Investment

[Bedwyr]

I think the actual answer is gameplay balance.  If investing could produce over 100% food, then you can essentially turn gold into food.  Which would rather drastically alter gameplay (ask Dominic how much that would change D'hara's situation, for instance).

Now, I'm personally in favour of making food more plentiful, but I hate the food game with the fiery passion of a thousand suns, so that's not terribly representative.

[Shizzle]

Well, I like the food game I was merely wondering if there was any IG explanation to counter my argument.

[Foundation]

That might be true, but one could argue that after an investment, people would more readily sell the stocks they still have at home It's kind of simplistic to think all the food produced goes into the warehouses of a region anyway. Looking at it from a medieval perspective, I think the food in the Lord's warehouse consists of a percentage of the total production in a region, given to him by the peasants in exchange for the protection the Lord provides (I don't know the right terminlogy in english, so excuse me the unorthodox way of putting it )

Do note that investments go into the region, to increase production and thus a portion of the produce is taken by the regional government.  Food is taken as a portion of the produce, not stocks at home.  You're right, the portion is taken out of total production, and you can't increase total production of a resource by throwing money at it.

[Chenier]

Because food is a resource.  You can't just put more money in and get back more apples than exist in the world, maximum food production is just that, maximum food production.

That's just silly, absurd. More gold, = better irrigation to prevent drought, better silos to prevent rot, better tools to plow or to harvest, etc, etc. If you invest in agriculture in real life, you definitely WILL increase production. We aren't talking about wild blueberry picking here (and even then).

[songqu88@gmail.com]

Maybe the BM translation is that maximum food production represents quite literally the maximum production capacity of the region. Yes, it makes no sense by real world standards because using Medieval agricultural technology and the crops of their time period, we would not be able to attain anywhere near the saturation point (excuse my lack of technical terms. I did consider attending an agricultural college, but decided not to, so I no longer have the same knowledge I once prepared for my interviews). So why can we attain maximum food production for the region in BM? I guess it's so we don't have an additional layer of numbers to calculate, and it might be so people don't get discouraged for never reaching 100%.

And yes, 100% does make a big difference, even from 99%, for some players.

[Anaris]

Maybe the BM translation is that maximum food production represents quite literally the maximum production capacity of the region.

It would be more correct to say that maximum food production represents the maximum production capacity of the region based on the agricultural techniques known at the time.

[Shizzle]

By the way, is food production dependent on population? (for a given production, of course)

[songqu88@gmail.com]

Kind of. It's linked in some way to the production %, but with the modifier of season and the harvest rating.

[Bedwyr]

By the way, is food production dependent on population? (for a given production, of course)

Food production is not directly influenced by population in a given region, but a population lower than max limits your normal maximum production.  So, for a given production percentage, it does not matter what population the region has.

[Foundation]

That's just silly, absurd. More gold, = better irrigation to prevent drought, better silos to prevent rot, better tools to plow or to harvest, etc, etc. If you invest in agriculture in real life, you definitely WILL increase production. We aren't talking about wild blueberry picking here (and even then).

No, you are being silly and absurd.  Read what the others have written, and you will understand what I mean in the correct light.  100% is the maximum attainable production, this is the last time I will say this.

[De-Legro]

That's just silly, absurd. More gold, = better irrigation to prevent drought, better silos to prevent rot, better tools to plow or to harvest, etc, etc. If you invest in agriculture in real life, you definitely WILL increase production. We aren't talking about wild blueberry picking here (and even then).

It is assumed that at 100% production ever conceivable boost to food production is in play. Food is well protected against rot and vermin, all possible farm land is being utilised as has sufficient water etc to be producing the maximum food content. Basically without a farming technological advance, 100% represents the absolute best possible farming practise and production for that region. That's the fun of %, the value depends entirely on the criteria of judgement.

[Vellos]

Dominic is correct in noting that, even in the medieval period, it is conceivable that gold could be "turned into" food. Sure, the marginal returns will decline, but the idea that the feudal economy ever had marginal returns below zero seems rather untenable.

However, in terms of game mechanics, it makes total sense to restrict the effect on food production. Otherwise, it would be conceivable to support a city (like Paisly) almost exclusively from, say, a townsland and a small rural (Chesland and Maeotis), and that is evidently not how the game is intended to work.

