Edited --Since a picture is worth a thousand words I direct you to my better explanation...What I couldn't do the first time I direct you to

Edited again -- a thread which no longer exists :nono:

please continue reading on for the micromanagement/exploit vivid description starts on page 2 :rolleyes:

Thanks to the almighty God powers of AlanH my noob error of two threads has been erased :) :worship:

You wouldn't lose the production anyway, even if you didn't switch from the warrior. Civ 4 differs from Civ 3 in that any shields (hammers) which are left over after completing a build are applied to the following build. So this is not an exploit, in my opinion.

Edit: Post 666. Uh-oh...

I agree with Steve. Also, there are only so many forests around your city. You could do this mabye three or four times before you run out of forests.

You wouldn't lose the production anyway, even if you didn't switch from the warrior. Civ 4 differs from Civ 3 in that any shields (hammers) which are left over after completing a build are applied to the following build. So this is not an exploit, in my opinion.

You are very correct in that statement, which is why I wasn't sure about it being ok or not.

But the question come more not from the overflow, but the fact that you never lose out on any city growth during the construction of a second worker or settler.

You could do this mabye three or four times before you run out of forests

As it turns out with cultural borders expanding in the fist GOTM there is enough forest for 2 settlers and 1 worker ( beyond the first worker where there was no city growth) for which my city was only not growing for a grand total of three turns.

So if this is ok then cool :crazyeye:

Its fine to do this - shields stored towards your worker or settler do decay when you're not building it, by the way.

You wouldn't lose that city growth if you did the same thing by starting the worker or settler and chopping the forest(s) either, and then would avoid any potential decay losses.

@BeefontheBone
You wouldn't lose that city growth if you did the same thing by starting the worker or settler and chopping the forest(s) either, and then would avoid any potential decay losses.

Could you explain this a little more pls.

Because as is I can build a 2 warriors and a settler with 3 chops, and on only one turn does my city not grow (last turn to produce the settler, when food goes towards production), my city gows by a size of one

vs. if I jsut start making and chop it takes 2 chops but my city doesn't grow for 8 turns

I don't understand why people are pooh-poohing this issue: it's certainly an important tactic if it's allowed. Often you would love to have your food go toward growth, but your shields go toward a worker or settler. But the game doesn't allow this. But the queue switching does allow you to direct the shields from the forest toward a worker or settler, even while your food is going toward growth, and this is quite useful in managing growth vs production.

In principle, it's better if the game doesn't have this sort of sharp tactic that's available to human players but the computer opponents are unlikely to adopt. The ultimate effect of such tactics is to require greater handicaps for the human player to keep the game competitive.

But I don't think it can be disallowed as an "exploit". It's just too hard to make reasonable rules of the form, "You can't change production at certain times." So I think it's likely to just become a standard tactic, just like some of the standard early-game tactics in Civ III.

I think it is an exploit, especially if you read the thread that it is discussed in within the strategy files (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=142345). The basic principle is that you can build a settler with only sacrificing one turn of growth, but it is presumably due to a threading issue within the game, having the notices turn up mid-turn rather than the IBT that Civ3 used.

In this way, pulling off the strat is largely a cause of twitch-timing conducive to RTS games, and not the planning style of a Civ game. The worst part is that you never end the turn building a settler until the last turn to get the settler out. I think it violates the spirit of the game and should not be allowed.

Edit: This post in particular (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3366600&postcount=16) illustrates well why I think this should not be allowed.

After reading the post pindicator linked to, it seems like an exploit to me. The way the thread starter phrased it I understood it diffrently. It does seem to have to do with the lag time between the start of the turn and when the forest chopping message is displayed.

You can get the exact same effect without switching production. If your "other" build only needs a couple of hammers at the time the chop comes in, the extra hammers will automatically go to the next in queue item. If that gives the next in queue settler enough to almost finish, then the number of growth turns sacrificed is indeed diminished, and without doing anything hokey to the interface.

The fact that a human can plan this ahead where the AIs probably cannot currently is the difference between intelligence and programming. If it's a big enough advantage to the human to unbalance the game, it will just prompt a tweak to the AI to do it too.

