Print

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

[Granite26]

My point is not that 1 tile =/= 1 acre, but that 1 tile << 1 acre.  I'm all for striking a careful balance between realism and fun, but I think 1 tile/acre is a bit on the easy side, since (as I posted above) an acre is more like 1200 tiles.  While 8-12 tiles/dwarf may be on the high side, I certainly wouldn't mind 2 or 4 tiles/dwarf.  That, combined with regular irrigation requirements and maybe longer gestation, would go a long way toward making farming more of a challenge.

I don't disagree with you.  I guess I feel that there's not a lot of merit in saying it takes 4 squares to produce x food versus 1 square, since space is basically free.  The only cost of space is the time it takes to move, which is similarly distorted.

I'm totally for farming being harder to optimize.  People that want to just set up a field and let it run should be able to do that, with the cost being that it's labour intensive (higher number of dwarves required to produce the same amount of food.)

Like all good games, there's a tradeoff.  You can buy food cheaply, but that's vulnerable to attacks.  You can make it, and it's highly efficient, but it's dwarf labor intensive.  Finally, you can do something where you tweak out your farming to be super efficient, where the cost is your time.

You should be able to buy food from neighboring settlements.

You are

Edit--

Also, I like the idea that underground farms should be significantly less effective than above ground farms in order to make bunkering in harder.

[Frobozz]

One other reason to make farming more difficult is it would give a new incentive for making and using fertilizer. Why have the ability after all if you never have a need for it?

[korora]

My point is not that 1 tile =/= 1 acre, but that 1 tile << 1 acre.  I'm all for striking a careful balance between realism and fun, but I think 1 tile/acre is a bit on the easy side, since (as I posted above) an acre is more like 1200 tiles.  While 8-12 tiles/dwarf may be on the high side, I certainly wouldn't mind 2 or 4 tiles/dwarf.  That, combined with regular irrigation requirements and maybe longer gestation, would go a long way toward making farming more of a challenge.

I don't disagree with you.  I guess I feel that there's not a lot of merit in saying it takes 4 squares to produce x food versus 1 square, since space is basically free.  The only cost of space is the time it takes to move, which is similarly distorted.

I like building nice compact fortresses, so I value space somewhat in that regard, but even disregarding that, increasing the number of tiles to feed a dwarf naturally increases the number of farmers required to keep your farms running.  Even with 100 tiles of farmland, one legendary planter can currently keep your farms planted if your layout is efficient enough.

[Zombie]

I agree with inexperienced farmers failing to plant seeds properly, resulting in stunted growth or simply no growth.

However, the arguments being made here shouldn't be that we need humongous fields. Currently I'm using 2 6x5 fields and 4 3x3 fields to feed and intoxicate 80~ dwarves... Obviously, I'm generating a bit of a surplus but whatever. More is better...

Okay, so my food stores are full to bursting... >.> The point is that I think a SLIGHT increase in field size to food generation ration is appropriate. We can already set gestation times and cluster size in the RAWs, so I don't think Toady really needs to address that portion.

However, it would be nice to (somehow) be able to mitigate this problem. Requiring 2x2 or 3x3 blocks won't, in my eyes, fix anything. Instead we need a nice solution that fits into the current system. Plant death due to improper handling/planting would be a nice touch, but it wouldn't quite decrease the overabundance of food mid-game.

What I think we could use is simply an enforced "planting pattern" in farms, configurable for each crop. For every one square you can plant in a row, one will be left blank. So say the below is my 6x5 field:

Code: [Select]

XXXXXX
XXXXXX
XXXXXX
XXXXXX
XXXXXX

Where =s are planted squares, you'll see how this should work out...

Code: [Select]

X=X=X=
=X=X=X
X=X=X=
=X=X=X
X=X=X=

This would be easily explainable by saying each plant requires some "growing space"... IE, at least one empty square in a cardinal (N S E W) direction from itself. Growing space could be shared and must, if on rock, be muddy and "farmable"...

Also, I think a slight increase to realism is required. If you do not have soil, you should have to at least prepare the rock in your farms by putting some down. Easily obtainable from outside, right? After each planting "turn," you should either have to rotate crops (to promote nutrient diversity in the soil) or turn/replace the soil. Farms should require at least basic upkeep and not just a cursory "toss this seed in here and we get us some food!"

