Right now on earth, with a huge population and an agricultural system that relies on artificial fertilizer, our big limit is arable land, so you want to maximize food value per unit of land and we get lots of very sound arguments about reducing meat.

You are wrong here. We got plenty of arable land. We are often building cities and factories on prime soil. At least in developed countries. Problem with undeveloped countries is, well, they are undeveloped. With that comes tonne of problems, like bad waste management, pollution, weak democracy and other stuff. Problem with the arable land that we currently have is its management, erosion and the fact that some agricultural methods are not sustainable, both with respect to nutrients in soil and water management.

So I disagree about reducing meat consumption being problem. There are huge efficiency problems that needs to be solved soon, like transporting food over vast distances or other stuff. Meat is marginal problem. And even then, the rotation of produce works on large scale as well, not just only on small farms in past. What do you think happens with low quality corn or grain that is unsuitable for human consumption? You could throw it away, or you could sell it with a discount to animal farms.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Thats for very big lactating cows.

But I need to repeat myself. If you want to use your current soil on max, you need to somehow pump stuff into it. Its common sense if you realize that by growing stuff and taking it away, you are essentially removing stuff from soil, as its not just carbon from air and energy from sun. So you need to use some fertilizers to return all those other elements into soil. Currently, we use fertilizers, which are mined from natural deposits (guano) or made chemically from minerals.

If you however have a lot of free land, you can use less space efficient method: crop rotation, leaving soil without produce to recuperate or making pasture on it. Depending on composition of your soil, you might not be able to even produce reasonable products without fertilizers, as the soil composition can be very poor on some elements. But you could still be able to have some sheep or cattle on it.

Given that cattle can take care of itself for most of the time, it might be an ideal thing to do ONCE planet is terraformed. Like in Firefly!

Don't also forget that plants do produce a lot of waste that us humans cannot metabolize. Thats why a lot of places had rabbits, chickens or pigs. It would go to waste anywhere and pre-processing in these animals can increase the rate of decomposition. Unless you have something else, like some bugs or worm farms.

Finally, this point is kind of bull anyway, game already has casinos, supermarkets, luxury stores, everyone lives in spacious housing with gardens, there are universities, office buildings and god knows what else. Non of these would be there during serious planet colonization anyway. So complaining about how pigs and cows are inefficient is kind of out of picture.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I don't think you could stomach grass, so your argument doesn't really make sense given circumstances. Also, your numbers are bullshit.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Eeeeh.

It all depends on the circumstances. When space is limited, you are basically spending energy to replenish soil. When space is abundant, you can use animals for a similar thing.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Xicronic

Quoting: PatolaCan't stand playing Stellaris anymore. The game changes too much and too quickly and all the paid extra content makes me feel the base game is utterly incomplete. That's one game I once liked but now dislike not because of quality, but policy.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ this is their first take at a space-age grand strategy game, they're still experimenting. Personally I like that the updates feel substantial and change gameplay. Plus you can always revert to a previous version you liked with the instructions here [External Link]

Except they this the same with EU4 and CK2.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I kind of test this on Linux. It runs well (although water graphics is a bit broken). Dev listens to feedback and it is changing a LOT in area where it matters (controls). It used to require a lot of micro since you had to manually assign each action, so making advanced materials was annoying since you had to click every board or clay brick. But now, villagers without job automatically gather crops during season, they find incomplete tasks, such as building, and finish them and refining materials is easy since all you need to do is to assign person to workbench.

Basically, everything that I didn't like was reworked and now is much smoother.

Game is a bit empty right now, currently all you can do is build small village (as in video), but there is much more planned. Defensive buildings (palisades and stone-walls for big cities), warfare (some weapons and combat is already implemented, but it is lacking on enemy AI), trade and many other things you would expect in neolithic age.

It wasn't originally planned on Linux, but I have been pestering dev long enough that he tried to click on export button in Unity and it worked:) another proof that when you are smart enough and build with multiplatform code in the first place, it is not hard.

Same goes for the recently showed Fertile Crescent, I annoyed dev a bit and he send me linux build:)

So thanks Alex for this and LincRead for FC!

btw. I love the graphics in Neolithic, it remind me paintings in these history books (and textbooks).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Its funny how fast it went from "Paradox is the example how to DO DLCs" to "Paradox is the example how to NOT DO DLCs."

View this comment - View article - View full comments

What I am playing? Well, I will be a bit boring.

Dominions 5 and Skyrim.

Less boring, I tried the Orwell thing and it is kind of fun. Last month I was also playing Surviving Mars and Airships: Conquer the Skies.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Colombo didn't really say anything at all. So who knows what they really mean? There's not much to analyse in that sentence other than Colombo disagrees with me (without providing a reason why).

So Colombo didn't say anything? And no one knows what it means? But Colombo must have said something, and something meaningful, when you interpreted the meaning as disagreement with you.

Given that there wasn't much to analyse, you made quite interesting analysis of my sentence.

Sadly without getting the simple meaning right in the first sense.

Dude, you should stop babbling.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: drmothThere goes that entitlement again.

I would suggest to stop repeating words if you don't know what do they mean.

View this comment - View article - View full comments