How do I move excess food from one planet to the one with a shortage?
- Thread starter xittix
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
There definetly shall be some transport ships.
For trade, for food supply.
Dont know why I can resettle 3 bilions people(with theyr food supplies) to planet two months far away, but cant transport just food(cans with future technologie) from rich world to some starving desert world...doesnt make sense.
And who say cou cant, cuz you need too much big ships....I recomend to google MSC OSCAR.One of biggest container ships.Real.
And in space ur not limited by seas and spaces of harbors.
For trade, for food supply.
Dont know why I can resettle 3 bilions people(with theyr food supplies) to planet two months far away, but cant transport just food(cans with future technologie) from rich world to some starving desert world...doesnt make sense.
And who say cou cant, cuz you need too much big ships....I recomend to google MSC OSCAR.One of biggest container ships.Real.
And in space ur not limited by seas and spaces of harbors.
- 1
StarDrive did this.
It worked pretty well though. The game became about hitting supply lines, and it helped that you knew how much agriculture and industry the enemy planets had going for them. The economy factored in transports as well. It would probably work really well in Stellaris, plus it makes maintaining a blockade actually useful
- 3
Its a game, everything doesn't have to be "realistic." If it were it wouldn't be fun. The non-transportable food is just a design feature, consider the rationale to be: its not efficient, or else "to the extent it can be accomplished it is of limited effectiveness."
While I acknowledge there is an internal consistency in the instantaneous nature of most of the logistics across thousands of light years, but then food "cannot be transported," I also acknowledge it was a design decision that makes the game more challenging and fun.
You can agree and just play it how they designed it, or just mod it . . .
While I acknowledge there is an internal consistency in the instantaneous nature of most of the logistics across thousands of light years, but then food "cannot be transported," I also acknowledge it was a design decision that makes the game more challenging and fun.
You can agree and just play it how they designed it, or just mod it . . .
We can effectively do the same thing as moving the food in game right now through migration. You just have one extremely well-fed planet produce pops and migrate them to your growing planets.
This is terrible and manual.
I'm completely for the idea of having food be global.
"Pros"
Planets don't require farms on a per-planet basis.
Agri-Planets can be blockaded to slow or stop food production on an empire-wide level.
"Cons"
Empire-wide food shortage hurts more than before due to all pops suffering.
Pops can grow rapidly with large surplus without manual relocation. (I personally see this as a pro, but for some reason some people are arguing against it)
Ideally, I would like to see food production planets cover their own expenses first and only export the excess food so that in the event of a food shortage they will not suffer. Planets that do not produce food at all will suffer the most. Further ideas are policies on food rationing that affect food consumption and mineral/EC/research production, buffs/debuffs to planets that import food, civilian ships that carry food that can be intercepted by attackers, etc.
This is terrible and manual.
I'm completely for the idea of having food be global.
"Pros"
Planets don't require farms on a per-planet basis.
Agri-Planets can be blockaded to slow or stop food production on an empire-wide level.
"Cons"
Empire-wide food shortage hurts more than before due to all pops suffering.
Pops can grow rapidly with large surplus without manual relocation. (I personally see this as a pro, but for some reason some people are arguing against it)
Ideally, I would like to see food production planets cover their own expenses first and only export the excess food so that in the event of a food shortage they will not suffer. Planets that do not produce food at all will suffer the most. Further ideas are policies on food rationing that affect food consumption and mineral/EC/research production, buffs/debuffs to planets that import food, civilian ships that carry food that can be intercepted by attackers, etc.
- 3
- 1
Right a Freighter in Space could be pretty big. The Problem is to get the Freight from the Surface to the Ship and the other way around. Leaving a Planetary is very Energy intensive and hence costly. So your Food once it's loaded on board is probably already so expensive nobody could afford it. And all the pseudo realism beside, since food in Stellaris influences directly the growth rate it is a balancing factor and the ability to transport food from a already established Planet to a new Colony would entirely blow this balancing.
Getting mass into orbit is expensive for we who currently make use of a harnessed explosion to propel ourselves into space.
For a civilization with anti-gravity technology and advanced sci-fi propulsion systems, this expense would reasonably be moot.
Rocketry is not the benchmark for orbital expense when you can nullify the effect of gravity on your payload. Your benchmark would be the power supply needed to nullify gravity, and since that's imaginary tech, speculation is arbitrary.
- 1
It is easier to ship 1 billion people than to ship 1 billion people's food..........in this game
- 2
No Rocketry is not the benchmark, but even the Anti Gravity of your example would still need a lot of energy to work. And in my experience energy equals expense so i stay by my point, transporting food in a quantity big enough to feed millions of people would just way to expensive no matter what kind of technic you use to get it into orbit.
Yeah way more feasible the getting it into orbit first i agree, but orbital hydroponics hardly counts as transporting food between planets, so i can't exactly see what it has to do with this thread and my point that getting your potatos of surface is just not the way to go. Except your Colonists somehow like to pay a tousand bucks or so, for a portion of french fries.
