Underground Farms

[Jeffeland]

With the current nuclear war causing 0 food production in the game, a glaringly obvious problem has been exposed. That is, there is no way to bring food into the game and thus I propose a new improvement. 

The Underground Farm

The UF would cost 25 lead (to protect against radiation) and $250,000.00 to build. It would require electricity (for the grow lights). The upkeep on the UF would be $400 per turn. The UF would provide 4 food per turn with a limit of 5 UFs and standard production bonuses bringing maximal food production to 30 food per turn at a cost of $2,000 per turn.

Such an improvement could potentially improve player retention as new players are able to produce food even without alliance/market support.

[Zei-Sakura Alsainn]

There's an acutal term for this, and it's called Hydroponics. 

Also new players should not produce food, they should buy from the market or receive help from an alliance, or raid it.

[The Oceanic Council]

For new players it would be helpful but it would also likely result in abuse by larger nations, allowing them to throw nukes around without penalising their own food supply. So it is a bit of a double edged sword

[Jeffeland]

4 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

There's an acutal term for this, and it's called Hydroponics. 

Also new players should not produce food, they should buy from the market or receive help from an alliance, or raid it.

I'm aware of the term and was basing my idea on it. Also, while the market and alliances currently have food, it won't last long with prolonged nuclear war (about 1/4 of food in the game has already been used since the radiation spike).

 

3 minutes ago, The Oceanic Council said:

For new players it would be helpful but it would also likely result in abuse by larger nations, allowing them to throw nukes around without penalising their own food supply. So it is a bit of a double edged sword

That's the beauty in the ultra low production it does give. Cities larger than about 2000 infrastructure wouldn't have enough food to support themselves. Nuclear wars would disproportionately hurt the larger nations and result in a downward shift of money (to people with smaller cities) if nuclear wars continued.

[The Oceanic Council]

6 minutes ago, Jeffeland said:

That's the beauty in the ultra low production it does give. Cities larger than about 2000 infrastructure wouldn't have enough food to support themselves. Nuclear wars would disproportionately hurt the larger nations and result in a downward shift of money (to people with smaller cities) if nuclear wars continued.

You've got a good point there, something like a low flat rate, instead of the proportionality to land that farms have, would do that pretty nicely.

Edited June 24, 2019 by The Oceanic Council

[Jeffeland]

I should mention that seasonality (or Antarctica) would not affect the production either as they are growing these in controlled environments. The UF could actually help make Antarctica a more viable option.

[WISD0MTREE]

2 hours ago, Akuryo said:

There's an acutal term for this, and it's called Hydroponics.  

Nah man, aquaponics is where it's at these days. Much more efficient and sustainable than hydroponics. (I tried setting up a basic system at my cousin's. Didn't work out since the Texas heat evaporated all the water much faster than we thought. Then buzzards swarmed the place trying to get the fish. Fun stuff.)

[Azaghul]

I don't agree that this is a "problem".  Or if it is, it is a GOOD problem.

1) If you run out of food, it reduces your income by 33%.  Significant but not crippling.  Certainly something people can survive especially in the context of a war that's already crippling income.  And it affects everyone.

2) It creates an incentive and market for stockpiling food.  And forces players to make a cost/benefit analysis of stockpiling food.  This is a good thing.

3) There is still plenty of food available.  https://politicsandwar.com/world-graphs/graphID=12