Ok yeah I see the difference between the exploitive and non-exploitive way of doing this. At first I was thinking they switched to settler the turn before the chop was complete and then ended their turn to let the chop hammers go to the settler. But they're not doing it this way. They're abusing the delay in the forest chop by switching production at the start of the turn, then getting the forest chop hammers mid-turn, then switching back to building whatever they were building in the same turn again. This essentially bypasses the lost growth turn through lag. When abusing lag it's an obvious exploit. But if you don't abuse the lag and accept the 1 turn of lost growth then I don't think it's an exploit.

You can get the exact same effect without switching production. If your "other" build only needs a couple of hammers at the time the chop comes in, the extra hammers will automatically go to the next in queue item. If that gives the next in queue settler enough to almost finish, then the number of growth turns sacrificed is indeed diminished, and without doing anything hokey to the interface.

Nah you're missing the issue. Carefully read my above paragraph or read the linked thread above.

edit: All this said I don't think it gives you a major advantage. Sure your capital will grow larger but your settlers will be produced slower than if the city actually contributed to building them. You're also losing all your forests and using extra worker turns. Don't get me wrong, I use chops to speed up a settler but I don't build my settlers entirely from forest chops.

After considering this for a while, i think personaly the (ab)use of switching to settler before the worker chop is processed on a turn can be considered an exploit. This exploit can be fixed by making sure the first thing processed on a turn is forrest chopping.

in the meantime people should never do this with any form of intention. The easy way to say if someone is doing this on intention or not is if they are required to switch to settler/worker (the two items that limit growth on construction) before the worker chop is finished on a given turn.

In the GOTM game ive sent now ive stayed away from this on purpose. (game was finished even before this discussion was started.)

Thank you guys, sorry for ripping someone else's thread


in the meantime people should never do this with any form of intention. The easy way to say if someone is doing this on intention or not is if they are required to switch to settler/worker (the two items that limit growth on construction) before the worker chop is finished on a given turn.

In any case no problem just no submission for me this game. I can live with that, can't wait for the second one :)

I think some of you are missing the point, being able to switch builds and maintain the amassed production is a feature of Civ4, having worker jobs complete during your turn is only appropriate. You can do this with anything, the fact that you can build a settler with tree clearing without any growth being "lost" is the value of tree clearing.

Also the thrust of the argument is centered around incorrect reasoning, growth isn't "lost" or in any way removed, its merely appended onto the production of the settler or worker. This is by design, and in my opinion good design. So you have a tree giving its correct production to an active job, this is exactly as designed and therefore not exploitive.


Above all there is absolutely no reason why one couldn't decide exactly what job the tree production goes. And who said micromanagement was outlawed for this game? I hope these absolutionists go away after a few weeks cause this sort of thing and the no cheating AI rants are gonna get old.
The goals seemed to be to reduce cheating AI and micromanagement, lets be reasonable folks.

Memphus: don't be so hasty! :) This is discussion only; GOTM Staff have the final say and Ainwood so far has allowed this.

I don't think this is exploitive, just a form of MMing that has made it into CIV. It's limited by how many forests are around your city, your stored shields may decay and you do have at least 1 turn of growth loss at the end of the Settler production. Taking advantage of the turn sequence is OK IMO, as long as you don't use the same resources twice (e.g. in Civ3, after learning a Tech, switching citizens from commerce-rich tiles to shield-rich tiles would use that citizen twice); here you avoid the loss of growth which is Firaxis' replacement of losing 1 pop-point for a Worker and 2 pop-points for a Settler in Civ3. You would have the same effect if you had enough Workers to chop all the forests you needed in 1 turn, so purely avoiding loss of pop-growth is not sufficient to call this exploitive.

And there are lots of things the AI doesn't do that the human player can and will do. Not sufficient reason to be called exploitive.

If the game developers feel it's exploitive, or sidesteps their intention, they can release a patch where Forest Chops can't be added to Worker and Settler Production.

Its not a game-breaking exploit.

As has been said, it is limited by the number of forests, its limited by whether you have bronze working, its limited by the rate at which you can chop forests, its limited by the decay of shields on units that you're not building, its limited by you not getting the surplus food allocated to production, and the growth benefits aren't huge anyway.

And if you love to micromanage the game to this level, to maybe increase your city growth, and settler production by a very small amount, then go for it. If you feel it does you good, then do it.

