Why are Grain, Maize and Millet farms split up?

[Dragnar]

As far as I can see, they're exactly identical (Rye farms at least have the additional potato PM). We don't have citrus and peach plantations, but just abstract them into banana plantations, to keep the UI cleaner, so why do these exist as unique entities at all?
Is there any positive gameplay effect of having them split up instead of just consolidating them into one?
The only difference I notice is that changing grain PMs takes three times as many clicks...

Bonus question for Rice farms: As far as I know, the only difference of them is that they're twice the size per level, which also doesn't really seem like a meaningful distinction (you could just have twice as many levels).
Maybe I'm missing something obvious...

 

[Zander]

Rice farms also don't allow Tractors.

 

[Dragnar]

Rice farms also don't allow Tractors.

That both makes sense thematically and is an important difference. I did not know that. Thanks!
I still don't understand why they're twice as big per level instead of there just being twice as many levels, but at least there's a good reason for them to be their own thing.

 

[realCuervo]

That both makes sense thematically and is an important difference. I did not know that. Thanks!
I still don't understand why they're twice as big per level instead of there just being twice as many levels, but at least there's a good reason for them to be their own thing.

Rice farms are mainly in populous areas like China, Japan and India so it help with unemployment in game. This is on one hand a simple fix just for gameplay.

On the other hand tho, energy-intensive rice supported large population in pre-industrialization Asia and a abundant labor force in reverse made East and South Asian agriculture every labor-intensive. So it also make sense to have rice farm just hire more on a historical perspective.

Edit: having double arable land will impact other game mechanics like migrant attaction.

 

[Dman1791]

That both makes sense thematically and is an important difference. I did not know that. Thanks!
I still don't understand why they're twice as big per level instead of there just being twice as many levels, but at least there's a good reason for them to be their own thing.

Twice as many levels would require halving the output to keep things consistent, which would make rice farms have really low output per arable land. Twice the employment also means half the productivity.

 

[MrNoobomnenie]

Wheat and Maize Farms used to have a PM for wine (8 per level for Wheat, 7 per level for Maize), but ever since Vineyards became a separate building in one of the updates, the mechanical distinction between Wheat, Maize, and Millet have disappeared.

 

[Jamey]

Edit: having double arable land will impact other game mechanics like migrant attaction.

I think this is definitely the reason for the rice farms to be double size.

As for why there are multiple grain farms that are currently identical, my guess is that they were previously more differentiated or that there are plans to differential them in the future.

 

[TheFlemishDuck]

Bonus question for Rice farms: As far as I know, the only difference of them is that they're twice the size per level, which also doesn't really seem like a meaningful distinction (you could just have twice as many levels).

It is a very meaningfull distinction when put in terms of construction cost to build. One costs as much to build as the other but has practically double the output albeit eploying double the amount of people so technically also more cost, but from this flows many consideratiosn in relation to "capital intensive vs labor intensive industry".

Labor intensive industry is basically one that mainly relies on labor to produce and has labor cost as its majority cost, vice versa with capital intensive industries for where it relates capital goods. But there is a major distinctionin the game as to how throughput will affect each, throughput is far more powerfull on labor intensive industry. Because Throughput is an output multiplyer for the same labor used but it also multiplies the inputs accordingly so it only makes savings in labor. If the cost structure of an industry is 80% goods input and 20% labor then halving the labor cost makes a 10% difference on the total cost reduction of the industry, if an industry is 80% labor cost and 20% input then halving the labor costs gives a cost reduction to that industry of 40%, far more powerfull then.

So its like when you can work with these rice farms at a time where you want really lots of grain and you can really pump the throughput high in a specific province, that whereas expanding on normal farms on basic production would have yielded you maybe only around 20 grain that at 100 throughput your rice farm for the same investment outputs 70 grain per level, and outputs as much as a rice farm would output with 2 levels of better production tech but withought the throughput. Rice farms with fertilizer will produce a base 75 grain but cost 20 fertilizer per level, a rice farm level subject to 100 throughput will produce 70 grain at the 1st production method withought costing any fertilizer, and in that occasion all the cost will be labor.

Now add to all this that its also possible to severly drop wages with various exploitative methods. You can have these very labor intensive industrys working at very high input withought material cost and then have people working for practically nothing, this can notably either create industries that can operate at very high profits for the purpose of dividends or which can be produced at extremely low prices either for the purpose of trade and tariff generation or for the purpose to serve as cheap resources nationally to produce more worthwhile finished goods, like groceries for examples. This makes rice farms a fairly good target for exploitative colonialism as an example.

