sandwich 🥪

[layon Oliveira]

bread is awesome, but just after the 8th bread not a lot of grain nutrition is on, and I get hungry fast,always carrying some bowl to make sure.

pies are crazy cute and adorable, love to make a tasty pie.

but I'd REALLY love if some red meat, lettuce, onion on a rye bread, thats crazy good food maybe too far form the scenery of vintage story but it would be perfect, I can see it in my dreams...

[Kulze]

First we gotta have yeast, the bread we got in VS is basically hardtack. Same as the pie crust being a hard crust, not the modern softer ones.

But yeah, I'm always for expanding food options. Would also like roasts instead of primarily stews, a baking pan with meat, fat and veggies inside turning into a nice roast would be great.
Or sausages, those would be great to make too. Stir fries with a skillet, all fun things which would be fantastic to have.

[qualicabyss]

jam on bread
yum

[SnapJelly]

Weirdly enough sandwiches are actually a very late invention irl, so within a medieval style setting a sandwich doesn't really fit.

But adding one also doesn't really change much so I'm fine with it  

[Andospe]

As a compromise: the option of making "rations" with higher amount of different nutritions but not consuming all of the space in inventory.

for example, a ration of bread with pickled onions and salted meat in some kind of small basket, leather/linen pouches or wood boxes.

[SnapJelly]

33 minutes ago, Andospe said:

a ration of bread with pickled onions and salted meat

Pot pie can be made with grain, meat and veggies and stacks in up to 32 which can each be divided by 4!

Charred they will have less nutrition but will last for 12 days, great choice for a very filling ration!

[Asatar]

On 8/29/2026 at 12:43 PM, SnapJelly said:

...within a medieval style setting a sandwich doesn't really fit.

ngl this is a silly argument and the fact that this is medieval-style/adjacent/inspired shouldn't shy away from something as simple as a sandwich. Like, you mean to tell that something as simple as a sandwich, 2 slices of bread, meat, cheese, and some greens, doesn't "fit" with the game's setting because the sandwich wasn't popularized by a 18th century english noble? Yeah sure, it is "anachronistic" but it is entirely within the realm of possibility that sandwiches could've historically existed long before the "earl of sandwich" started gambling. Also, it wasn't until 1.22 to where you can mix meat and vegetables in pies, something historically done within medieval settings. Forum users would argue that doing so would be "op". Live a little and let there be sandwiches!

Edited 12 hours ago by Asatar

[SnapJelly]

17 minutes ago, Asatar said:

it wasn't until 1.22 to where you can mix meat and vegetables in pies, something historically done within medieval settings

Yeah but something that was done historically not being added to the game yet is not at all comparable to something that wasn't done historically to be added to the game.

 

18 minutes ago, Asatar said:

Yeah sure, it is "anachronistic" but it is entirely within the realm of possibility that sandwiches could've historically existed long before the "earl of sandwich" started gambling.

Yeah but this is nothing but speculation, it's entirely withing the real of possibility that in ancient egypt it used to rain spaghetti but we have equal evidence for both: none.

 

20 minutes ago, Asatar said:

Live a little and let there be sandwiches!

Completely ignoring the part where I said: 

 

On 8/29/2026 at 2:43 PM, SnapJelly said:

But adding one also doesn't really change much so I'm fine with it  

 

[Asatar]

8 minutes ago, SnapJelly said:

Yeah but this is nothing but speculation, it's entirely withing the real of possibility that in ancient egypt it used to rain spaghetti but we have equal evidence for both: none.

Apples and oranges argument completely misses the point. Barring such a ridiculous premise, it could be that no one ever bothered writing down a recipe for something as obvious, simple, and mundane as a sandwich wouldn't be necessary. There are several underlying issues with the conception for the word "sandwich". Most importantly the word was coined during the Victorian era. An era notorious for people fabricate outlandish stories and misattributing historical characters as the originators of things then passing those stories as the truth despite evidence to the contrary.

Also, it is entirely within the realm of possibility that "sandwiches" as we know it had either, gone by a different name with that name migrated to mean something else, had no name at all (just called breads and meats), or was umbrella'ed into a catch-all-term word that could've meant multiple things.