I like that some of the micromanagement is gone...I hate to micromanage, but love to marco manage.

It's not even really a lag issue. Shields and research aren't the only things that you don't lose - partial work on improvements are kept as well. If you have a worker who will finish chopping a forest next turn, and they have already moved this turn, you can cancel the action, and then do the chop next turn when the city is producing what you want the shields to go toward.

I don't really see what the big deal is, since forests aren't a renewable resource (random growth notwithstanding), and really you should be able to allocate those shields wherever you want IMO. Especially given the level of control they give you in being able to switch production back and forth as much as you want without losing those shields.

If it is indeed as Memphus describes, then it is a bug.
If, like in the 3OTM, bug exploits are allowed (and therefore effectively forced if you wish to compete), I'm outta here.
I want to play Civ4 comparison games, not bug-exploit comparison games.

If it is indeed as Memphus describes, then it is a bug.


Already ruled on by the staff, but just for debate, I disagree with you. It is not a bug. I've found that when I forest chop for a warrior, only 15 shields overflow, even if I already had some in the queue, so I ALWAYS switch to something else, like a worker or barracks. Being able to forest chop is the primary advantage, for me, for going for bronze working. Otherwise I would concentrate on other early techs. I 'waste' time on this one just for that ability if I have lots of forests.

That's not the bug (if Memphus is right about this).

The bug is that you should not be able to handle the entire settler production this way while growing every turn (but the last).
Overflow shields should go to what is built next, as they normally do, and not skip the next build, and accumulate until you have enough for an entire settler.

And this is just the first.

If the general attitude is that 'bugs are in the game so it's ok to exploit them, otherwise they would not have left them in', then that is a competition killer all over again.

I believe someone has already mentioned the solution to this problem but can't find it :confused:

I would not be able to use this 'exploit...micromanagment...whatever' if as soon as my turn began the forest that was being chopped got applied to what i was building the previous turn.

The issue is the game goes to your 'active' unit first, thus you can 'make the production swap' mid turn

if the game simply had your worker finish his chop apply the shields to the warrior, accumulate the overflow, then go to the active unit then there would be no way to use it.

Everyone is right though you can only do this a couple of times...(for each city with forests) but from what I see with the experinced player (not me) extra turns of city growth at the beggining of the game could make a huge difference

On a side note when i get home i will created a game (cause i don't wanna spoil and GOTM :mischief: ) with screen shots and walk through the whole thing, then the experts can really analyze it :scan:

I don't see this as even remotely game breaking. Yes, you've managed to keep growing while producing a settler, but the trade off is a consideradle delay in the production of that settler. Consider the following situation; your early scout units are out doing their thing, you've just produced your worker and want ot start on a settler. Let's say you have a total of 5 hammers+surplus food each turn. With 2 chops you can get a settler out in 10 turns of non-growth (doing things the non-MM way) or you can use the MM described in this thread and have a settle out in 15 turns (3 chops, 13 turns of growth, 2 of non-growth). This assumes each forest takes 5 turns to chop, 1 to move there and 4 for the chop. Note the advantage india has in the early game.

Both ways have their advantages. The non-MM way gets the settler out 5 turns earlier, meaning that your second city is up 5 turns earlier. Using MM, your capital has probably grown a point, and you've been producing units/buildings in the meantime.

It strikes me that which method is 'better' is highly situational. If your early scouts have found an ideal site for your second city, then non-MM is probably better. If good sitres are thin on the ground (lots of jungle/desert or few resources) then getting an extra unit or two out while delaying settler production by using the MM method would be more appropriate. MMing is probably also better for early warmongering.


Edited for clarity

I don't think it's an exploit at all. The build accounting has been changed to allow "priority interrupts" in general, without loss of progress. That's the new basic rule; you can put a build on hold for another.

Arguably it might be more "realistic" to have forests deliver their production over the course of chopping instead of all at the end, but then you'd need some fancy accounting for partially-chopped forests. And it doesn't take very long to chop a forest, so it's not worth the complication.

Also, it's part of the standard rules that forest chops accelerate settler construction, so if the population argument doesn't apply in general, then why would it apply to clever production schedules?

I would not be able to use this 'exploit...micromanagment...whatever' if as soon as my turn began the forest that was being chopped got applied to what i was building the previous turn.