I also think that we should incorporate different TYPES of farms. We have Plump Helmets, which are apparently mushrooms... Now, tell me... Does anyone know where mushrooms grow? Anyone? They surely don't grow in the ground from seeds. We should be able to designate a placed farm plot as a "mushroom farm" or a "soil farm"... A mushroom farm would require lumber to be placed and slathered in mud in order to place the mushroom spores on. As this is a fantasy game, I don't think it would hurt if we had a gestation time that didn't require the decaying of the logs entirely... But they should be required to plant plump helmets and other mushrooms.

A log-based mushroom farm should NOT require "growing space" but SHOULD require accessibility. A one-tile aisle should be required leading to the log planters. Example, where |s are log planters and .s are empty (unused plot) tiles:

Code: [Select]

.|.|.|
.|.|.|
.....|
.|.|.|
.|.|.|

Of course, the "planter" skill should apply to both and failed germination attempts should be existent in both cases.

Through all of this, one farmer should not be able to upkeep all of these farms themselves. We should be able to have our dwarves make watering cans for our farmers to use, which should be required to grow any non-fungal plants. Normal plants require watering and upkeep, outside of the need to already have muddy tiles. This should address the "one dwarf feeding one hundred dwarves" problem.

Irrigation should be required indoors, regardless of what soil type the farm is on. The reason for this is that the tiles should be muddied at least once a season or two to introduce new minerals and to account for the fact that underground farms get no rain or runoff water. They are also not naturally fertilized by outdoor critters like bees and butterflies and whatnot.

>.> And that's all I got for now.

[Impaler[WrG]]

Lots of good feed back, everyone agrees that lower yield is the direction to go but some take a more conservative approach of cutting productivity by half others seem to be in agreement with me that orders of magnitude are required.

I'd also like to make some distinctions between surface and sub-surface farming.  I mod all sub-surface plants to be grow able year round as their is no weather or significant temperature variation underground.  I mod the surface plants to be more restrictive in season, typically 1-2 seasons in a year and almost none growing in winter (this needs to be linked to Biome better).  As surface growing is less safe but easier to start I think thats a fair trade off.

I like watering with buckets and think this could all be linked together in a flexible system.  Currently soil only becomes 'damp' when directly adjacent to water as a warning to not dig.  On top of that we could add 'moist' soil which would extend up to 3 tiles away from a damp soil (stone dose not become moist).  Moistness extends to the 'ceiling' above a tile so one can see moistness in the grass and know to plant their.  Plants could require Dry, Moist or Damp soil depending on their type and would be harmed by growing in the wrong moisture level.  When a farm plots moisture level drops below the ideal it 'calls out' for a Farmer to water it with a bucket.  Planters will automatically water an area with buckets before they plant and will only plant in the right conditions.

Out of that rule set you get a lot of interesting options, you can plant in a strip next to a river/brook and not worry about buckets or watering.  Or build a larger farm with irrigation channels bringing water in.  Underground you can build a flooding system thats turned on periodically to flood and dampen the plots or a well to water by hand.

[penguinofhonor]

What's that prove? To me, that just seems like you're saying that all ways of producing food are incredibly laborious in real life and not fun at all. That's more of an argument to not have food production be horribly grueling in DF.

I'm providing documentation for my half acre claim to refute your unsubstantiated acres and acres comment.  Cause, ya know, I did some research before I started talking.

As for the not fun bit, try digging a hole in the ground.   Try working a forge.  It's all of it not actually fun, but it is fun to watch the little dwarflets suffer through it all, and set up a system that actually meets their needs.

Half an acre or several acres, that's still a lot of space. 600 tiles (half an acre) per dwarf per year is still insane. I overestimated a bit, sure, but 600 tiles per dwarf per year is still a ton of space, and a ton of work, and my point still stands: we shouldn't have to do so much work.

As for your comment about forging and stuff, sure, those aren't fun either. That's why they're simplified and made easier in DF. Farming should be too.

[Frobozz]

Main issue with saying that plants should have growing space is that there isn't a real definition of how much each space holds. When you've got a dragon or a bronze colossus fitting into the same space as a kitten then you might as well give up saying how much space each thing should take up. And I'm sure a single plump helmet isn't as big as a dragon. If it were then I could see how such little space feeds a dwarf.