Another thing but it depends on what your "definition" of a sandwich, but "wraps" and stuffed pita breads as we know it had existed well before the 18th century within the Middle East. 

Finally, you should work on your comparisons because an event like "raining spaghetti" would mostly like be historically recorded as a transition from "spaghetti to water" would most likely be written down. And such an event would leave sort of "physical" indication within the area

15 minutes ago, SnapJelly said:

Yeah but something that was done historically not being added to the game yet is not at all comparable to something that wasn't done historically to be added to the game.

Yeah, this was a poorly articulated argument and I probably should've pointed out that this is an argument between "historical accuracy" vs "historical feasibility" when it comes to the game. Like how many of the crops in game are not native to europe, but could've "feasibly" grown in a europe-like environment. And that game shouldn't be really be shackled by "historica accuracy" instead using it as a grounding tool. Instead the game should focus more on the "feasibility" of the given technology, like how copper-made chutes is a modern invention. 

43 minutes ago, SnapJelly said:

Completely ignoring the part where I said: 

Slight disagree as it would change how nutrients are gained for the character because that is meat, grain, dairy, and vegetable in one meal. The only thing comparable are meat stews which is missing the dairy component

[SnapJelly]

20 minutes ago, Asatar said:

it could be that no one ever bothered writing down a recipe for something as obvious, simple, and mundane as a sandwich wouldn't be necessary

well we have plenty of recipes for things like oatmeal which is just boiling oats in water; they bothered writing that down. Also after the invention of the sandwich the recipes suddenly pop up so that would mean that at a random point in history people suddely decided sandwiches are worth writing about while previously they weren't. Meanwhile other even simpler meals were written about? This argumens doesn't hold up.

 

22 minutes ago, Asatar said:

Also, it is entirely within the realm of possibility that "sandwiches" as we know it had either, gone by a different name with that name migrated to mean something else

Sure, but we could tell my the recipe if something would in modern times classify as a sandwich or not regardless of what it's called, the same way they would call what we would now call a pie; ''pudding''
We read the recipe and see that it's a pie...

 

24 minutes ago, Asatar said:

you should work on your comparisons because an event like "raining spaghetti" would mostly like be historically recorded as a transition from "spaghetti to water" would most likely be written down.

I agree that my example was outrageous for dramatic effect but the point remains the same, your claim that is ''would most likely be written down'' is based on nothing but assumption. And similarly if sandwiches were common practice we would find records of them, the same way we find records of other methods of eating bread.

 

31 minutes ago, Asatar said:

like how copper-made chutes is a modern invention. 

Well that's not quite true, while I know of no examples of chutes for item transport the exact same way as the game does we have found copper pipes for water transport in north afrika dating back to like 2000bc, the screw principle was invented around like 500bc

 

33 minutes ago, Asatar said:

Slight disagree as it would change how nutrients are gained for the character because that is meat, grain, dairy, and vegetable in one meal. The only thing comparable are meat stews

No, pies do this.
The method of preparing would even be the same, add ingredients and bake it. A single pie cuts into 4 slices the same way the oven holds 4 breads at once.
So the difference would only be if you add the other ingredients before or after baking.

[Asatar]

32 minutes ago, SnapJelly said:

 Meanwhile other even simpler meals were written about? This argumens doesn't hold up.

Meals may have been written about, but their preparation was left up to interpretation. Much like how we know what Ancient Bablyonians ate, but we dont know their exact preparation for their meals because they never recorded its preparation. For all we know documents that write "some meats and cheeses" could either be separate or together in a sandwich configuration. Or perhaps the idea of something in a "sandwich" configuration is so pendantic that it wasn't worth a naming. Like I could have something that is sandwich configuration, but never bothered naming it a "sandwich" because it wasn't worth naming

32 minutes ago, SnapJelly said:

Well that's not quite true, while I know of no examples of chutes for item transport the exact same way as the game does we have found copper pipes for water transport in north afrika dating back to like 2000bc, the screw principle was invented around like 500bc

exceptions do not make the rule. Copper historically was used for cooking ware and jewelry and the job of "piping" was relegated to lead instead, yet there are no lead pipes in game

