Brad Wardell's site for talking about the customization of Windows.


I'm not liking the farming mechanic.  It seemed like a good idea on paper but in practice, it's just tedious and exploitive.  Here's how I'd like to see it work:


Some planets would have a Arable land tile including all starting planets.  Building on these tiles produces food.

The tech tree would have a path for players who want to get the most out of those resources to get a lot of food.  The arable land resource be destructable -- you can destroy it (like you can any resource btw) to put something else there.   This would make food take its rightful place as an important strategic resource rather than one that is simply produced by min/maxing.

What are your thoughts?

Comments (Page 6)
on Feb 17, 2018


How about completely get rid of the food system and just let every planet grow to planet cap size?

Far better than making the system even more awkward.

on Feb 17, 2018

That's to simple! The food management is one part of the tactical range and depth of this and the tactical possibilities are the reason why we love this game.  If you cancel those parts of strategy possibilities  you don't have to play a strategy game like this. A mobile app would than enough! 

on Feb 17, 2018

Just got this idea:

Food production could come with Terraforming ?

This would be easier for the AI.

on Feb 17, 2018

Abandon tiles on the planet for food. Pay a fee to increase farming output without graphical representation on the planet's surface.

on Feb 17, 2018


Can we see the code you are working with for the AI as concerns farms and cities. Perhaps someone in the community could help with a solution.

on Feb 17, 2018

Ok, as someone else said, even in todays tech we can pretty much grow food anywhere.

A planets base population should be based on it's class, this is a logical factor. Things like type of planet may alter this base.


  1. Every tile produces a base minimal amount of food, 
    1. larger class planets will then generate more food.
    2. this gives a base population based on planet class.
      1. which makes sense a larger planet will naturally support more life than a smaller one.
  2. Most every improvement can POSSIBLY add to food improvements. 
    1. raising a specific tile food contribution.
    2. eco friendly buildings give more bonus, while things like factories give less (if any at all).
      1. Moral increasing buildings should give more bonus than other types (exception farms).
  3. Farms (and other food producing improvements) increase greatly compared to others.
    1. They also increase food production on tiles around them.


This would allow those who want to focus on a food planet to be able to increase easily, while AI will naturally increase things by just placing improvements.


Non-carbon based life forms would get more food/pop from things like factories.


Planet types may also give base bonuses to tiles, so a water planet would likely produce more food than a dersert planet.


Easy math example:

If we take an average planet class/size of 8 and say it's base population is 4. Then each tile basically gives .5 food. I can place a farm which then either adds to (or even multiplies) the amount of food, thus increasing the population. I then build a park (moral increase), which has gardens and such and that may give a .6 food per tile. I add a factory and that give 0.0 food(for carbon based life). I then improve the factory which gives the tile another -.1 food (bigger more polution, etc). So when I'm done improving a factory, the base tile may be not producing any food bonus.

on Feb 17, 2018

If you want to make the AI smarter, you have to make the game dumber.  

This is truth, because most of the AI today requires scripting.  And scripting for dumb tasks is much easier than scripting for complex ones.  

If you actually want smart AI that can handle complex features you need neural networks and back-propagation (i.e. guess and check).  

on Feb 17, 2018

Okay, so if you're wanting a Food System that both AI and Humans can use equally well, then it seems to me that Food needs to be 100% predictable ie an If Population = X Than Food Production = X * 1 type thing. Remove the basic level of "must make food or my people will starve". Your folks will not starve to death if you don't build Farms. But if you do choose to build Farms, you make more Food for less money. So your population growth remains the same but your Treasury goes down by a smaller amount. Any excess food you get from your Farms becomes a resource that you can either Keep as a guard for Droughts, Disease etc (I'm sure there's a few Mega Events/random events that talk about Droughts and Disease but they could be improved to have a direct impact on Population, Morale and Food Production) or Sell it to another civilization/the Galactic Market.

on Feb 19, 2018


Well the Issue is a currency used to build population which in turn rewards the player or ai with production. 


I hate to ask but how did we do population and production in GC II? Can this mechanic be simplified yet still offer the player another lever to pull to get results in game?

Max Pop = Food x 1 Billion basically.

If it still works this way in GC3, then changing how food is produced would be a VERY BAD IDEA as it would make it difficult to control a planet's population limit.  This, itself wouldn't be a problem, except that it effects approval.

on Feb 20, 2018

So I'm wondering what size map and planet density everyone plays at and your opinion on food systems.

Cuz for me I try to play with fewer planets available so I won't have to manage too many colonies. Ideally like ten. Now I'm fine with the food system, but others have found it tedious. I suspect the difference might be because with fewer planets they can all be important and I still need to make decisions on where farms should be, while someone with more planets likely either has a planet with a food bonus, or planets with so little value they can cover several in farms and forget about them.

So am I right about this?

on Feb 20, 2018

You'd be right inasmuch as "the more planets you have, the more things you have to think about." It's just as much micromanaging to decide not to put the farm on Planet 47 as it is to put the farm on Planet 47. Which implies that the current system lends itself better to not having too many colonies so there's not much choice to make (seems something someone following a tall strategy would do) than having as many colonies as you can colonize before everyone else does (wide strategy like).

All this talk about food etc and I haven't seen much discussion about the powers of Citizens versus upgrading Buildings in this or any thread. I haven't really done any testing of Citizen v Building myself (and this is probably a much wider and deeper discussion than frogboy and co want on this thread, sorry in advance if it veers madly off course!), but which is a bigger driver ultimately of whatever area - military, research etc? If Farmers - to use this thread's subject - actually have a bigger impact on food production when they're maxed out than buildings and it's shown that the AI looks at it's pretty Citizens and does a lot of ummming and ahhhing and not much actual proper using of them, that might be what needs looking at.

Or are they both pretty even?


on Feb 20, 2018

Anyone else concerned that we are this far in the game and seriously discussing changing one of the fundamentals of gameplay?

This feels like a GCIV discussion, not an "update" to GC3