Destroying 'needed' Food Tiles - an exploit or bug?

from GalCiv3 Forums

So, we all have faced that difficult decision of destroying food tiles, because you feel pop is fine, you need to add more approval buildings, or some new sweet building just became available.  However, there dont seem to be any consequences for not having enough food for your pop.  You can in fact kill all of your food tiles, and your pop will simply not grow.  Shouldnt your population starve and shrink, or atleast lose some approval for being starved???

An obvious exploit of this would be to have several food tiles and a reproduction center, then when the pop is high enough, wipe it all out and keep the pop carefree.

15,760 views 12 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

You win the your Evil award :-)  Hadn't thought of trying that,  but yeah personally I would like to see a negative growth if food is less then Pop.

Reply #2 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

It's supposed to be decreasing by .1 per turn until you drop to your new cap. If that's not the case then this is a bug.

Offworld Trading Company
Reply #3 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Get the can of RAID!!! :)

Reply #4 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

when i destroy a few farms and have pop > max pop (which is the same as food for all races except synthetics), the population slowly starves to death at a rate of 100 Million per turn (aka 0.1 "population points").

if you can reproduce the situation where pop doesn't starve, that' would be a bug and you should probably send a savegame to the devs.

Reply #5 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

You may be right, I didnt actually watch the pop, I just saw the tooltip always say +0.1

Reply #6 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Very old exploit, see Game allows forced overpopulation

In the current version the income and negative treasure effects have changed compared to the early beta, but you can still overpopulate colonies.

And with the population-production back to a linear relation you are no longer punished on your production.

I am using this to boost my production on Earth (or whatever the race home planet may be) in turn 1 by dumping the population of the starting colonizer there. On the lower difficulty levels and on the large maps (medium and bigger) this does not do much. However playing against 7 major Godlike AI (+ map maximum number of minors) on a tiny or small map the initial boost of 20% production is nothing to sneeze at.

 

Reply #7 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

If the pop does decrease, it should decrease at a rate based on how much food is lacking.  As well, their should obviously be a negative approval when starting your population.  there are situations where you have to do it, but there should be tough consequences.  

Reply #8 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

to be fair,  if you make the starvation based on the amount of missing food, you'd also have to make the growth based on the amount of extra food. which is not the case. it's always the same +0.1 growth (plus percentage modifiers based on that rate).

Reply #9 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

I agree if you can't feed the pop then their is starvation.

Reply #10 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Haha, just thought about this. 9.5 months for a "terran" pregnancy is 38 weeks.  Thats 3.8 pop growth.  They must be Octo-moms? haha

 

Back to point, having excess food doesnt make you reproduce faster, it would increase approval somewhat (hence the term, fat and happy).   but starving people DIE, and are certainly unhappy.

Reply #11 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Your math is definitely wrong. Each week of pregnancy does not translate into .1 pop growth in this bizarre, has nothing to do with the actual game mechanic, aside.

Reply #12 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

I think starvation should have more overall consequences.  The population loss is almost minimum.  I would increase the population loss and severely affect happiness, to the point of affecting production.  Planet -wide starvation is a serious condition.  It needs to feel like one.