[SnapJelly]

1 hour ago, Asatar said:

Meals may have been written about, but their preparation was left up to interpretation. Much like how we know what Ancient Bablyonians ate, but we dont know their exact preparation for their meals because they never recorded its preparation. For all we know documents that write "some meats and cheeses" could either be separate or together in a sandwich configuration. Or perhaps the idea of something in a "sandwich" configuration is so pendantic that it wasn't worth a naming. Like I could have something that is sandwich configuration, but never bothered naming it a "sandwich" because it wasn't worth naming

oke well this is simply not true, have you read a cookbook from the past before? We have plenty of surviving ones from hundreds of years ago and they deal with both the preperation, presentation and sometimes even preferred method of eating. The only thing they don't really have is standardised measurements.

 

1 hour ago, Asatar said:

the job of "piping" was relegated to lead instead

Sure but it was an example to show the use of copper in game isn't a far fetched idea, lead ''realistically'' wouldn't work like the chutes do in game because it's too soft. It wasn't to point out there are no pipes in game, it was to point out copper has been used as a material to do the things they do in game for thousands of years, so it's not a modern invention as you claimed.

[Asatar]

Just a reminder on my argument since it has meandered is that the absence of a surviving medieval recipe for a sandwich tells us that we don't have a surviving medieval recipe for a sandwich. it does not tell us that medieval people were incapable of putting food between two pieces of bread. I should reiterate that while the existence of sandwiches while historically unproven, you cannot prove that sandwiches didn't exist. Also that "historical feasibility" should trump "historical accuracy" when possible. 

3 hours ago, SnapJelly said:

oke well this is simply not true, have you read a cookbook from the past before? We have plenty of surviving ones from hundreds of years ago and they deal with both the preperation, presentation and sometimes even preferred method of eating. The only thing they don't really have is standardised measurements.

Hundreds of years ago != Medieval Era. There are no historical european cookbooks that includes an exhaustive record of everything medieval people ate or every mundane combination of ingredients nor did medieval recipes include measurements. In fact few outside of some exception ever included measurements. Also, Just because something wasn't given a name doesn't mean it didn't exist. It just means that we haven't given it a name yet.

At this point you are acting retarded and further attempts is wasted effort. "we don't have a surviving recipe, therefore nobody did it." is a brainlet-tier argument of absence, not evidence that the act itself was impossible or no one ever did such a thing because that thing wasn't given a name.

 

Edited 4 hours ago by Asatar

[SnapJelly]

32 minutes ago, Asatar said:

Just because something wasn't given a name doesn't mean it didn't exist.

you keep focussing on the name... I keep telling you that no matter the name we would be able to look at the recipe and tell if something is a sandwich no matter what it's called.
what's with this obsession over the name? the name is not important...

 

32 minutes ago, Asatar said:

There are no historical european cookbooks that includes an exhaustive record of everything medieval people ate or every mundane combination of ingredients

wrong: the oldest surviving cookbook dates back to 1730bc, we have plenty of cookbooks from the medieval period and they included specifically what the poor people relied upon for survival, so quite literally what mundane combination of ingredients every day people ate.

This is just proof you are agruing for something based on speculation, if you were actually interested in historical cooking you would know this, the sources are publically avaiable, you can just google them.

32 minutes ago, Asatar said:

In fact few outside of some exception ever included measurements

correct, this is exactly what I said right here: 

 

4 hours ago, SnapJelly said:

The only thing they don't really have is standardised measurements.

So I am glad you confirm what I said without being aware of it

 

32 minutes ago, Asatar said:

Also that "historical feasibility" should trump "historical accuracy" when possible. 

this is personal opinion, you can not make this claim for other people playing this game.

 

32 minutes ago, Asatar said:

At this point you are acting retarded and further attempts is wasted effort.

there is no need for petty insults, it only makes your claim look less valid.

