[Not a Bug] Little Ice Age

[wgurlwur]

game 1472
event：Little Ice Age
If a player doesn't have 3 food items or 5 books at the same time, they will be forced to lose 5 units of any resource, essentially forcing them to choose the option of 5 books. Is this correct?

[Logitude]

I asked Rustan, and to my surprise, he says you're allowed a choice if you have neither. I'll have to fix this and possibly fix up matches that have already hit this bug. Since that could take some doing, I might not be able to publish the fix until tomorrow.

[Logitude]

Rustan added though, that he's willing to rule the way I coded it, since this could be difficult to fix, and either interpretation makes sense. Would you accept that, or should I change the code?

[wgurlwur]

If it's difficult to repair, then it's okay not to repair it.
Actually, the impact on the game I told you about wasn't significant.
I'm just unsure if it will affect other games.

[Logitude]

Thinking about it more, and looking at the card, which has a famine level of 3, I think the way I have it makes more sense.

If you already have less than 3 food, then you're guaranteed to go negative in food since that's also the famine level. Why should you be rewarded for also having less than 5 books?

There are other effects like this, but in all other cases I can think of, one of the two things you stand to lose is either an architect or a card, and the other is resources or points. In those cases it is clear what happens if you don't have the first thing. The reason is that there are no rules for what happens when you are forced to lose an architect or card you don't have. Whereas there are rules for losing more of a resource or points than you have. Thus you lose the resources or points.

In this case it's a choice between two different resources in different amounts. Since there are rules for going negative in a resource, it becomes ambiguous what to do. I think it makes more sense to be more punishing in that case. Also, the greater loss amount is in books, which are generally the penalty for going negative in something else.

Aside from the rules, thematically, I think the card is trying to simulate the reduction in available food during the colder period. If the lower availability causes your nation to run short, then I think the implication is that your people starve or at least get upset or resort to cannibalism or some other unsavory effect. That seems to be what book loss represents in this game. Things that don't get remembered kindly by history.

[wgurlwur]

After reading your description, I can accept it.
It's true that when resources are insufficient to pay, one should accept system penalties.
So, since I lack both types of resources, the forced deductions are a reasonable explanation.