilling is just too micromanagement-heavy that I doubt anyone would care for it.

Having irrigation ditches that never deplete in water is... well, it's unrealistic for one thing, and it would be easily exploitable by simply digging channels/pits every so often, and filling it by the pond zone command once, and ignoring it forever after.

I really think that one of the two ideas I said up top would be the ideal solution.

I do think that fertilization should be required for any kind of bumper crop yield, unless you're using crop rotation.  If you have crops slowly depleting and increasing various elements of the soil (PH and P/N levels) then fertilization could be avoided or at least utilized less, and crop rotation could happen in it's place.  Employing both of them for when deficiencies occur could produce an even more effective yield for the avid gardener, while leaving one option or the other open for 'above average but non-optimal yields'.

Crop rotation is what I'm really aiming for.  I would prefer it be possible to simply set up systems of crops that would replinish one another in a sustainable manner, without needing to go back and manually watch and ensure that you always have enough trees for potash, wood burners making that ash, and ash going to the farm plots (or any other method of fertilization).  Since we are dealing with players who live and die by the wiki, setups for how to do simple sustainable crop rotations should be fairly well known fairly quickly after they become implimented.

Fertilization would only be necessary in the case of either wanting to produce plenty of high-value crops in consecutive seasons, repairing very low soil quality fairly quickly, or just maxxing out potential yields.

[Silverionmox]

Concerning realism: it's not impossible to build a working car from scratch, but it's so much easier to use an existing one as a model, and make modifications according to taste afterwards. What we should aim for is not realism indeed, but verisimilitude and suspension of disbelief. Modelling after reality is the least likely to generate hidden imbalances we have to cure later.

The problem is that this game is, try though it might, never going to be realistic. 

Consider tiles.  There are 50 "steps" (or turns, if you prefer that term like I do) in a game hour.  An average dwarf may move one tile once every 10 steps/turns.  This means they may move at a rate of 5 tiles per hour.  Considering average humans can easily walk around 2 or 3 miles per hour in a leasurely stroll, then should we assume that each tile approximately covers a distance of half a mile per side, for a total area of a quarter square mile?

That's the ultimate reason why I don't like strict realism - it has to interact with something unrealistic at some point, and you are either going to have to fudge something so that it fits with the unrealistic and at least makes a balanced (if not really realistic) game, or you're going to have a grossly unbalanced and (still) unrealistic game.

The game can't run in realtime, for obvious reasons, and the desired pace is too fast to run in accelerated realtime as well. But it can scale properly.

Realism is only important as a model. If someone wants to mod in flying pumpkins with laser-shooting pimples, be my guest. But if the systems are modelled properly, their interaction with the rest of the world will be believable and not arbitrary.

[Draco18s]

NW_Kohaku cancels post: Dangerous Wall of Text

The Dangerous Wall of Text hits Draco18s in the head!
It's a solid hit!
It is broken!  It is mangled!
Draco18s has been struck down.  The Silverwings has been annihilated!