Canals and Farms

[OntologicalWeevil]

Do i put a canal surronding the biggest size farm i can make? Do I need people to constantly pumping water for the canals to stay filled? I have a river with two banks i can use instead too.

[Catsander]

You put farms somewhere within 8-16 or so tiles from the canal IF FERTILITY IS BAD. So as close as possible but further than 16 tiles does not increase fertility. Use the fresh water overlay to see the range of the effect from canals and the fertility overlay to see the fertility.

Yes, you need 6 people per pump. 4 if it is upgraded to tier 2 and 2 people if tier 3. One pump can fill 64 tiles of water (100 tiles on beta branch)

Use the GROUND WATER overlay to see where you should place your pumps. It should be around the river.

[Malorn]

Eh, I ran the numbers, and even with pretty good fertility upgraded pumps with good spacing on canals pays off. I use 8 tile distances and even on 80% fertility that boost easily pays for itself. With my design I have a 1610 area farm that requires roughly 120 canals to irrigate with no part of the farm being more than 8 tiles from a canal. This ignores getting the water there, but the farms line up with each other, so the carrying canal boosts the previous farm if you design it right.

With just one upgrade, that is roughly 5 people to irrigate each farm, which provides a multiplicative bonus of ~35%. Given each farm employs roughly 19 people...well, that math works out very nicely. The break-even point is above 80% base fertility. If it's higher than that, it's less helpful to irrigate until you have the third upgrade for pumps. Though the space efficiency is still nice.

Seriously, irrigation is amazing with the 100 square thing now.

[StarGazer]

i dont agree with it being amazing. Its in my view a very arbitrary way to force people into grid layouts that always end up in the same dynamic because of cost efficiency. Also it feels very mandatory in both min maxing and in terms of location settling.

Perhaps this leads to a phylosophical discussion and is therefor not the idea of this post, but it is nonetheless important to mention in my eyes because it might lead to further arbitrary developments that impede player freedom and choice.

This system with canals and waterstructures of supposed choice is a silly illusion when you think of how you always need a river to reach perfect fertility (atleast without research) and also that the irrigation system itself would allow you to settle with no water. It will always make you think about positioning yourself next to water because of this inherent need to be cost efficient. The building itself that will need less workers if placed on 100% groundwater adds to this distinction. Thats almost a paradox where you want something but when you realise the implications it just ruins your perception on choice. The fulfillment from overcoming obstacles in these types of games to me are often not consciously but subconsciously realised once you complete playthroughs. And when these elements impede your choices and also ultimately esthetics it kinda bums you out.

It reminds me of Anno where people just copied one layout they made and would copy spam that same layout grid for eternity. Some people enjoy that i suppose but i find it very boring.

[Malorn]

Originally posted by Hacker Magnet:

i dont agree with it being amazing. Its in my view a very arbitrary way to force people into grid layouts that always end up in the same dynamic because of cost efficiency. Also it feels very mandatory in both min maxing and in terms of location settling.

Perhaps this leads to a phylosophical discussion and is therefor not the idea of this post, but it is nonetheless important to mention in my eyes because it might lead to further arbitrary developments that impede player freedom and choice.

This system with canals and waterstructures of supposed choice is a silly illusion when you think of how you always need a river to reach perfect fertility (atleast without research) and also that the irrigation system itself would allow you to settle with no water. It will always make you think about positioning yourself next to water because of this inherent need to be cost efficient. The building itself that will need less workers if placed on 100% groundwater adds to this distinction. Thats almost a paradox where you want something but when you realise the implications it just ruins your perception on choice. The fulfillment from overcoming obstacles in these types of games to me are often not consciously but subconsciously realised once you complete playthroughs. And when these elements impede your choices and also ultimately esthetics it kinda bums you out.

It reminds me of Anno where people just copied one layout they made and would copy spam that same layout grid for eternity. Some people enjoy that i suppose but i find it very boring.

First off, I meant amazing in a gameplay benefit fashion, i.e. irrigation has many benefits to crop production in this game and is cost-effective. As you say, you are reaching towards the philosophical.

However, I will meet you on that philosophical ground. This game is extremely counter to that general methodology and I rarely find myself with any set pattern or layout for anything but crops. I agree that crops and irrigation do go that direction, but I think that is a limitation of realistic design. Crop fields in the real world off are very repetitive for the exact same reason, which is ease of irrigation. I mean, if reality does it, we can't really blame the game for showing the same.