[De-Legro]

Dominic is correct in noting that, even in the medieval period, it is conceivable that gold could be "turned into" food. Sure, the marginal returns will decline, but the idea that the feudal economy ever had marginal returns below zero seems rather untenable.

However, in terms of game mechanics, it makes total sense to restrict the effect on food production. Otherwise, it would be conceivable to support a city (like Paisly) almost exclusively from, say, a townsland and a small rural (Chesland and Maeotis), and that is evidently not how the game is intended to work.

It is rare in any economy that the marginal return will practically reach zero. The marginal returns are poor enough far before this point to make it prudent to continue to invest to the zero point. Much better to do something like invest in an army and take over some more land or something

[Chenier]

Dominic is correct in noting that, even in the medieval period, it is conceivable that gold could be "turned into" food. Sure, the marginal returns will decline, but the idea that the feudal economy ever had marginal returns below zero seems rather untenable.

However, in terms of game mechanics, it makes total sense to restrict the effect on food production. Otherwise, it would be conceivable to support a city (like Paisly) almost exclusively from, say, a townsland and a small rural (Chesland and Maeotis), and that is evidently not how the game is intended to work.

Investing in Maeotis would never produce enough for all our cities, and would cost so much I doubt it'd be a real alternative to imports. We'd do it for sure, though, at least now and then, but it wouldn't cut our requirements for imports.

No, you are being silly and absurd.  Read what the others have written, and you will understand what I mean in the correct light.  100% is the maximum attainable production, this is the last time I will say this.

Others are clearly as ignorant as yourself when suggesting that any patch of land has a theoretical maximum production capacity. There is no theoretical maximum production capacity, *especially* not in agriculture. You can always develop more productive breeds, invent better fertilizers, discover better crop management, etc. That they did not have the technical knowledge we have nowadays does not mean that everyone had access to the latest technology of the days either, some could not afford better tools or did not have access to training for better methods, for whatever reason. Dump enough cash, and people will be able to afford better tools or training, that's just how the world works. And honestly, what the hell are people investing in to manage to make a small rural region's income double, without increasing food production, when everyone there is working on farms? It'd be way more realistic if investments in rural increased production % less considerably, but that this allowed for higher food production levels. If rural lords had more power over their food production, they might be more tempted to make a trade out of it, instead of shipping it all out for free as most do.

If you are arguing that 100% is the maximum food production in-game at this time, though, then you are just pointing out the totally obvious thing that served as the basis of my critic.

[De-Legro]

Investing in Maeotis would never produce enough for all our cities, and would cost so much I doubt it'd be a real alternative to imports. We'd do it for sure, though, at least now and then, but it wouldn't cut our requirements for imports.

Others are clearly as ignorant as yourself when suggesting that any patch of land has a theoretical maximum production capacity. There is no theoretical maximum production capacity, *especially* not in agriculture. You can always develop more productive breeds, invent better fertilizers, discover better crop management, etc. That they did not have the technical knowledge we have nowadays does not mean that everyone had access to the latest technology of the days either, some could not afford better tools or did not have access to training for better methods, for whatever reason. Dump enough cash, and people will be able to afford better tools or training, that's just how the world works. And honestly, what the hell are people investing in to manage to make a small rural region's income double, without increasing food production, when everyone there is working on farms? It'd be way more realistic if investments in rural increased production % less considerably, but that this allowed for higher food production levels. If rural lords had more power over their food production, they might be more tempted to make a trade out of it, instead of shipping it all out for free as most do.

If you are arguing that 100% is the maximum food production in-game at this time, though, then you are just pointing out the totally obvious thing that served as the basis of my critic.

If we are able to invest in radical new technology to improve our rural, then the gain from investment would be permanent though. If we then continue the line of thinking that there exist no maximum limit to food production (thanks for solving world hunger by the way) then we can constantly improve our regions to the point were they can provide the required food. Sure diminished returns would make that very expensive but if you take a very long term approach, or can't source food for import then people may well want to throw cash into making super rurals.

The thing we were trying to point out is that for the purpose of the game, rural technology is stagnate and can't be advanced further within the time frame, and in abstract terms everyone is assumed to have access to the best possible practise at 100%. Perhaps Tom would consider changing this, I'm not sure its ever been brought up.