Any excess Food contributes towards building a % of a new Population, based on the formula below:

% Pop Gain = 1 - 1/ (1 + 0.02 * Excess Food)

This gives diminishing returns for excessive food amounts, e.g. some values

• 10 Excess Food -> 17% Pop Growth (1 Pop every 6 Turns)
• 25 Excess Food -> 33% Pop Growth (1 Pop every 3 Turns)
• 50 Excess food -> 50% Pop Growth (1 Pop every 2 Turns)
• 100 Excess Food -> 67% Pop Growth (2 Pops over 3 Turns)
• 150 Excess Food -> 75% Pop Growth (3 Pops over 4 Turns)
• 200 Excess Food -> 80% Pop Growth (4 Pops over 5 Turns)
• 450 Excess Food -> 90% Pop Growth (9 Pops over 10 Turns)
• 950 Excess Food -> 95% Pop Growth (19 Pops over 20 Turns)

In the limit this equation tends to 1 Pop per turn (but It is impossible to actually ever reach 1 Pop per Turn). 

(Also uploaded here https://humankind.fandom.com/wiki/FIMS#Food )

And, so to maximize pop growth - Are multiple cities better or a giant Megaopolis, based on that formula?

Is it better to have 3 cities producing an average surplus of 25 each,  or 1 city at 75 surplus?

The difference would be: 3 *(1 pop every 3) = +1  pop every turn  on average vs a pop growing about 60% of that for 1 giant megapolis.

So, a megaopolis seems to be trading off population growth for shared infastructure efficiency, which probably balances somewhere.

I guess the question becomes: How much Infastructure gain from joining the pot of resources is worth taking the hit of pop growth?

Any thoughts on this?

Looking at this further, I think the critical decision is a Farmer FIMS, generating potientially 6 food (8 food with granary).  This is what a doubling would look like.

6 Excess Food = 1 - 1/1.12 = 10.7% growth.  (1 farmer = 1 standard farmer) 100% efficient.

12 Excess Food = 1 - 1/1.24 = 19.3% growth.  (2 farmer = 1.7 standard farmer)  85% effficent.

24 Excess Food = 1 - 1/1.48 = 32.4% growth.  (4 farmer = 2.9 standard farmer)  72.5% efficient.

48 Excess Food = 1 - 1/1.96 = 48.9% growth.  (8 farmer = 4.4 stardard farmer)  55% efficient.

Above this seems to be very inefficient, assuming a standard farmer is 10.7% growth units.

Of  course, its a judgment call of how inefficent growth should be to create the next  population unit.  I'd rather have some inefficiency if it meant I could have 4+ military units in a pinch, because of an invasion.

The advantage of Inefficent growth is influence resource (a pottery workshop seems to be better generating the influence 4 Farmers would create), as well as having Military capacity.

The disadvantage of inefficient growth is it negatively impacts other FIMS that could have been besides Farmer FIMS.

A comprimise situation of influence and emergency militiary might be considered.  2 Farmer FIMS might be optimal.  And after getting a granary +4 food would make each farmer worth 2.2 standard farmers, keeping efficient growth.

But, in the beginning of the game, can a player get away with a delayed start, producing even 2 Farmer FIMS before doing their normal strategy?  Idk.  The jury is still out there, imo.

Also producing Farming Districts can be benefical to a pt.  If someone wants more growth than less, then why not?  Except for the stability hit.  In fact, because there are more other FIMS than Farmers, producing Farming DIstricts for food and  deploying the FIMS either to Money, Industry, or Science might be the best bet.  Balancing their slots available and district pop growth.

Progress wrote:

Looking at this further, I think the critical decision is a Farmer FIMS, generating potientially 6 food (8 food with granary).  This is what a doubling would look like.

6 Excess Food = 1 - 1/1.12 = 10.7% growth.  (1 farmer = 1 standard farmer) 100% efficient.

12 Excess Food = 1 - 1/1.24 = 19.3% growth.  (2 farmer = 1.7 standard farmer)  85% effficent.

24 Excess Food = 1 - 1/1.48 = 32.4% growth.  (4 farmer = 2.9 standard farmer)  72.5% efficient.

48 Excess Food = 1 - 1/1.96 = 48.9% growth.  (8 farmer = 4.4 stardard farmer)  55% efficient.

Above this seems to be very inefficient, assuming a standard farmer is 10.7% growth units.

Of  course, its a judgment call of how inefficent growth should be to create the next  population unit.  I'd rather have some inefficiency if it meant I could have 4+ military units in a pinch, because of an invasion.

The advantage of Inefficent growth is influence resource (a pottery workshop seems to be better generating the influence 4 Farmers would create), as well as having Military capacity.

The disadvantage of inefficient growth is it negatively impacts other FIMS that could have been besides Farmer FIMS.

A comprimise situation of influence and emergency militiary might be considered.  2 Farmer FIMS might be optimal.  And after getting a granary +4 food would make each farmer worth 2.2 standard farmers, keeping efficient growth.