[Zombie]

The growing space holds nothing. It's honestly just "breathing room" for the plants.

If you want to argue about physical size, then I'm sure we could say that a bed and a dwarf surely aren't the same size and say, "Well why don't we make dwarf-sized tiles the smallest and have proper sizing! A bed takes up 1.5 dwarf tiles of space!"

The "growing space" tiles are employed in several situations in real life farms. Staggering (or rowing) crops allows farmers access without having to trample their crops.

If we want to go the way of realism, what with rice paddies and all... We'd need 600+ tiles per dwarf that would need to be constantly flooded with 1/7 water... We'd also need several hundred workers per field.

Do you honestly think that's feasible? DF is a fantasy game. Please check most stringent real-world specifications at the door. The amount of space a rice paddy takes up is NOT applicable here, no matter how you slice it. It simply isn't. There is no rice in the game, hence your field measurements are instantly moot.

This is not to say, however, that soft realism isn't to be mentioned. Soft realism, though, is making it LIKE real life. Not making it real life. Akin to. Farming should be easy and fun, but should also scale as your fortress grows. There is no reason for 2 dwarves to be able to feed 100. 2 should be able to feed, MAYBE 15 to 20.

[Impaler[WrG]]

Half an acre or several acres, that's still a lot of space. 600 tiles (half an acre) per dwarf per year is still insane. I overestimated a bit, sure, but 600 tiles per dwarf per year is still a ton of space, and a ton of work, and my point still stands: we shouldn't have to do so much work.

600 tiles per Dwarf is a straw man and you know it, no one has proposed we do that people just want to clarify to you why small areas feel unrealistic.  Actual suggestions range from 12 tiles to 1/2 tile with the games current requirement estimated around 1/4 tile.  You've said that my figures are impossibly high and "This means that nobody gets any time to do anything except farm." even though I explicitly stated 30% of labor for all food chain was the goal (which leaves guess what 70% for other stuff).  Also the 1600-2400 tiles to feed a full 200 Dwarf Fortress is well with in the players capacity, 1600 tiles is the area of the main display window when the side menu is closed, think about that your entire farm would fit entirely in the display window, try building ALL the other necessities of a 200 dwarf fort in a 1600 tile area, it ain't gonna happen.  I think you'll end up with ~10% of space used for farming rather then the current 1-2%.

[Othob Rithol]

It seems that a lot of folks are fixated on the "how many acres to feed a dwarf" and "how many squares in an acre" arguments.To me it is real simple...there are no acres. A plant grows in one space. A dwarf stands in one space.

Food production is a function:
Cluster Size*(Total Area / Needed Area)*(Growth Time /Gestation Time)  = Food

Or in short: Yield * Size * Time

To decrease the overall efficiency of farming you have to decrease only one of the  three core values. Impaler suggests (with merit) you can hit all three to get a large effect.

----

Yield:
Impaler has suggested a decrease in yield from default 5 to 1. I don't agree, as stack size cascades its effects into other areas like brewing, milling and cooking. Without stack combining  hunting, fishing, herbalism, cattle etc have an overwhelming advantage in stack size without serious, time consuming, and bug-prone rebalancing to the entire food system.

Area:
here Needed Area is by default 1, and Impaler is suggesting an increase here. But as can be seen from the arguing that approach is not popular. It also makes the "squeeze a little farm in early" tactic moot, because it is no longer "small".

Time:
Growth Time is the time where the plant is growing unrestricted. By default it is currently the time between the end of the plant task and the maturity of the plant. I, and others including Impaler, suggest this be periodically stopped for the grower to do some sort of auto-cued task.

----

I think the best approach (the one that requires the least work-time for Toady, pleases the most players, and affects the remainder of the game the least) is to alter the Time component. As Impaler said in the OP you can increase the gestation period ( [GROWDUR] ) so the plant takes longer to mature. In addition you can suspend the growth at intervals due to lack of water, needing tending, having a cave aphid invasion etc...

Basically, by reducing the time to maturity of a plant from a few weeks to a month (current settings) to a season or more, with many opportunities for a small and/or unskilled farming crew to lose plants/yield you can generate the exact same reduction in food production as a three-pronged (OP) approach. You will end up needing more plots to feed the fort, as well as more dwarves working to care for the crops.

