wardwag, thanks, boatload of info and it all makes sense
the houses first- reasoning? more production from people in houses? just interested.. As i get them all housed before winter first season I didnt think i would see much difference.
The houses first is simply based off what is going to cause you a problem first, homeless people or lack of food. There are two primary effects of homelessness - people wont start producing children if they have no home, and they can't warm themselves with firewood. Your people will start freezing to death before they starve to death (as soon as late autumn, in a harsh climate). Whether being homeless affects work productivity, or anything else for that matter, I'm not sure, but its possible.
In all honesty it doesn't matter all that much. You should have ample time to get houses and food production up before either becomes a problem. But should something bizarre happen (I had a heck of a time with building/job priorities once that caused my first house to take until autumn to be built, even though it was designated for building during the first few seconds of the game), its simply more important to build houses than start food production.
Sound reasoning, but you'll find that for the first few years of the game, your greatest resource strain is lack of people to do all of the jobs you want done. Efficiently managing your jobs is critical to a good start, so its a good idea to stick to high yield food production like fishing/gathering for a while.
EDIT:
For fun, and because this discussion got me thinking about it, I decided to do a little test. I started a new game on Hard and with a Harsh climate, then put it on x10 speed and just left the game running without doing anything. During the first winter, 5 people died of freezing (3 adults, 2 children). Despite running out of food sometime during that winter, and everyone constantly having the 'hungry' status, nobody else died until Spring of Year 5, when someone finally died of starvation. Two more died of starvation in Year 6. This is very peculiar, as I've had fully functioning villages be decimated within a year or two due to starvation. So I thought maybe idle villagers were able to forage berries or something (they seemed to be wandering out in the wilderness quite a bit), and decided to put them to work chopping trees to see if that would speed their deaths.
Nope. They furiously began attempting to chop down trees, and kept at it non-stop until poor, brave Jamilagros finally succumbed to starvation in Summer of Year 9 (followed by two more in Year 10). Homeless, clothes-less, freezing, and not having eaten for years (I watched them closely to see if they were foraging on their own, but its clear they were not, as I saw numerous berries/plants growing in and around their work area that they never touched), they were unable to chop down a single tree in 8 years, but damned if they didn't keep trying, and keep holding on to precious life with all they had. I suspect this had to do with the zero happiness and health, as I'm fairly sure one or both have an effect on productivity. Interestingly, their tools never wore out, which makes me think tool wear is linked to actual work accomplished, rather than work attempted or a simple function of time spent being used.
Finally, age became the enemy, claiming its first victim in Spring of Year 11. Undaunted, the three remaining villagers continued on with their futile mission, until starvation claimed two more in Years 13 and 14. Jarvine, only a child when this hellish ordeal began, spent her twilight years chopping away endlessly at the same tree with no success, before finally succumbing to old age at the tender age of 87, in the Summer of Year 15.
A confusing, though entertaining, experiment. I haven't got a clue why nobody ever froze after the first winter (temperatures dropped into the single digits on numerous occasions, and clothes ran out quickly), or why so many were able to live for so long on zero food. Do not take this as an indication that food is not important in your real games though. I've never encountered a food shortage that didn't have swift and serious consequences before.
Last edited:
Facebook
Twitter