Ok, done arguing after that.
It sounded bitchy, but what I meant is that changes should seek balance. This last change is unsustainable, as from what I heard, it makes everyone run a deficit. It's therefore an indirect method of attacking the food stores.
I disagree with this practice. If you want to attack the food stores, then attack the food stores, not production. Because food deficits scare people away from trading, and a long and slow decline of food stocks means that traders won't have much to do for months at a time and that, for months to come (until the food stocks have been reduced to desired levels), trade agreements will be borderline impossible to make. Therefore, putting the whole trading game on hold.
That is why I dislike how things are sounding.
I had no issue with food change 2, as it was obvious that adjustments were needed to balance things back since the population change. But food change 3 is unsustainable. What I would love is for food to be available, but hard to come by. Food change 3 changes things from "everybody has thousands of excess food they have no idea what to do with" to "everyone's running a deficit and will therefore not want to sell much until food change 4 in order to protect their own food requirements".
Just blast the food already, bring a special drought that causes fires and destroys food. But please, no month-long agony of universal deficits.