RBP6 Lurker Thread

[MJW (ya that one)]

Why did you think cities don't lose their food boxes?

I might be misrembering but I staved a city in Civ4 and it did not lose its food box. This was vanilla so things might have changed after that.

If I'm misrembering it is because growing and then stavering down right after that should not cause the food to magically disapper. I would expect starving and growing to be symmetrical. In other words staving citizens turn cannibal.

[VoiceOfUnreason]

I might be misrembering but I staved a city in Civ4 and it did not lose its food box. This was vanilla so things might have changed after that.

I'm not entirely sure I understand what people mean by "did not lose its food box."

But from what I can see, the starvation mechanic in 1.61 (oldest version of the SDK I have) is the same that we have today: IF the total city food goes negative, then the food bar is set to zero, and pop decreases (if possible).

[Dantski]

I'm not entirely sure I understand what people mean by "did not lose its food box."

I'm guessing they are trying to say that when the city loses population because of starvation, the food indicator (lets say the city needs 36 food to grow) shows full (or simply not empty) after starving down a size. Maybe some people are just unfamilar with how Civ4 handles food in this regard.

[T-hawk]

I'm guessing they are trying to say that when the city loses population because of starvation, the food indicator (lets say the city needs 36 food to grow) shows full (or simply not empty) after starving down a size.

This has never been true in any Civ game at all to my knowledge. Who thinks this? Is it being confused with some other game that does work this way?

[Selrahc]

Confusion with granaries? A city with a granary starts at half food when it increases population. It might be expected that the same would work if it lost population.

[MJW (ya that one)]

Confusion with granaries? A city with a granary starts at half food when it increases population. It might be expected that the same would work if it lost population.

Yes.

It feels unnatural to me because you can grow a city and then that city could have its food cutoff for a turn and then you lose the entire foodbox and you have to start all over. That feels unfair.

[Krill]

Why? You only generate the food that is stored in the granary once, if it was there every time you starved you'd basically be turning 20 food into 400. Mana from the ether...

[Selrahc]

Well the other thing is slavery, when a city is slaved it loses population but its food box doesn't empty.

[waterbat]

!! Team 4 is looking to crush some French heads in Orleans. From what Dave posted, the rail line is not complete yet - it should be interesting to see how much military (if any) this attack diverts from operation Armageddon

[Ceiliazul]

It's turn 179 right now right? Therefore by This post Team two is calculating they win on T194.

Team 3 with the barbarians hordes of hell wielding kitchen sinks are attacking on turn T186 or 187 and hope to hit Beijing on T192.

Team 1 and their leisurely strolling group of gentleman adventurers seem to be attacking somewhere between T182-185.

Recap: It's now t180

T2 can win on t193... maybe faster if they get wise to starvation. How could they not have read Commodore's instructive PBEM24 thread on that topic?

T1 will attack on t185-t187. Their attack is delayed "by a few turns" due to t4 troops in the area. They haven't said anything about beelining Milkshake either.

T3 has long held the goal of razing Beijing on t193... and is indeed starting to look beyond this goal

T4 just invaded T3 with 50 units. If that delays the Real Men of Genius AT ALL...

Man this is close!