To me there is no paradox, the canal system does provide choice, and I can irrigate almost any part of the map with only slightly less efficiency. After all, it's only four more pumps to relocation my main farms half way across the map. Yes, it can be better to stay near the river, but there may be fertile ground or space elsewhere.

If you really wish to be pushed out of your comfort zone, try a much less fertile map, or one with fertility less even across the map. I will cheerfully pull water any distance if the base fertility in that location is 60% compared to 20% near the water source (base not enhanced).

Ultimately this is not a free-form city builder, there are patterns. They are not rigid in the way that anno is, but distance limitations exists and ideal building designs for various sizes become more obvious over time. The location of good crop-land, minerals, and forests shape the city. And the ease of getting water to various places shapes it as well. In v66 you require water sources to pump, which is certainly very limited. But that equally means that no city will ever be laid out the same way, given how important water access can be.

But you have much bigger choices, you can ignore crops entirely. I've done it, and it can be worrying if the export system breaks down, but it's certainly very possible late-game with a few nice breadbasket territories conquered. And that is something most city-builders do not boost. You can specialize, you are indeed encouraged to specialize in a different way every game as the map resources provide different advantages.

[OntologicalWeevil]

Originally posted by Hacker Magnet:

i dont agree with it being amazing. Its in my view a very arbitrary way to force people into grid layouts that always end up in the same dynamic because of cost efficiency. Also it feels very mandatory in both min maxing and in terms of location settling.

Perhaps this leads to a phylosophical discussion and is therefor not the idea of this post, but it is nonetheless important to mention in my eyes because it might lead to further arbitrary developments that impede player freedom and choice.

This system with canals and waterstructures of supposed choice is a silly illusion when you think of how you always need a river to reach perfect fertility (atleast without research) and also that the irrigation system itself would allow you to settle with no water. It will always make you think about positioning yourself next to water because of this inherent need to be cost efficient. The building itself that will need less workers if placed on 100% groundwater adds to this distinction. Thats almost a paradox where you want something but when you realise the implications it just ruins your perception on choice. The fulfillment from overcoming obstacles in these types of games to me are often not consciously but subconsciously realised once you complete playthroughs. And when these elements impede your choices and also ultimately esthetics it kinda bums you out.

It reminds me of Anno where people just copied one layout they made and would copy spam that same layout grid for eternity. Some people enjoy that i suppose but i find it very boring.

It would be neat if there was some land that was naturally 90-100% fertility. Maybe a way to increase fertility with mass graves. A way for land to replenish in fertility over time?

[Subak]

There is land with 99-100% fert. I think it also does have the concept of rotation/fallowing.

What you generally want to do is farm the Nile banks. There's more nutrients always comin'.

[Subak]

Best use for canals I have made so far was piping them really nicely through a slew of orchards.


A bunch of small orchards seems always better than one massive one for a few different reasons.

[OntologicalWeevil]

Originally posted by Subak:

Best use for canals I have made so far was piping them really nicely through a slew of orchards.


A bunch of small orchards seems always better than one massive one for a few different reasons.

I haven't made any orchards yet, i've just been growing grain, herbs, and some cotton pickers in a small patch.

[Subak]

They're definitely not the thing to build with your landing party.

[StarGazer]

Originally posted by Malorn:

Originally posted by Hacker Magnet:

i dont agree with it being amazing. Its in my view a very arbitrary way to force people into grid layouts that always end up in the same dynamic because of cost efficiency. Also it feels very mandatory in both min maxing and in terms of location settling.

Perhaps this leads to a phylosophical discussion and is therefor not the idea of this post, but it is nonetheless important to mention in my eyes because it might lead to further arbitrary developments that impede player freedom and choice.

This system with canals and waterstructures of supposed choice is a silly illusion when you think of how you always need a river to reach perfect fertility (atleast without research) and also that the irrigation system itself would allow you to settle with no water. It will always make you think about positioning yourself next to water because of this inherent need to be cost efficient. The building itself that will need less workers if placed on 100% groundwater adds to this distinction. Thats almost a paradox where you want something but when you realise the implications it just ruins your perception on choice. The fulfillment from overcoming obstacles in these types of games to me are often not consciously but subconsciously realised once you complete playthroughs. And when these elements impede your choices and also ultimately esthetics it kinda bums you out.

