Johnny Costello Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 ok so. we know how many nations are about to starve. but. What if we could starve them.... todeath? yes. a morbid suggestion. And I feel rather realistic and tactical to war benefits. when a nation runs out of food each turn the lose (insert a fair percentage of infrastructure) to simulate a portion of the population dying off. 1 Quote I hold the Right to my own Fate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maverick0984 Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 I'm a bit bias of course, but running out of food should have consequences to the population for sure. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 ill add to that and say that running out of power should also effect your food stockpile 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maverick0984 Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said: ill add to that and say that running out of power should also effect your food stockpile Why? Food is generic and plenty of food doesn't require power to keep. I think you're missing the point a bit with trying to draw a parallelism to the real world. Instead, you're just searching for a like for like penalty without thought Edited April 4, 2018 by Maverick0984 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Scarfalot Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 51 minutes ago, Maverick0984 said: Why? Food is generic and plenty of food doesn't require power to keep. True, but in modern cities in developed nations enough of it does that power outages result in huge losses of dairy and meat, and if the power outage lasts long enough the list expands to include eggs, fruits, and vegetables. Amongst other things of course. Still, there's enough food preservation methods that don't require electricity to where the impact can be mitigated, and we can assume that the 'food' resource that exists in our stockpiles or on the market are canned or dried or whatever, since it *is* our stockpile. Most IRL nations have strategic food reserves like that. This does mean that everyone that doesn't have actual farms doesn't have access to fresh foods, but we knew that already. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxirella Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 There's a technical problem with this suggestion. The game calculates populate based on infrastructure and hunger doesn't destroy infra, to reduce population. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Scarfalot Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 14 minutes ago, Soxirella said: There's a technical problem with this suggestion. The game calculates populate based on infrastructure and hunger doesn't destroy infra, to reduce population. He's suggesting that starvation would destroy infrastructure instead of what it currently does, which is merely reduce monetary income by 33% 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erland Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 Starvation should really only temporarily increase the incidence of disease and decrease the population that way, which is in effect what currently already happens with the 33% gross income penalty. Maybe to make it more realistic, instead of the income penalty when a nation is starving, it accumulates disease in each city that reduces the population by a third and gradually reduces once the nation acquires food. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxirella Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 7 hours ago, Erland said: Starvation should really only temporarily increase the incidence of disease and decrease the population that way, which is in effect what currently already happens with the 33% gross income penalty. Maybe to make it more realistic, instead of the income penalty when a nation is starving, it accumulates disease in each city that reduces the population by a third and gradually reduces once the nation acquires food. I can get behind that suggestion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maverick0984 Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 8 hours ago, Erland said: Starvation should really only temporarily increase the incidence of disease and decrease the population that way, which is in effect what currently already happens with the 33% gross income penalty. Maybe to make it more realistic, instead of the income penalty when a nation is starving, it accumulates disease in each city that reduces the population by a third and gradually reduces once the nation acquires food. Yeah, I think this makes sense. Gradual penalty and not permanent. Then the populace has to gradually get healthy so the disease has a cool down effect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Livius Clades Posted April 5, 2018 Share Posted April 5, 2018 Don't unbalance the game anymore. This is a game. I feel people forget that some times. Quote Fire is nice eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Costello Posted April 5, 2018 Author Share Posted April 5, 2018 On 4/4/2018 at 7:13 AM, Erland said: Starvation should really only temporarily increase the incidence of disease and decrease the population that way, which is in effect what currently already happens with the 33% gross income penalty. Maybe to make it more realistic, instead of the income penalty when a nation is starving, it accumulates disease in each city that reduces the population by a third and gradually reduces once the nation acquires food. This is incredibly realistic I like that idea. 1 Quote I hold the Right to my own Fate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.