But, in the beginning of the game, can a player get away with a delayed start, producing even 2 Farmer FIMS before doing their normal strategy?  Idk.  The jury is still out there, imo.

Also producing Farming Districts can be benefical to a pt.  If someone wants more growth than less, then why not?  Except for the stability hit.  In fact, because there are more other FIMS than Farmers, producing Farming DIstricts for food and  deploying the FIMS either to Money, Industry, or Science might be the best bet.  Balancing their slots available and district pop growth.

This is why I rate Babylon as the best Ancient era culture by far, in particular I'm referring to the +1 food +1 science on researchers per Astronomy House in the city bonus. If you manage to get 4 territories attached to your capital and another city or two with 2-3 territories attached, roughly every 2 researchers is doing the job of one farmer and 1.5 normal researchers. When you later absorb those cities into your capital and those extra 4-6 Astronomy house bonuses now apply to your capital researchers are probably better at producing food than farmers. You mention in your post that you consider 2 farmers potentially optimal, thats 4 just researchers in the situation described

. I would argue you want a growth rate aimed at 33% for the first era and 50+% after that though so still need dedicated farmers but you'll need less as Babylon.

There's no other culture in the game quite like it. The only balancing factor is that someday you'll want to advance era and lose access to the unique district and so won't have too many in your empire. I would say it's well worth delaying your transition to Classical and possibly even Transcending to get as many Astromony Houses as possible down. Yes this doesn't apply to every city but if you play to it's strengths and keep building tall onto the capital rather than wide it can get insane.

fossar_ wrote:

Progress wrote:

Looking at this further, I think the critical decision is a Farmer FIMS, generating potientially 6 food (8 food with granary).  This is what a doubling would look like.

6 Excess Food = 1 - 1/1.12 = 10.7% growth.  (1 farmer = 1 standard farmer) 100% efficient.

12 Excess Food = 1 - 1/1.24 = 19.3% growth.  (2 farmer = 1.7 standard farmer)  85% effficent.

24 Excess Food = 1 - 1/1.48 = 32.4% growth.  (4 farmer = 2.9 standard farmer)  72.5% efficient.

48 Excess Food = 1 - 1/1.96 = 48.9% growth.  (8 farmer = 4.4 stardard farmer)  55% efficient.

Above this seems to be very inefficient, assuming a standard farmer is 10.7% growth units.

Of  course, its a judgment call of how inefficent growth should be to create the next  population unit.  I'd rather have some inefficiency if it meant I could have 4+ military units in a pinch, because of an invasion.

The advantage of Inefficent growth is influence resource (a pottery workshop seems to be better generating the influence 4 Farmers would create), as well as having Military capacity.

The disadvantage of inefficient growth is it negatively impacts other FIMS that could have been besides Farmer FIMS.

A comprimise situation of influence and emergency militiary might be considered.  2 Farmer FIMS might be optimal.  And after getting a granary +4 food would make each farmer worth 2.2 standard farmers, keeping efficient growth.

But, in the beginning of the game, can a player get away with a delayed start, producing even 2 Farmer FIMS before doing their normal strategy?  Idk.  The jury is still out there, imo.

Also producing Farming Districts can be benefical to a pt.  If someone wants more growth than less, then why not?  Except for the stability hit.  In fact, because there are more other FIMS than Farmers, producing Farming DIstricts for food and  deploying the FIMS either to Money, Industry, or Science might be the best bet.  Balancing their slots available and district pop growth.

This is why I rate Babylon as the best Ancient era culture by far, in particular I'm referring to the +1 food +1 science on researchers per Astronomy House in the city bonus. If you manage to get 4 territories attached to your capital and another city or two with 2-3 territories attached, roughly every 2 researchers is doing the job of one farmer and 1.5 normal researchers. When you later absorb those cities into your capital and those extra 4-6 Astronomy house bonuses now apply to your capital researchers are probably better at producing food than farmers. You mention in your post that you consider 2 farmers potentially optimal, thats 4 just researchers in the situation described

. I would argue you want a growth rate aimed at 33% for the first era and 50+% after that though so still need dedicated farmers but you'll need less as Babylon.

There's no other culture in the game quite like it. The only balancing factor is that someday you'll want to advance era and lose access to the unique district and so won't have too many in your empire. I would say it's well worth delaying your transition to Classical and possibly even Transcending to get as many Astromony Houses as possible down. Yes this doesn't apply to every city but if you play to it's strengths and keep building tall onto the capital rather than wide it can get insane.

And one extra point is your science will be crazy if you use babylon-greeks duo, but your economy is usually unable to support your advanced army as their upkeep increases rapidly... and you may also not have enough techs to research if one day you decide not to choose a science culture (since you probably have finished the majority of medieval techs before you go to medieval)...

I would still rate Harappans over Babylon since you can transfer food into military nearly directly; but you can not transfer science into anything else...