----

Loose Ends:

Differentiating between fungi and soil farms is a cute idea, but unnecessary IMHO. Realism has to sometimes take a back seat to fun.

Crops growing year-round in a cave is far more logical since we are no longer dependent on the cave river and its yearly flooding. I still like the old way,and miss the floods dearly.

Having surface farms be more productive makes a lot of sense, but again, I like to old ways. It is called Dwarf Fortress afterall, and nerfing helmets to be inferior to strawberries betrays its roots.
----

[Zombie]

I think that's exactly the issue. Without a complete redesign as to how food works, there really isn't much way to fix the "far too much food from far too little work" problem other than increasing the grow duration to be a season and whatnot.

We need to keep in mind that the solution needs to scale. Requiring an absurd amount of tiles, such as 1600, just to keep a full fortress of dwarves FED is insane. Factor in that we also need to produce alcohol...? Insane.

We don't need gargantuan farm plots... 1600 tiles is 10 160 tile farms. That's 10 10-by-16 farms. Honestly, if you want to pay that much attention to such an inane detail in farming, then perhaps Harvest Moon would be a good choice for you... Even though, as an admitted Harvest Moon addict, even that game isn't as anal as you propose to be.

What we need is to figure out some way the farms can scale properly. I just wish I could figure out a nice looking formula for growth...

The solution I keep coming back to is introducing farm upkeep, giving your farmers more time taking care of the fields and less time able to plant.

[Impaler[WrG]]

We don't need gargantuan farm plots... 1600 tiles is 10 160 tile farms. That's 10 10-by-16 farms. Honestly, if you want to pay that much attention to such an inane detail in farming, then perhaps Harvest Moon would be a good choice for you... Even though, as an admitted Harvest Moon addict, even that game isn't as anal as you propose to be.

Are you even reading my posts?  1600 is tiny compared to the rest of the fortress and theirs no more 'attention' being payed to farming as the mechanics aren't changed just the balance of how productive it is.  Changing the farm plot size doesn't have any effect on the managing of farms, you still lay they down in those UMHK designated groupings which are just proportionally larger now but which are functionally equivalent. Nothing about a 3x3 farm plot is more work for the player to manage then a 1x1 your argument doesn't hold together at all.

[Lazer Bomb]

I don't think we need to have more farming area. I think what needs to be changed is the amount of time spent on the crops, planting them, harvesting them (not just half a second to pick it up), and processing them. Plump helmets should still be able to be eaten raw, but a very unhappy thought should be implemented in order to make dwarves not want to eat the same thing every meal. (Urist McUrist had plump helments again. He wants to eat a meal with Dwarven Flour in it.)

[Jamuk]

Actually, the realistic farming area idea would be better implemented after the economy is more fleshed out.  That way you would have to rely on other areas that specialize in food production if you didn't want to spend a lot of time farming.

[LumenPlacidum]

a very unhappy thought should be implemented in order to make dwarves not want to eat the same thing every meal.

This was done in the last release.

Ok, folks.  It seems like everyone agrees there's too much food to be gotten by farming, too easily.  However, that's where the arguments seem to lose their common ground.  Which cost is too low for the amount of food produced?  The costs are basically these: space, seeds, and labor.

The space is what many have focused on, which would help in terms of realism.  I think there's some room for increasing the size of farms, but not to the extent that some have been suggesting.

The labor is another aspect that has received focus.  Increasing the labor required means either increasing the number of tasks or increasing the time of each one.  Increasing the time for each task would lower total output for one farmer by predictable amounts.  Increasing the number of tasks would lower the total output by FAR MORE than you'd think.  Most time spent in farming in DF is spent going to/from the seed-room, not in the actual fields.  If each planting task takes 5 seconds, then increasing the number of tasks by 1 increases the total time by 5 seconds plus the time to go to and from the seed room.

The seeds themselves are another approach, and fiddling with this could end up being quite deadly to dwarfs.  It is, of course, ridiculous that one seed can produce 5 plants.  It seems to me that these numbers can be increased.  Require a handful of 5 seeds to sow a particular square and, at best, that number of plants grow.  Each plant should similarly produce more seeds.

Refine your points by saying which aspect or aspects of the costs of producing these plants needs to be changed.  Then, we can try coming up with better ideas for how to address specific problems.