Topic: making farmers consistent

the-x wrote:

hessenfarmer wrote:

the difference is that only atlanteans can use more spaces for planting fields as they are NOT blocked from other buildings and they can plant at the shore as well.
other tribes can't use any of the spots in a configuration like this while atlanteans can (although they have only a radius of 2 instead of 3)

what do you think?

I also like the Atlantean way more but we need at least radius 3, never do 2 or 1, this looks not so nice in the game later. Moreover we should think to make farms with more fields, in a new thread? but we need this, if you look at your farmers only having 1,2 or sometimes 3 fields, this is one point i disagree hessenfarmer, this doesnt look nice, nor realistic. I mean nowadys i build my farm next to the mill inbetween roads trees and a sawmill but it still works 100%, farms should be placed outside.

maybe it doesn't look so nice but this is not due to the farmers working radius (as this is defined in the workers definition) it is due to the fact how fast your grain is growing frisians have bigger radius and need more fields as barley is growing very slowly.
any how making a good economy depends on not wasting space so most players I know try to make the farms in a way that they are most efficient. And efficiency has its own beauty hasn't it.
third reason is I am not a fan of changing much in the legacy tribes if not necessary. As I think this issue is a matter of balance we might need to do something to get this fixed but I am reluctant to change something fundamental as working radius due to always subjective senses of beauty.

Top

Quote

king_of_nowhere wrote:

shouldn't farms need at least 4 fields for 100% productivity?

Yes, they do

anyway, the current arrangement allows to make the 4x4 grid of farms, which is the most beautiful imho

Yes, very beautiful! So I'd appreciate it a lot if the number of needed fields (and each radius) would stay like they are, only exception might be the frisian farm which could use less fields.

Wanted to save the world, then I got widetracked

Top

Quote

Solstice_s_Return wrote:

I agree that a farm with three or maybe even four fields shouldn't reach 100% productivity.

Why not?

Top

Quote

Watching replays and everything i mean its better that players place farms more far away and industry closer to the headquarter and not vice versa. In early times civilizations witch more ground were more effective, cause they could produce food better. Hessenfarmer, your right we dont need everything to be realistic, but in this point yes, or if you have as new player the first look at the game.

Top

Quote

Solstice_s_Return wrote:

Then it would eat fish or meat and work faster as a result. Two actions per fish or meat would be proportionate to get 50% extra speed and 6-7 active fields effectively used. What do you think?

This sounds excellent, as you have a challenge to balance both like that Idea

Top

Quote