 

32 minutes ago, Asatar said:

we don't have a surviving recipe, therefore nobody did it." is a brainlet-tier argument of absence

Well the exact same argument could be made in the opposide direction; why would you assume anything happened if there is absolutely 0 evidence for it? Just because it COULD HAVE been true? Based on what? Your own bias? That is ridiculous.
You want history to be whatever you want it to be even if there is no evidence for it and just ignore the evidence we have based on what your desired outcome is and then insult people who point out the flaws in your logic? That's not a great argument man.

 

32 minutes ago, Asatar said:

not evidence that the act itself was impossible or no one ever did such a thing because that thing wasn't given a name.

I will repeat it once again, hopefully you'll get it this time: us not giving a name to a certain thing has no merrit on if it exists or not, however us not having a single indication or description or drawing or anything else of the sort indicating anything like it ever existed while after the ''invention'' of said thing suddenly sparks a HUGE influx if mentions of said thing should raise suspicion as to if if was actually done before the aforementioned ''invention''

Edited 4 hours ago by SnapJelly

[Asatar]

2 hours ago, SnapJelly said:

you keep focussing on the name... I keep telling you that no matter the name we would be able to look at the recipe and tell if something is a sandwich no matter what it's called.
what's with this obsession over the name? the name is not important...

the configuration of two slices of bread with either meat or cheese in between, retard. This is the point of the argument, that this configuration or something reminiscent has existed well before the 18th century. Your entire argument only establishes that we don't currently have a surviving medieval European description of someone making a sandwich. It does not establish that nobody ever put food between two pieces of bread. MEDIEVAL EUROPEANS didn't depict/illustrate/write every single recipe in every single possible configuration of their recipes because it simple wasn't that important at the time with most literate people working int he service of the elite

2 hours ago, SnapJelly said:

wrong: the oldest surviving cookbook dates back to 1730bc, we have plenty of cookbooks from the medieval period and they included specifically what the poor people relied upon for survival, so quite literally what mundane combination of ingredients every day people ate.

This is just proof you are agruing for something based on speculation, if you were actually interested in historical cooking you would know this, the sources are publically avaiable, you can just google them.

"You didn't name these cookbooks, therefore they dont exist". That is how you sound like. Retarded. I should reiterate MEDIEVAL AND EUROPEAN and I can ONLY ASSUME you are talking about a bablyonian/mesoptoamian cookbook made for the Babylonian Palace, and not for the everyman babylonian? We also dont have historical documentation of everything that everyone ate. Therefore by your logic, that means people never ate anything didn't written or depicted it AND have their work survive to the modern era? Goofy ah lil jit logic

 

2 hours ago, SnapJelly said:

Well the exact same argument could be made in the opposide direction; why would you assume anything happened if there is absolutely 0 evidence for it? Just because it COULD HAVE been true? Based on what? Your own bias? That is ridiculous.

I will repeat it once again, hopefully you'll get it this time: us not giving a name to a certain thing has no merrit on if it exists or not, however us not having a single indication or description or drawing or anything else of the sort indicating anything like it ever existed while after the ''invention'' of said thing suddenly sparks a HUGE influx if mentions of said thing should raise suspicion as to if if was actually done before the aforementioned ''invention'' 

You are demanding positive historical evidence for something, while treating the absence of that evidence as positive evidence that it didn't happen. For whatever reason you are continually refusing to acknowledge this. By your standard, if a medieval European source doesn't describe or depict something, we should treat its existence as inherently suspect. That's obviously not how historical evidence works dipshit. Medieval European maps and texts did not contain a comprehensive inventory of everything that existed in the world. For example, the Americas were not represented on the standard medieval European conception of the world only appearing after the voyages of Columbus. No reasonable person would therefore conclude from that that the Americas didn't exist before Europeans documented them. Goofy ah lil jit

Likewise, I'm not claiming “sandwiches definitely existed in medieval Europe.” I'm saying that the absence of a surviving recipe, description, or depiction does not establish that nobody ever performed the extremely simple act of putting food between two pieces of bread.

1/10 try again. Goofy ahh jit literally arguing that if a "tree falls in the forest and no one is around hear, it doesn't make a sound" Heads up, it does in fact make a sound and does so without anyone there to observe or "record" that tree

Edited 2 hours ago by Asatar