No, it doesn't matter. You can cancel the pending order for your worker at the end of the previous turn, and then completing the 'chop forest' action won't happen until you order it, which would give you time to first switch production in the city to whatever you want.

The correct 'solution' would be for hammers from the 'chop forest' to go into the pool of unused production points, the same way that overflow production from the previous turn does. Rather than being directly applied to the 'current project'. But, who knows if Firaxis will see fit to fix this in a patch. There are a bunch of other production overflow/transfer problems they should fix, too.

@ DaviddesJ

Cool Never even thought of that :rolleyes:

Speaking of which does this also apply for any other worker action
if a barbarian gets close you run away with the worker (no unit to defend) and then come back?

I haven't tested if you can cancel any worker action partway through, and come back whenever you want to finish it. To some extent, I'm taking Vardis's word for it. I'll test this when I have a chance.

Now, please don't hit me if this has already beem mentioned, but let us not also forget the health giving qualities of forests, and how they contribute to the growth of your city-especially in the later game when you are building more polluting improvements. Remember, once those forests are gone, they are gone for GOOD, and could slow your later population growth when you need it most. So, to me, it sounds more like a strategic decision (and a MM nightmare to boot) rather than a genuine exploit.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Alright to start please refer to this thread on the GOTM to understand what is going on.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=143828

Reasons for a new thread:
1. more people look here than GOTM (usually 150-200 viewing vs. 20-30)
= more feedback
2. There are tons of pics so you were forwarned if you have low bandwidth.
3. A moderator can close this and just have the discussion continue somewhere else if it is more appropriate

By the way please don't rip on me for trying to up my post count by doing each segment in a different message...it is just so i can keep track of what is going on and heaven forbid by browser freeze 2/3 of the way through :cry:

Finally although I wish I had found this/posted about it first
credit goes to Willburn :goodjob:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=142345

Play now selected
Continents
climate: random
sealevel: random
world size: random
civilization: Indian ==> to exagerate what can be done
game speed normal
difficulty settler just cause i didn't want any trouble, but it works on prince

Turn actions
- Settler founded in place
2 immediate forests (this is usually the case from 1- 3 I find)
-Start a fast worker and reasearch bronze (i am not saying this is the best thing to do just illustrating an example)

Culture expands now have 4 forests
lots of chopping potential
Sorry for the picture qualities My upload rate is really low :cry:

Worker ready
start making a warrior (8 turns)
note setler would take 25 turns
note worker would take 15 turns
start chopping SE of city
city growth is in 11 turns

HAHA much better with .gif :lol:

--note for this to work you need an active unit on the turn before (3360 B.C., this is why the warrior was moved out of the city and is just hanging out)

--here is the micromanagement
3320 B.C.(1) ==> building warrior (6), city gows in (9)
3320 B.C. (2) ==>switch to woker (this will be explored first, settler after)
3320 B.c. (3) ==> building worker..note chopped shields get applied now
3320 B.C. (4) ==> switch back to warrior, shields..i mean hammers still on worker

TADA still get growth for this turn :eek:

Repeat procedure of 3320

--stupid why use gif when you can use jpeg..ahh graphics :crazyeye:

3160 B.C.
--note the production overflow from last turn of worker onto warrior
--but that isn't the issue here this is ok (except it applies the food as well)

2 workers
1 warrior almost done

lost growth (after original worker) == 1 turn

3400 B.C.
--get crazy go for early religion to expand borders faster = more trees
--(note this prolly can't be done on higher levels, hence why this for discussions I am reading is not an exploit but an option in micro management)

3320 B.C.

-- note I am individually putting the pictures in since I can't find a way to force them to open other wise...so very tired :(

As a side note I like computers I could probably figure out how to use all the options for posting but if someone knows of or would like to create a
"civ fanatics technical guide to posting"
i.e. how to quote, how to upload, etc.
I am sure many people especially all the new posters (myself included) would be :D

The beggining of the turn

the middle of the turn

The end of the turn

Everyone seems to think trading food for an equal number of shields is a bad thing to do. I think it is often a GOOD thing to do, especially if you have a bonus food tile that needs a settler/worker to claim/improve it.

In that case, the "exploit" is useless.

