Dynamic soil Fertility

[chaotix14]

Honestly yes, on the realism front this would be a great idea. Yes, it would make the game more challenging. Would it make the game more fun? Maybe.

First thing that came to my mind when thinking about this suggestion was. "God no, more micromanagement hassle." Because let's not forget how much fun it was(using colony manager these days, and in DF you'd refer to the magic of DF hack and auto-butcher to remove the hassle of the ever looming catsplosion) to manually set every single thing I wanted trained, penned or butchered to be done so. So unless the colonists can automatically and by themselves deal with the ground fertility without the player having to do more than set a few settings(like a minimum fertilization level) it's nothing more than adding hassle to the player.

Secondly as someone else already pointed out, larger fields aren't always viable. Try the suggestion out in game. Start a fresh new game, rich explorer if you really are up for a challenge, pick a place with at max 25 days of growing season(which is probably going to land you in temperate or a mild tundra area). Now without farming any tile twice and without over hunting the wildlife make it till the first harvest of next year. I don't know how hard or easy it'll be, since you almost always end up with a situation where you have 5-6 mouths(more if you have any animals) to feed by the end of winter.

Thirds, you don't put fertilizer into hydroponics, that'll clog up the tubing. You have to ensure the nutrients dissolved before it lands in the system.

Fourth, "Hell, if it works in DF..." except in DF it adds extra value to the soil rather than being a mechanic where something is taken away from the soil. Also it working DF doesn't mean it will work in other games with a very different focus. Imagine a rimworld without direct control, no way to tell them to prioritize something, none of that extensive micromanagement in combat. Or how about DF's very basic workmanager which basically says either you do or don't do a certain job. While it may have some micromanagement in the game, DF for the most parts it is and will always be a large scale civilization manager/simulator. For every colonist you'll have a handful of dwarves, and with some special exceptions dwarves are very expendable(colonists not so much).

Finally, for anyone who wants this as some attack on the mountainhome playstyle, here's a better suggestion: Remove mountainous spawns. Problem solved, no more mountainhomes. Also why the hell are you so against the mountainhome playstyle being viable that you create a suggestion to make it less viable? You don't have to use it, and why would other people using it affect you in a strictly single player game?

[DariusWolfe]

Also why the hell are you so against the mountainhome playstyle being viable that you create a suggestion to make it less viable? You don't have to use it, and why would other people using it affect you in a strictly single player game?

The whole discussion about Mountainhomes vs other styles has it's own thread already; There's no reason to bring it here. Besides, making other playstyles equally viable is a very different thing from attacking a particular playstyle.

[erdrik]

...
First thing that came to my mind when thinking about this suggestion was. "God no, more micromanagement hassle."...

The only micro management would be dealing with selecting which fields to use.
And I don't think it would be that difficult to adapt a "priority" pull down option per field, similar to how the priority pull down for stockpiles work.

Just add a new priority option called forbidden. Once a field has been "depleted" set it to forbidden and set a different field to preferred. If you only have to do that once every couple/few harvests I don't think its gunna be that big of an issue considering most plant growth rates.

[chaotix14]

The only micro management would be dealing with selecting which fields to use.
And I don't think it would be that difficult to adapt a "priority" pull down option per field, similar to how the priority pull down for stockpiles work.

Just add a new priority option called forbidden. Once a field has been "depleted" set it to forbidden and set a different field to preferred. If you only have to do that once every couple/few harvests I don't think its gunna be that big of an issue considering most plant growth rates.

Yup, that means more micromanagement and the menial task of keeping track of the fertility of the fields, because god knows colonists can't even muster the intelligence to go sleep inside(despite them not wanting to sleep outside) if there is nothing that explicitly tells them to, or walk to the table 20 tiles away and eat there instead of sitting down in the workshop and eating your pocketed food on the ground(I don't ask for self managing colonists, but I want them a tad bit smarter than the crops they farm). Because unless it is implemented in such a way that the colonists intellectually prioritize the fields with higher fertility, and automatically fertilize the fields to desired fertility it's all extra work on the hands of the player(note that I say work). And we all know how mirco free those implemented tame animals are(butcher over max bill on butchers table? Some other form of population management? How about something that'll automatically assign animals to the area we want and the training we want that type of animal to get? Nope, full on catsplosion simulator).

