Suggestion: Fair Foodworth

[Zephyrus]

Everyone going agrarian probably isn't nice, but having food count for near nothing isn't too good either. It's understandable not wanting hawk food hoarders, but the average indy is going to need some foodworth, because troops are expensive and landfat deadly. So, what about this. A certain amount of food is worth a great amount of networth each. If you have more, each remaining amount is worth some, but the value of each x amount becomes increasingly less. This way, foragers are profitable, but pure forager remains a clan aid strategy and not some way of jumping ranks infinitely. I must also add that due to resource sack, it will be lessened in effect even more.

[Veranor]

cause troops are expensive and landfat deadly.

But you're not landfat if everyone around you has no foodworth either.

[Urran Voh]

One of the reasons I was attracted to Warbands/FAF was because the foodworth was high. I didn't have to concentrate on how to maintain a steady income of cash or food to not be landfat. All I had to do was Rob Graneries a few times! :*laughs*:

[Zephyrus]

cause troops are expensive and landfat deadly.

But you're not landfat if everyone around you has no foodworth either.

But make some food profitable in net verseus troop net.

[Veranor]

cause troops are expensive and landfat deadly.

But you're not landfat if everyone around you has no foodworth either.

But make some food profitable in net verseus troop net.

Why? The reason you gave is simply countered: "landfat" is a relative term, if everyone is "landfat" from having no foodworth, then they're not landfat.

[Zephyrus]

Because, on the other hand, people may want net to gain rank. Food should be somewhere on the list of options they have.