Warrior is out, go for a second one
--note that anything can be build really I am just doing warriors because it is easy

this is getting tiresome and repetitive sorry everyone :rolleyes:

the middle of the turn
settler 90/100 now

At this point everyone will have varying opinions on what to do, chop again, jsut give in for the three turns, wait one turn for the growth...etc, but i think the micromanaging point has been made :eek:

Final result
2840
1 additional warrior (not counting one poped from hut)
1 settler
1 warrior to be produced in one turn, with 26 hammers overflow
trees cut 4 (which = stonehenge as well)
city has lost a total of one turn of growth (after original worker)

Fianlly please discuss this lots I like listening to the pros hash it out :goodjob:

Wow that took over an hour of posting sweet could have been playing :cry:

Personally I find rushign a second worker then using one for improvements to keep up with city growth (i.e. here he would do stone and sheep first)
--althoguh I realize on harder difficulties pumping techs every 4-5 turns is silly and not pissible to have all available worker actions
While keeping the first worker choping for units/ buildings

Note that this start is an option, you could very easily grow to 2 then do this, 3 then do this, that is your gameplay tactics..probably better than mine :blush:

Personally the more I look at it the more I think it is not right to do it, because It takes advantage...but at the same time would it really make a huge impact on your overall game? You tell me

OK here is a more illustrative example

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=144214

This is why I don't consider the trick to be an exploit. You are better off not growing and using those food and shields for the settler. Here is what I would have done if I played it:

http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/3899/civ4screenshot00039nf.jpg

Using both bonus resources and one chop I get my settler out earlier. I still have 21 shields on my barracks from when I was waiting to grow to size 2. I have more infanstructure than if I had spent all my time choping and I still have my trees to chop later.

Fixed img tags

Ainwood said the shields do decay when you swich to another build.

Anyone knows at what rate they will decay?

Loading the savegame here are my results:
(settler opening strategy - i prefer 2 x worker myself if lots of forrest)

http://www.student.uit.no/~eha022/images/workerchop.JPG

1 settler
2 warriors
1 worker

Next turn i get another warrior.

Techs researched:
The wheel
Agriculture
Animal husbandry
Mysticism
Mining
Polytheism
Masonry
Bronze working

Note i also got a free worker from a hut since i had a moving warrior early - but i disbanded this ofcourse. This points out to the fact having early warriors can get you even better ahead...

Eg577 has a point on the other hand. I feel the trick is situational - its not a game breaker either.

Fixed tags

Here i go for worker then worker / growth then settler / growth.

Here are the results:
http://www.student.uit.no/~eha022/images/wchop2.JPG
2 workers
2 warrors (1 more next turn)
1 settler

size 2 city.

Same techs as in previous example.
End date 2880bc as the other examples.
EDIT: This shows the power of worker + bronze then worker + growth trick and settler + growth trick for india..

It adds up though. More bugs will be discovered, and as a result in pretty much every game there will be bugs to exploit.

Thanks Memphus, this is definite proof of this bug.
No way that this exploit can be allowed, it is a variant of the Civ3 reassignment of worked tiles during end-of-turn messages.

I think this would only count as an 'exploit/bug' IF forests could be regrown. Yes you may get a settler whilst getting growth but-consider this-is that necessarily a GOOD thing? Firstly, growth in city size contributes towards unhappiness and unhealthiness, which is why I am sometimes GLAD to halt growth for a while as I build my settler/worker. This is especially true if you found yourself without luxuries, different food sources and/or poor terrain (jungles nearby).
Secondly, given that you can no longer swap hammers to a new wonder if you miss out on an earlier one, I think you are better off saving your forests not for settler building, but for wonder production-or to save it against a future day when you will need to sustain a later game population. As has been stated, this really makes the forest-chop issue more of a situational thing, at least IMO.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Aussi i totaly agree on it beeing situational. When i play i allways look at my traits and the map im in. Do i see a lot of forrests ? Do i have industrial trait..hmm let me think i can worker chop/growth that fast settler and get a city by that marble..Hmm if i then worker chop forrest near second city i can get 60 hammers per chop.. etc etc

If im aggressive in multiplayer games i usually save forrest for chopping a barracks ( one chop) or if im expansive i usually worker chop a granery.