Actually, we did that, it was called 'The Irish Potato Famine' and the starving people weren't in Manchester. They were like 100 mile west of it.
Regardless, supply and demand actually does mean it can be economical to ship food in places, because if they have no food the price is high enough to cover moving it around and a profit margin, too. If we assume some kind of space elevators, then orbital flight is essentially free and moving stuff between systems isn't so bad - especially since many of my ships, even early game, can move from system to system in under a month. The fact that there's already got to be some kind of abstracted private sector/automated Gosplan in your empire to deal with minerals sorts out who's moving the food around too. Whatever they've been using for maintenance does the trick. Frankly, fluff doesn't really hold this one.
The bigger point I think was raised in that it's bad for gameplay. Having food give a bonus to growth and then become useless is simply bad design; it encourages micromanagement and going back to rip out all the farms once you hit max pop. Even if we just had something like a surplus food to cash effect - so at max pop food is turned into energy credits at a 2:1 ratio or something - that'd be better than half the buildings on my planet becoming literally useless midway through the game. The current model encourages building as many farms as possible when you land (like every tile) and then ripping half of them down once you hit full. And that's just bad design all round; it's micro-ey, it's silly, it's making the player build stuff he's just going to rip down later on.
Either make surplus food do something permanently beneficial, or make it do nothing at all.
- 2
As I stated before, that's imaginary tech. No one has any idea how it would work, its power requirements, or how efficient it might be.
The most you can say is that it is less efficient, and more energy intesive, than leaving food lying on the ground, thus not worthwhile. This is hardly convincing.
For all anyone knows it could be a tech that exploits an undiscovered quirk of physics that can be powered by a AA battery. It's imaginary technology. There are absolutely no limits on how it might work or how efficient it might be.
We're happy to suspend our disbelief when it comes to FTL travel, but we're going hard sci-fi with antigravity and food transport?
The suggestion isn't that Orbital Hydroponics counts as food transoport between planets. Orbital Hydroponics does, however, solve your complaint regarding the expense of transporting food from the surface of a planet to orbit prior to shipping it to another planet.
In short, the food is produced in orbit, and can then be loaded on a transport and shipped. If the cost of getting food into orbit is your only, or primary, concern, it has been solved.
- 1
I just can't get my head around the "why" why would i produce food on, let's say earth and transport it for a lot of money to a colony instead of just to produce it at the colony itself... especially if there is the technology to simply grow food in hydroponic environments.... just why would i transport it instead of producing is (probably way cheaper) directly where it is needed?
- 1
You're still assuming that transporting food, as opposed to minerals or the like, is prohibitively expensive to the point of making doing so worthless. What I can't get my head around is why the economics of transporting minerals between planets to build things is not controversial in the slightest, but somehow transporting the stuff we need to eat to stay alive is. Differing priorities, I guess...
Scenario 1 - Supertech that we can only imagine makes transport of goods trivial. Wormhole travel, zero-point energy, autonomous robotic labor, such things make our understanding of economics absurdly obsolete, so why would we assume transporting food is expensive in such a society?
Scenario 2 - Let's say there is a cost involved. Now imagine a world that is colonizable, but as a result of some geological or biological reality makes producing food there impractical. Said world has immense mineral resources for mining, however. Hey! Now we can engage in trade! Food for minerals. Breadbasket planet that's mineral poor but arable land rich can trade their surplus for building and manufacturing materials. They can specialize their local economies to produce their repsective strengths efficiently, and mutually benefit. That's economics 101.
Scenario 3 - Let's say there's a cost involved, but our society is based on a non-capitalist ethic. Costs exist, but we're a hive mind, or super-space-hippies living in a galactic commune where we value sharing over individual profit. Maybe we're wastefuful and inefficient, but we're happy. Or we're obeying the overmind's will.
Scenario 4 - I've colonized a world in a strategic location for military purposes. It's at constant threat of military assault, so I really need to focus on building up defensive and offensive systems, but the world lacks sufficient space to do both that as well as producing sufficient food for the population. Both surface farms and orbital hydroponics take up valuable, and limited, realestate, and are simply to difficult to defend in the advent of attack anyway whereas I'd alreasdy be protecting shipping of other supplies (dem minerals!) to the planet. As such, our society has decided to pay for food shipments to support our strategic interests.
These are just a few reasonable explanations. I'm sure plenty of folks could think of more.
Because we don't grow food in our factories and research labs.
We don't grow food in our industrial zones and our school zones.
We import it to all of these places from our agricultural areas, so that our production and learning facilities can focus on production and learning instead of agriculture.
- 2
- 1
"Energy credits" is not literally energy, it's basically "sci-fi money". That's why when you discover an asteroid with precious metals in it, you get an energy mine, not a mineral one.
