Variable food supply - Another layer of strategy on the campaign map

[a tw player]

A relatively simple thought I've had; I'm assuming there'll be food supply system in Rome 2 much like there was in Shogun 2.

Why not make it so that different parts of the campaign map can upgrade their "farms" to different levels, based on their region? For example, a fully developed Italy will have a food defecit, even with fully upgraded farms, because historically it was not as productive as, say, Egypt was; Rome relied heavily on imported grain from elsewhere in the empire. This would require strategic thought (or forced food tribute) when expanding, to ensure that your thriving urban centres are supplied well enough, rather than simply upgrading everything in every province, and coming out with a surplus easily.

Perhaps another layer could be added to this thought, whereby for every level of urbanisation you go up in a province, the cap on the size of "farms" you can build in the same province decreases by one. Thus you would have to choose where you have your urban centres, and your agricultural centres throughout your empire.

Thoughts?

[Facupay]

That would be unbalanced. Every province should be able to produce the same amount of food.

[Cheap]

That would be unbalanced. Every province should be able to produce the same amount of food.

actually that's why romans invaded Sicily and Egypt: because of food shortage. That's the thing with a strategy game: you go grab the resources you need where they are.

[a tw player]

That would be unbalanced. Every province should be able to produce the same amount of food.

That's the point of my suggestion; the world isn't balanced, and this would open up different strategic options.

[Igor85]

The richness of Sicily was one of the reasons for the Punic War and after Carthage lost, they invaded South Spain because they needed a compensation to grow. In my opinion a strategic game shouldn't be balanced completely, because then you would not need any strategy. If there aren't any great provinces or resources, why should I invade?

[Miszel]

Thats a cool idea.

[nameless]

A relatively simple thought I've had; I'm assuming there'll be food supply system in Rome 2 much like there was in Shogun 2.

Why not make it so that different parts of the campaign map can upgrade their "farms" to different levels, based on their region? For example, a fully developed Italy will have a food defecit, even with fully upgraded farms, because historically it was not as productive as, say, Egypt was; Rome relied heavily on imported grain from elsewhere in the empire. This would require strategic thought (or forced food tribute) when expanding, to ensure that your thriving urban centres are supplied well enough, rather than simply upgrading everything in every province, and coming out with a surplus easily.

Perhaps another layer could be added to this thought, whereby for every level of urbanisation you go up in a province, the cap on the size of "farms" you can build in the same province decreases by one. Thus you would have to choose where you have your urban centres, and your agricultural centres throughout your empire.

Thoughts?

You don't know much about history do you?

The reason why Rome had inadequate grain supplies around itself was because most of the nobles that owned land focused on things like fruits, vegetables, wines, etc. because they were more profitable than grain.

That's why Rome was forced to rely on grain shipments from other regions of the republic/empire.

So no your suggestion is ridiculous and arcade-like. Food supplies should be based on the fertility of the area and how much land is there which CA already does. Since Egypt has very fertile lands it's food production if the player chooses to focus on that should be very high.

[Miszel]

So investing in vineyards/giving land to latifundist should result with food deficits and increase poverty, giving loads of money though.

[nameless]

But that's the player's choice, there shouldn't be anything that restricts the player to just one measure. Though that does bring up the question if food supply will be carried over from Shogun 2 in regards to upgrading cities (I can't see why not)

[Greve Af Göteborg]

Good idea. I think that a completely balanced campaign would be detrimental to the gameplay. We need zones of importance, strategical goals that we can target to gain resources that we either don't have or have too little of, but really need in order to function properly. Perfectly balanced = Dull campaign

[Lieutenant Sharpe]

Would food supply also include supplying your troops with food? If your supply trains are intercepted the army must be forced to forage for their food?

[Marcus1]

Agree, lack of supply off food in the italian pennisula led to deurbanisation when western rome fell and imports were greatly decreased due to lack of money. This led to italian pennisul not being a mayor power until the 1930s.

[Zeybek]

Agree, lack of supply off food in the italian pennisula led to deurbanisation when western rome fell and imports were greatly decreased due to lack of money. This led to italian pennisul not being a mayor power until the 1930s.

Yes, Italy a 'major power' in the 1930s...

In all seriousness though its a great idea. The wars over Sicily etc have already been mentioned. Also the Athenian and general Greek reliance on trade with Olbia and the Crimean cities could be mirrored here; if you are a small but large city-state you have to maintain trade relations with factions that have that resource, leading to either a) conquest or b) actually helping them out in a war if things are going badly for them.

[Marcus1]

Yes, Italy a 'major power' in the 1930s...

In all seriousness though its a great idea. The wars over Sicily etc have already been mentioned. Also the Athenian and general Greek reliance on trade with Olbia and the Crimean cities could be mirrored here; if you are a small but large city-state you have to maintain trade relations with factions that have that resource, leading to either a) conquest or b) actually helping them out in a war if things are going badly for them.

Italy was a mayor power in the 1930s or atleast had powerful friends in the 1930s.

[Miszel]

Italy was a mayor power in the 1930s or atleast had powerful friends in the 1930s.

Italy was a joke, it might have economical potential but military? Venice or Genua had more influence in their contemporary times than united Italy ever had.

[Ser Hodorius]

Agree, lack of supply off food in the italian pennisula led to deurbanisation when western rome fell and imports were greatly decreased due to lack of money. This led to italian pennisul not being a mayor power until the 1930s.

Actually, other major reasons led to the deurbanisation of western rome. For example the Iberian and Gaul provinces had significant deurbanisation, too, but they had the grain surplus unlike Italia. The arrival of germanic, gothic and other nations meant serious threat, and the romans couldn't defend their huge cities, thus, large cities become unsafe, see the sackings of rome, that's why they moved their capital to verona, and milan. In parallel, the decrease of central power couldn't manage the systems of their cities(water, garbage), they become unhealthy to live in. And the new nations were not urbanised cultures, so they didn't repopulate the empty cities.

And the Italian peninsula, it was not reunited until garibaldi, cavour, and mazzini, but in medieval times they had powerful city states(milan, venice), who dominated the trade to levant, rome was the religious centre for whole western europe, and the sicilian kingdom was one of the main powers through the early crusades.

[Marcus1]

Actually, other major reasons led to the deurbanisation of western rome. For example the Iberian and Gaul provinces had significant deurbanisation, too, but they had the grain surplus unlike Italia. The arrival of germanic, gothic and other nations meant serious threat, and the romans couldn't defend their huge cities, thus, large cities become unsafe, see the sackings of rome, that's why they moved their capital to verona, and milan. In parallel, the decrease of central power couldn't manage the systems of their cities(water, garbage), they become unhealthy to live in. And the new nations were not urbanised cultures, so they didn't repopulate the empty cities.

And the Italian peninsula, it was not reunited until garibaldi, cavour, and mazzini, but in medieval times they had powerful city states(milan, venice), who dominated the trade to levant, rome was the religious centre for whole western europe, and the sicilian kingdom was one of the main powers through the early crusades.

Lack of food was not the only reason but a fatal reason.

[Stingray1399]

I should most definitely be able to starve my enemies by taking their productive regions. I'll be taking those as my colonies, to feed my hungry people.

[vietanh797]

in the pic before it show that Egypt have 38 food at turn 2 even though they lost 2 provinces
so I think not only buildings use up food but army too this time since the food number quite big

[Argon Viper]

Certain provinces (like Egypt) should be incredibly fertile, but I can't think of any region except for the near-Saharan or Arabian ones that couldn't be built up to support a decently large population. It should probably vary a little bit, but no region should be forced into famine.