YetiChow wrote:By "wide end of the scale", I basically mean that the town I tested this in was designed purely for aesthetics and to fit the landscape, not for efficiency.

[...]

the "golden ratio" isn't designed to give optimal food efficiency - it's the absolute maximum stress load that the food system can take. To put it in plain terms, this is the minimum number of food workers needed for a worst-case scenario town.

1. Ah, I understand now.

2. I'm pretty sure, if you really wanted to, you could design a town so badly inefficient that it has a negative ratio (like 7 feeders : -1 workers), i.e. it needs more people to produce food to sustain it than the total population that needs feeding. For example, try basing it on cookies or raw snowcherries hauled by a roundabout route to storage on the other side of the map and brought back to a dining room by the farm. Heck, you could even attempt maximum inefficiency just to see what is the fastest starvation rate you can make from this (e.g. fewest days from 100 to 0 population ).

This would approach the rate of a town not producing any food at all, which would have a ratio like 1 feeder : -infinite workers.

So no, I don't think the golden ratio is even close to being a worst-case scenario for all towns.

You could argue that the golden ratio is the worst case for a reasonable town designed for aesthetics, but that is a terribly vague town definition, and aesthetics differ among people (must... be... perfectly... symmetric! ).