It reminds me of Anno where people just copied one layout they made and would copy spam that same layout grid for eternity. Some people enjoy that i suppose but i find it very boring.

First off, I meant amazing in a gameplay benefit fashion, i.e. irrigation has many benefits to crop production in this game and is cost-effective. As you say, you are reaching towards the philosophical.

However, I will meet you on that philosophical ground. This game is extremely counter to that general methodology and I rarely find myself with any set pattern or layout for anything but crops. I agree that crops and irrigation do go that direction, but I think that is a limitation of realistic design. Crop fields in the real world off are very repetitive for the exact same reason, which is ease of irrigation. I mean, if reality does it, we can't really blame the game for showing the same.

To me there is no paradox, the canal system does provide choice, and I can irrigate almost any part of the map with only slightly less efficiency. After all, it's only four more pumps to relocation my main farms half way across the map. Yes, it can be better to stay near the river, but there may be fertile ground or space elsewhere.

If you really wish to be pushed out of your comfort zone, try a much less fertile map, or one with fertility less even across the map. I will cheerfully pull water any distance if the base fertility in that location is 60% compared to 20% near the water source (base not enhanced).

Ultimately this is not a free-form city builder, there are patterns. They are not rigid in the way that anno is, but distance limitations exists and ideal building designs for various sizes become more obvious over time. The location of good crop-land, minerals, and forests shape the city. And the ease of getting water to various places shapes it as well. In v66 you require water sources to pump, which is certainly very limited. But that equally means that no city will ever be laid out the same way, given how important water access can be.

But you have much bigger choices, you can ignore crops entirely. I've done it, and it can be worrying if the export system breaks down, but it's certainly very possible late-game with a few nice breadbasket territories conquered. And that is something most city-builders do not boost. You can specialize, you are indeed encouraged to specialize in a different way every game as the map resources provide different advantages.

I agree on certain points with you, and certainly thank you for the response.

In the last paragraph you mentioned the design of Anno vs Syx and this is where the brainmelter atleast to me comes from.
As you so rightly stated that "You have a choice to be less efficient, and that you have a choice in where you decide the difficulty is. Ofcourse a map layout determines how i create my city in most of these games anyway. And that already was the case even if you take out the river or the water system. Its strange perhaps that the focus here lies on the water aspect. But it feels way more agressive than just having to choose a different food resource. Infact, even bawlticrawlers gain more efficient output. Did you know this? That even livestock gets a bonus based on fertility and therefor a water pump? Than that creates another question as to where my focus should be centered. Is it my plan on diversifying to create a more cost efficient city? Or do i play garthimi and spam bawlticrawlers with water pumps next to them. Do you see how this simple mechanic breaks the immersion of my illusion xD I think it was much more fair to base this on strategy beforehand. How your initial starting point was more of a guideline into a transition you could make or plan on. Where you also commented on that same vision or idea. Now i have to make plans with rivers. And only rivers with the idea of always expanding outward. To me this creates a repetitive cycle even when doing more playthroughs.

I played alot of different colonies, also on the .64 version. The self sustaining aspect of starting out is what keeps me coming back personally. Seeing the improvement and increases from being efficient is deff a factor same as you. But lets be real in saying that the end game with taxes is a far cry from what i would call a fun way to balance a bad city or a deficient of some resource. I could also use slaves but that defeats the purpose of creating a new playthrough. If i know something is so strong, then why bother with the rest especially if it becomes mandatory in the future.

[StarGazer]

Originally posted by CremeCrimson:

Originally posted by Hacker Magnet:

i dont agree with it being amazing. Its in my view a very arbitrary way to force people into grid layouts that always end up in the same dynamic because of cost efficiency. Also it feels very mandatory in both min maxing and in terms of location settling.

Perhaps this leads to a phylosophical discussion and is therefor not the idea of this post, but it is nonetheless important to mention in my eyes because it might lead to further arbitrary developments that impede player freedom and choice.

This system with canals and waterstructures of supposed choice is a silly illusion when you think of how you always need a river to reach perfect fertility (atleast without research) and also that the irrigation system itself would allow you to settle with no water. It will always make you think about positioning yourself next to water because of this inherent need to be cost efficient. The building itself that will need less workers if placed on 100% groundwater adds to this distinction. Thats almost a paradox where you want something but when you realise the implications it just ruins your perception on choice. The fulfillment from overcoming obstacles in these types of games to me are often not consciously but subconsciously realised once you complete playthroughs. And when these elements impede your choices and also ultimately esthetics it kinda bums you out.

