Like the idea as such but a) tulips don't grow in forests and b) tulips don't grow on trees

Like the idea as such but a) tulips don't grow in forests and b) tulips don't grow on trees

I went another approach

Looks like your another approach just consists of boosting cottonwood trees' numbers

Also: I went to google to help you find other stuff that could grow in forests and it seems you were on a track with the original idea, something called 'tulip tree' is indeed native to the area and grows pretty flowers: https://www.westonnurseries.com/the-large-trees-of-new-england/ but needs a translator comment as a very minimum as more people will get confused like I just did

Back to 'other stuff' idea, wiki has this to say:

Typical woody [understory] and shrub layer species include moosewood, low-bush blueberry and other heath species, especially the genera [Gaylussacia and [Vaccinium].

Woody plants of the ground cover layer include American wintergreen and partridge berry. Common wildflowers include star flower, bluebead Lilly, foam flower, bunchberry, twinflower, dewdrops, wild sarsaparilla, and Canada mayflower. [Trilliums], and yellow lady slippers (genus Cypripedium) are also common showy wildflowers. The herbaceous layer also includes many mosses, lichens, and ferns. Bracken fern is often particularly abundant in these communities.

Looks like your another approach just consists of boosting cottonwood trees' numbers

Also: I went to google to help you find other stuff that could grow in forests and it seems you were on a track with the original idea, something called 'tulip tree' is indeed native to the area and grows pretty flowers: https://www.westonnurseries.com/the-large-trees-of-new-england/ but needs a translator comment as a very minimum as more people will get confused like I just did

Back to 'other stuff' idea, wiki has this to say:

Typical woody [understory] and shrub layer species include moosewood, low-bush blueberry and other heath species, especially the genera [Gaylussacia and [Vaccinium].

Woody plants of the ground cover layer include American wintergreen and partridge berry. Common wildflowers include star flower, bluebead Lilly, foam flower, bunchberry, twinflower, dewdrops, wild sarsaparilla, and Canada mayflower. [Trilliums], and yellow lady slippers (genus Cypripedium) are also common showy wildflowers. The herbaceous layer also includes many mosses, lichens, and ferns. Bracken fern is often particularly abundant in these communities.

yes, for now it is. Due to making it easier to implement for now, and later we can think about introducing other trees.

I like it. The amount of fruit trees in forests is way too high. Maybe also add an mechanic where as time passes fewer healthy trees will spawn in newly explored forests? Also, I'd personally like to see the grove specials be made rarer.

Personally I'm fine with this idea, didn't make usable trees completely impossible. That said, two minor things I'd add:

1. We have more dead tree variants besides dead oak trees. We can probably make increased use of dead pine trees and dead hickory instead of relying on cottonwood as our main filler.
2. We may or may not want to follow up on groves and shrubberies depending on how valuable they become as a food resource after this.

Personally I'm fine with this idea, didn't make usable trees completely impossible. That said, two minor things I'd add:

1. We have more dead tree variants besides dead oak trees. We can probably make increased use of dead pine trees and dead hickory instead of relying on cottonwood as our main filler.

2. We may or may not want to follow up on groves and shrubberies depending on how valuable they become as a food resource after this.

it already has a significant higher amount of dead trees than before, so the ratio should be okey?

Before nerfing, I would first measure the amount of total foraged calories per season and compare it with previous number of calories and with the calories found in a grocery store and random houses, before nerfing foraging, because it is almost mandatory with people that doesn't use default season length and have a static base, and thus can't readily switch to farming to cover their calories needs.

Also this PR will make it so that (besides grocery stores and house food loot) shrubberies patchs and groves become a very needed source of calories for early game, as CV points out.

All this reminds me that I wanted to make a discussion about how we as Bright Nights want to tackle the food challenge, without DDA legacy balancing.
Do we want "realistic" balancing? Do we want a more gameyfied balancing?

Anyway I think this issue, and the last ones I point out will be in need of lots of testing to find the right balance.

@chaosvolt

it already has a significant higher amount of dead trees than before, so the ratio should be okey?

I mainly mean use dead trees, dead pine trees, and dead hickory trees more instead of using more cottonwood trees, it'll look less odd. You bumped the weights of cottonwood trees up to 256 and it shows in that screenshot.

cottonwood

I can, yeah, but we don't have a "default tree" anymore. Since someone in DDA thought, it would be neat to put all acorns in there. So that's why I went with the tree without drops, cottonwood. I had another tree made before (tulip tree) it can use oak tree sprite, but that's not the right way to do it.

Do you know any other tree without drops, that I can use as well? too many dead trees are .... too dead.

ah the elm tree

Elm!

Before nerfing, I would first measure the amount of total foraged calories per season and compare it with previous number of calories and with the calories found in a grocery store and random houses, before nerfing foraging, because it is almost mandatory with people that doesn't use default season length and have a static base, and thus can't readily switch to farming to cover their calories needs.

Also this PR will make it so that (besides grocery stores and house food loot) shrubberies patchs and groves become a very needed source of calories for early game, as CV points out.

All this reminds me that I wanted to make a discussion about how we as Bright Nights want to tackle the food challenge, without DDA legacy balancing. Do we want "realistic" balancing? Do we want a more gameyfied balancing?

Anyway I think this issue, and the last ones I point out will be in need of lots of testing to find the right balance.

The amount of food per forest tile gets significantly lowered. You will be able to survive off of forests even with 91 day seasons, with a small - medium sized forest. Groceries offer now a bigger risk <-> benefit ratio for food. But as I said, I played with this settings on a 91 day year and I was able to live off a forest. But: hunting and farming would help, fishing also.

I like it. The amount of fruit trees in forests is way too high. Maybe also add an mechanic where as time passes fewer healthy trees will spawn in newly explored forests? Also, I'd personally like to see the grove specials be made rarer.

or we can slowly turn them in their harvested variants over time: healthy but has no fruit

https://gall.dcinside.com/board/view/?id=rlike&no=457095

There are also opposing views in korean forum (33% out of 15 votes are against the change).

That's also a 2:1 majority in favor though, hmm.

That's also a 2:1 majority in favor though, hmm.

I checked it out, myself, now there are 22 votes with the same 2:1 distribution. 66% are for the change.