Also in theory there is nothing wrong with the idea, but in practice it basically comes down to build a bigger field/more farmland. You even admitted to this fact in what you just said, knowingly or not:

Once a field has been "depleted" set it to forbidden and set a different field to preferred.

Don't get me wrong I want to like the idea, and in some ways I do. It adds some intellect to the dumbest of mechanics in the game(seriously even hunting is smarter with how overhunting will decrease the spawns of that animal type). The idea of setting up a crop rotation cycle much like in DF(but with actual effects in the soil if you try to do only plump helmets in one field) seems like a lot of fun(if the amount of farmable crops were to be increased) and would give me reasons to plant other things than corn on high fertility, whatever on normal fertility and potatoes on low fertility. But I am afraid that when push comes to shove, the only result is build more farmland while just adding extra mirco work. And given how well Tynan has implemented stone cutting, farming(both of which require quite some management from the player to maintain a healthy stock without overflowing the stockpiles) and animals(I think I made my gripes with that clear earlier), however bad it may sound, I don't put much faith in him being able to implement this in such a way that it doesn't become just build more farmland(not that I would know good of a way, that wouldn't have some unwanted side-effects).

[Lightzy]

Huge posts that are based on nonsensical assumptions though.
Why would you think it'd be micromanagement intensive?

I've been playing dwarf fortress a lot lately, it has fertilization. and a lot more. crop rotation according to seasons, the need for seeds to plant if you want to grow anything, etc. It is no hassle. It's part of the simulation that ties into trade and other industries.

In Rimworld though it could probably be a little less obtuse. The fertility level of a field is instantly displayed upon clicking the field and you can press "f" to fertilize, if you have fertilizer.

[chaotix14]

press "f" to fertilize

Why good sir, thank you for proving my point(yes I know the quote is a small portion, but it highlights what my exact problem is with the idea). More mirco. Here I was talking about how it wouldn't be a hassle if colonist could by themselves without the player doing more than setting the order keep fertility at X handle fertilizing the fields, and what is the ingenious hassle free mechanic people come back with: manually instructing the colonists that they should fertilize a particular field. Sorry, but does that seriously sound like fun to you? Perhaps you also enjoy making use of the make X time function of every bill whether it be meals, art or just butchering(you probably don't, this is again only to highlight the problems I see). Because to me it sounds like something I'd get DF hack to handle for me ASAP, so I don't have to waste my time with the hassle of doing it myself.

Huge posts that are based on nonsensical assumptions though.
Why would you think it'd be micromanagement intensive?

I've been playing dwarf fortress a lot lately, it has fertilization. and a lot more. crop rotation according to seasons, the need for seeds to plant if you want to grow anything, etc. It is no hassle. It's part of the simulation that ties into trade and other industries.

In Rimworld though it could probably be a little less obtuse. The fertility level of a field is instantly displayed upon clicking the field and you can press "f" to fertilize, if you have fertilizer.

Let me start with a simple question, you say you play DF and that it's no hassle(I don't play DF anymore since a lot of things in the game are actually more annoying/hassle than the entertainment value of the game, mostly little things but cumulatively they make the game not worth it for me). Do you per chance use DF hack? If so, do you use workflow, the ghost building, autolabor, seedwatch or autobutcher? If you say yes, then think long and hard about what you are suggesting, when you are suggesting we should manually instruct our colonists to fertilize the land basically after every growth cycle.(also if you are relying on this stuff you really have no leg to stand on when you say it's no hassle to manage it, clearly it is because you let someone/something else take care of it) If you say no, then it'll be hard for me to explain what I see as the issues with your suggestion, because we are worlds apart from another. Were I'd rely on an automated plug-in to deal with the catsplosion you are manually managing that problem.

Also for me it generally would be completely pointless to have seasonal crop rotation in rimworld, the only growing seasons I see are summer and greenhouse. Unless we get some sub zero growing crops.