 

[Sledjer]

Rice should definitely be distinct. Rice is a unique grain in that it provides among the most calories of grain on a per-land basis, but is also highly labor intensive. This is correctly represented in game. It provides more (but not twice!) the grain per arable land, but requires twice the labor, and actually more than twice once you get labor saving PMs. The difference between rice and other crops is actually very significant in history, because it allowed rice-farming countries to support significantly higher population densities that wheat farming countries.

In game, rice is one of the best buildings for elevating peasants, but massively falls off once you run into labor shortages. It probably makes a comeback if you play past the end date and start running into food shortages from population growth.

For the other grains, my best guess is the devs decided it would be awkward to have a rice building and an 'all other grains building', so they just separated out the major grains.

 

[elbiotipo]

I believe there should be also potato farms as a separate building. Yes, there's rye farms with the potato production method, but at least to me, potatoes on themselves are more important. There's the potato famine of course, but also, it's well registered that the introduction of potatoes to northern climates caused an agrarian revolution and a population boom that by the timeframe of the game was still running its course. It's also strange that the homeland of potatoes, the Andes, cannot produce it.

I wouldn't go as far as making it a separate good though; perhaps a building that can produce lots of grain (to represent potatoes as staple food, much like maize, wheat and rice in other regions) and liquor, maybe sugar beets*, but no fruit. It would also be limited to cold and mountainous regions. Maybe a bonus for construction in those regions to make it a bit more interesting.

*I also feel like the production of sugar is a bit imbalanced, it's true that you can get sugar and sweeteners from sugar beets, honey, fruit, etc. and this is represented by secondary production methods, but they should only cover a small segment of the market, this is why after all sugar production overseas was so highly sought and fueled colonialism. Same with fruit, and I would propose in that case to make a separate "tropical fruit" good that can be produced in plantations in certain regions, unlike the regular "fruit" good.

 

[exi123]

By collecting the ideas here we could have something like:

- Maize farms: Most efficient for producing grain
1st Secondary: Small Orchards for fruit, reduces grain.
2nd Secondary: Sugar beets for sugar, reduces grain.

- Wheat farms: Good for grains.
1st Secondary: Fruit Orchards, reduces grain a lot, high fruit output.
2nd Secondary: Sugar beets for sugar, reduces grain.

Rye Farms: Bad for Grains.
1st Secondary: Potatoe fields, increases grain by a lot, also gives spirits.
2nd Secondary: Sugar beets for sugar, reduces grain.
One of the two Secondaries has to be active.

- Rice Paddies: Most grain output, ineffecitve labour use.
1st Secondary: Small Orchards for fruit, reduces grain.
2nd Secondary: Sugar beets for sugar, reduces grain.

- Millet farms, Good for grains
Secondary: Small Orchards for fruit, reduces grain.

Reason: Every farm type stands for a certain region. Maize farms are in sandy regions in the New World, effective, fast to build. Wheat farms are in mostly very fertile agricultural regions. They can also output a lot of fruit with orchards due to the mostly mild climate where they are placed. Rye farms are in the rough northern territories, can feed a lot people with potatoes as secondary and can offer suger if needed. Rice paddies can stay as they are, inefftive grain producers per worker, but with high output they can feed a lot people. Millet farms in more arid regions offer a solid base for the pops and maybe a bit fruit if needed.

Main production PMs with fertilizer and the labour PM can stay as they are. A chamge like that would offer some special PMs in every region, which would give them a bit flair and difference. With the new trade system in place, not everything needs to be everywhere.

 

[drawar]

- Rice Paddies: Most grain output, ineffecitve labour use.
1st Secondary: Small Orchards for fruit, reduces grain.
2nd Secondary: Sugar beets for sugar, reduces grain.

In fact, for rice, it would be interesting to allow fish production: Rice-fish system

This method could be limited to Asian regions, giving an advantage to production in this region. Asia is home to the majority of rice-producing provinces.

Despite the fact that this method somewhat reduces cultivated areas, it generally produces as much, or even more, grain than a rice monoculture (except potentially for very intensive crops).

However, perhaps we should still consider a disadvantage to this production method.
Perhaps it prevents the use of fertilizers, so as fertilizer use technologies become more widely available, highly intensive rice monocultures could produce more grain.

But rice-fish methods would continue to be attractive: good grain production, low or no fertilizer consumption, and fish production.