The basic principle is to get as much hammers as fast as possible for a best possible start. How you do this is very situational.

Btw, you can chop trees outside cultural borders too. You just get less hammers farther away you chop.

originally posted by WackenOpenAir
Ainwood said the shields do decay when you swich to another build.

Anyone knows at what rate they will decay?

I have no idea and maybe the rate is higher on higher difficulties, but on settler to noble, I have been able to go move,chop (4 turns not using india) * 4 = 16 turns for the settler with no decay in the shields.

I am wondering if it doesn't decay and only research does? or maybe after turn X the decay starts where on Noble turn X is 30, prince it is turn 25, etc... I am just speculating here..ahh man no another night of testing :lol:

I am wondering if it doesn't decay and only research does? or maybe after turn X the decay starts where on Noble turn X is 30, prince it is turn 25, etc... I am just speculating here..ahh man no another night of testing :lol:
It definatly does decay. To give you some sort of idea, I lost about 15 sheilds in the time it took me to build 2 monastrys and a library, the city had 5 - 10 sheilds.

Thanks Memphus, this is definite proof of this bug.
No way that this exploit can be allowed, it is a variant of the Civ3 reassignment of worked tiles during end-of-turn messages.


If this is a bug, then is it a bug to chop when there is one turn left to build something so you get a big overflow and can allocate it against a settler/worker all at once the next turn?

How about if you partially chop several forests, then start producing a settler, finish the chop immediately, and end up making the settler next turn?

What if you instead just start chopping a forest so it'll be done when you start to produce a settler?

Even if chopped forests are applied as additional production next turn, would it still be a bug that you can switch to producing something else while you get ready to chop another forest? If not, all that happens is that you've saved maybe one or two turns of city growth. I really think you're making this out to be a bigger deal than it is.

If this is a bug, then is it a bug to chop when there is one turn left to build something so you get a big overflow and can allocate it against a settler/worker all at once the next turn?
I think this is close, esp. if you do it when you have nearly finished a wonder that you get increased production for, so the forrest is worth 60 sheilds.
How about if you partially chop several forests, then start producing a settler, finish the chop immediately, and end up making the settler next turn?

What if you instead just start chopping a forest so it'll be done when you start to produce a settler?

Even if chopped forests are applied as additional production next turn, would it still be a bug that you can switch to producing something else while you get ready to chop another forest? If not, all that happens is that you've saved maybe one or two turns of city growth. I really think you're making this out to be a bigger deal than it is.
I think it is not a bug, and is is how it is supposed to work. I think the main reason to forbid this is that it is such a drag to do, and can be quite important in many situations. Everyone would need to do it in some GOTMs. I guess in these competions someone needs to decide what is fair to expect people to do.

I don't know. If it's something AI doesn't understand to use and it's used unlike Firaxis meant it to be used and there's a slight chance that by using it a player might gain an advantage over AI or over other players then I would say it's not far from an exploit. Or, at least, I felt quilty after pulling it off in the game - much like as it was with prebuilding trick. So I hope this will be fixed away in upcoming patches. But nevertheless, an interesting find.

I think this is close, esp. if you do it when you have nearly finished a wonder that you get increased production for, so the forrest is worth 60 sheilds.

I just checked, and it appears that the game will reduce production from the forests somewhat, but not completely. As India building a temple, the first forest is 60 instead of 30 as expected, but the next one is 45 even though I won't use any of it toward the temple. I think this is a bug - if I had another 20 hammers to go, it should give me 40 for the forest (10*2 for the temple, 20*1 normal overflow). If I have need no more hammers for the temple, it should only apply 30. I'm not sure why it's using 45 there...

If this is a bug, then is it a bug to chop when there is one turn left to build something so you get a big overflow and can allocate it against a settler/worker all at once the next turn?
No, that does not even gain you something compared to chopping while the settler is already the actual build.

How about if you partially chop several forests, then start producing a settler, finish the chop immediately, and end up making the settler next turn? Can you do that, a partial worker action to finish it later? :eek:
If so, then this is a design flaw, not a bug - but should not be exploited nonetheless.

What if you instead just start chopping a forest so it'll be done when you start to produce a settler? That is intended, and therefore OK. The AI can do the same.