Okay, now that that's out of the way, let's go forward with a somewhat more positive note. Here's my suggestion to make it a mechanic without hassle and while giving it a good degree of depth:
-First of all no seasonal crop rotation. That would require too many crops to be added into the game simply to account for the incredibly varied climates the player can be dropped into. Instead a cyclical crop rotation where the next crop in the rotation is planted after every harvest. Preferably with the option to make quite complex crop rotations(like a 10 cycle rotation).
-Toning down the natural restoration so that you can't just do two cycles, wait a year and have great soil again.(it doesn't work like that in real life either) And only make it restore the fertility back to 100%.
-A much greater variety of crops, this ties in with the prior points. This variety should include a couple more row crops, a variety of legumes, and perhaps even some companion planting combinations like the three sisters, grass&clover or marigold&row crop. This way you could have some crops that have a high yield for their growth time, but also have a larger impact on the soil fertility, lower yield crops that have less of an impact and some crops(legumes for example) that actually restore/improve the grounds fertility(up to a hard cap at something like 150%), but have a low yield for their growth time.
-Companion planting as researches or with high grower skill requirements, given that these usually aren't well known and have more bang for their buck it seems logical to gate these behind either research or grower skill.
-Fertilizer can be made by composting plants(if plant remains become a thing, otherwise this just goes for wood, which is very very slow to compost without turning it into chips first), when food/herbal medicine/cotton rots away it leaves a small amount of fertilizer behind and when corpses rot away completely they also turn into a comparable amount of fertilizer(depending on the butchering meat quantity). Of course also the option to buy fertilizer via trade, collection via animal manure or perhaps even deposits of nitrates.
-Hydroponics always requires an external nutrient supply, no crop rotation cycles in the hydroponics. But a very high fertility cap(250% for example).
-Finally a slider in the fields menu that allows you to set a minimum fertility the colonists will aim to maintain with the use of fertilizer. Hydroponics will always be set to maintain it's fertility at max.


That's the idea I came up with while thinking long and deep about the subject. This way I think the idea could work in such a way that it adds meaningful depth to the game, without being outright solvable by building a bigger farm(that being said, if you were really adamant about it building a bigger farm would still be able to beat the mechanic) and without adding any more hassle than would be needed.(no press x to fertilize)

[b0rsuk]

Also in theory there is nothing wrong with the idea, but in practice it basically comes down to build a bigger field/more farmland.

And that's the point - in some biomes, there isn't (or there shouldn't be) enough farmland to support large plantations. This suggestions comes from the thread about promoting open colonies. In mountainous colonies, you simply couldn't build an underground fort and have a big field at the same time. You would have to go more into open or settle for hydroponics all day every day.

Our premise is that mountains should provide a different experience, not a strictly easier experience. Argumentation is fine, but keep your fallacies and strawmen out of this thread.

[Zimmaster7]

Dynamic soil would make soil fertility more useful. The addition of the moisture pump feels like a natural precursor to fertilizer and soil depletion dynamics. Crops should reduce fertility on harvest(different for each plant type) Sprites for soil are just a range, 110-140%=Rich, 80-110%=Regular, etc. Make the depletion greater than or equal to the average yield of each plant. That way you can just grow Hay to fertilize all your fields, as there would be either no net gain or potential even a net loss in fertility. Have butchering, harvest, animals generate waste. Waste is used to fertilize, Its just something you queue up like planting corn in the field. This would also be the precursor to the seed system.

Have the yield reduce the field by the nutrition of the food, so 20 vegetables reduce the fertility by 10% + 25% of the fertility decrease is added on top. So, 20 corn reduces fertility by 12.5%(10% from corn + 2.5% from waste). I'd yield one waste per 2.5% fertility lost. To give waste and easier method of tracking, don't track it's yield by the harvest, but rather by the decrease in field fertility on top of the harvest. So if 18 vegetables are harvested, from a full 140% field that has never grown anything, no waste is yielded, but if next season 22 vegetables were harvested, it also yields 2 waste.

Corpses and butchering yield waste as well. Calculated as waste=((meat+(leather/2))*0.25)/20. Have an option to convert a corpse directly to waste using the same formula except using 1.25 instead of 0.25. Essentially, this says 20% of the mass of the animal is inedible and only useful as waste. This uses the same assumption that nutrition of food is related to fertility effect on soil.

Animal waste would add small amounts of fertility overtime to soil that animals graze on. Animal grazing would return something like 110% of the nutrition consumed as fertility. So if harvesting a plant early would yield 10 food, the soil would lose 5% fertility, however if this same plant were grazed by an animal, instead of losing 5 fertility, the soil would gain 0.5% fertility. Effectively Keep mass soil depletion from wild animals.

Trees would be tough point to work out, as thrumbo and beavers consume trees, but they also have can self plant outside. I guess wood yield behave like nutrition, in that 100 wood would reduce fertility by 10% and have the 2.5% harvest decrease with 1 waste per 100 wood.