It reminds me of Anno where people just copied one layout they made and would copy spam that same layout grid for eternity. Some people enjoy that i suppose but i find it very boring.

It would be neat if there was some land that was naturally 90-100% fertility. Maybe a way to increase fertility with mass graves. A way for land to replenish in fertility over time?

I think having something that increases fertility is not a bad thing. And that would be a funny way to introduce such an option. Perhaps for some future race or the evil bugmen lmao. Fertilizing the crops with the blood of your enemies sounds like some scifi conan ♥♥♥♥.
But as it stands now to me canals and the irrigation should be either reworked or just removed as per my points. But iam not the dev and this dev is a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ angel. So i most deff could be very wrong and we have yet to see the almighty canal video of our dreams. Dont forget to mention the C tho.

[StarGazer]

Originally posted by Malorn:

Originally posted by Hacker Magnet:

i dont agree with it being amazing. Its in my view a very arbitrary way to force people into grid layouts that always end up in the same dynamic because of cost efficiency. Also it feels very mandatory in both min maxing and in terms of location settling.

Perhaps this leads to a phylosophical discussion and is therefor not the idea of this post, but it is nonetheless important to mention in my eyes because it might lead to further arbitrary developments that impede player freedom and choice.

This system with canals and waterstructures of supposed choice is a silly illusion when you think of how you always need a river to reach perfect fertility (atleast without research) and also that the irrigation system itself would allow you to settle with no water. It will always make you think about positioning yourself next to water because of this inherent need to be cost efficient. The building itself that will need less workers if placed on 100% groundwater adds to this distinction. Thats almost a paradox where you want something but when you realise the implications it just ruins your perception on choice. The fulfillment from overcoming obstacles in these types of games to me are often not consciously but subconsciously realised once you complete playthroughs. And when these elements impede your choices and also ultimately esthetics it kinda bums you out.

It reminds me of Anno where people just copied one layout they made and would copy spam that same layout grid for eternity. Some people enjoy that i suppose but i find it very boring.

First off, I meant amazing in a gameplay benefit fashion, i.e. irrigation has many benefits to crop production in this game and is cost-effective. As you say, you are reaching towards the philosophical.

However, I will meet you on that philosophical ground. This game is extremely counter to that general methodology and I rarely find myself with any set pattern or layout for anything but crops. I agree that crops and irrigation do go that direction, but I think that is a limitation of realistic design. Crop fields in the real world off are very repetitive for the exact same reason, which is ease of irrigation. I mean, if reality does it, we can't really blame the game for showing the same.

To me there is no paradox, the canal system does provide choice, and I can irrigate almost any part of the map with only slightly less efficiency. After all, it's only four more pumps to relocation my main farms half way across the map. Yes, it can be better to stay near the river, but there may be fertile ground or space elsewhere.

If you really wish to be pushed out of your comfort zone, try a much less fertile map, or one with fertility less even across the map. I will cheerfully pull water any distance if the base fertility in that location is 60% compared to 20% near the water source (base not enhanced).

Ultimately this is not a free-form city builder, there are patterns. They are not rigid in the way that anno is, but distance limitations exists and ideal building designs for various sizes become more obvious over time. The location of good crop-land, minerals, and forests shape the city. And the ease of getting water to various places shapes it as well. In v66 you require water sources to pump, which is certainly very limited. But that equally means that no city will ever be laid out the same way, given how important water access can be.

But you have much bigger choices, you can ignore crops entirely. I've done it, and it can be worrying if the export system breaks down, but it's certainly very possible late-game with a few nice breadbasket territories conquered. And that is something most city-builders do not boost. You can specialize, you are indeed encouraged to specialize in a different way every game as the map resources provide different advantages.

As a last thing i wanted to mention (i swear), is that i totally think you might be right about my perception in terms of city building. I dont think that comparing them is fair either because they are indeed very different and the genre itself is often laid with simple comparisons because they happen to share a similair mechanic. Cheers

[TerroRichard]

Maybe they could make like an endpoint for a canal, where it provides it's bonuses in a wider area that's more circular? That would break up the shapes.