Even if chopped forests are applied as additional production next turn, would it still be a bug that you can switch to producing something else while you get ready to chop another forest? No (see above). I still don't like it how it is, but that's because it introduces more micromanagement.

A good solution to all of this would be if chops and overflow could not be assigned to settlers and workers at all (but would be assigned to the next build).

I really think you're making this out to be a bigger deal than it is. The point is that if exploits are allowed (this one or any other), you are forced to use them in order to compete. As a result you are no longer playing the game, you are playing the exploits. Which means that (1) all games will be the same and (2) we will all miss the pleasure of playing the game as Firaxis intended it to be.

Now this particular exploit may not seem to be a big deal to you, but I can assure you that even this one will already decide over who gets the awards, And this is just the first, there wil be others. So the top competitors will play the exploits, and will in fact be actively looking for new exploits as happened in the 3OTM, and are sure to find them. They will minimize their write-ups, or not report at all, in order not to reveal any newly found exploits, or they will boast about them, and teach the less experienced participants that the game is all about exploits. In either case, the competition degenerates.

No, that does not even gain you something compared to chopping while the settler is already the actual build.
Except that the city is not growing for fewer turns. Wastes worker turns though (unless you are india).
Can you do that, a partial worker action to finish it later? :eek:
If so, then this is a design flaw, not a bug - but should not be exploited nonetheless.
You can do it, and I do not think it is a design flaw. Just because the worker has left the square, would all the work he has done suddenly disapair? It was something that iritated me from civ 3.

It is not an exploit.

Haven't you ever built a road in one turn using 2 workers? There is nothing exploitive about using that road that turn. On the other hand if you have 1 worker it will take 2 turns to build that road. 2 turns later that road *won't* be usuable right away because the cpu views a '2 turn road building action' as an automated process and will wait until all active units nearby have moved to complete the process (as opposed to a '1 turn, 2 worker road building action' which it views as an instant process). If you order your units in the vicinity of the worker to 'wait' then can use that road this turn.

Clicking 'wait' can't be considered an exploit because what if I legitamitely wanted to wake a sleeping unit after my active units moved? For example suppose my active units died attacking the enemy. Now I want to wake a fortified unit to continue the attack. Is is cheating that this new unit can use the road when the other now dead units couldn't use it without 'waiting'?

The forest chop is the same thing as the road. If you had 3 workers then you could chop in one turn. With 3 workers you wouldn't need to awkwardly deal with the way the cpu handles automated actions/instanenous actions.

Originally posted by eg577

It is not an exploit.

I am not saying it is...just curious if it will be allowed in future GOTM games or not.

Originally posted by eg577
The forest chop is the same thing as the road. If you had 3 workers then you could chop in one turn. With 3 workers you wouldn't need to awkwardly deal with the way the cpu handles automated actions/instanenous actions.

And it is not the same thing, the 'exploitive... micromanagement' issue is the switching of production from non growth inhibiting production, to a city growth inhibiting one (ex settler, worker) getting the Hammers mid turn then switching back,

If you had three wrokers you could still do this
start turn on worker/settler chop with three workers get the Hammers
before ending turn change to a warrior, thus allowign your city to gain the food for the turn
next turn repeat.
Is this tedious yes :cry:
Is the benefit huge ...i have no idea, seems to be a no out there :crazyeye:

Originally posted by Ribannah

The point is that if exploits are allowed (this one or any other), you are forced to use them in order to compete. As a result you are no longer playing the game, you are playing the exploits. Which means that (1) all games will be the same and (2) we will all miss the pleasure of playing the game as Firaxis intended it to be.

Now this particular exploit may not seem to be a big deal to you, but I can assure you that even this one will already decide over who gets the awards, And this is just the first, there wil be others. So the top competitors will play the exploits, and will in fact be actively looking for new exploits as happened in the 3OTM, and are sure to find them. They will minimize their write-ups, or not report at all, in order not to reveal any newly found exploits, or they will boast about them, and teach the less experienced participants that the game is all about exploits. In either case, the competition

in thread http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=143828&page=2


..BTW reasons not to have two threads... :(

--edited spelling... and changing shields to hammers

Maybe I wasn't clear enough about that. :)
The flaw is not that the work done is not lost, I like that too, but that you can use this new feature to undo the necessary balancing that was introduced by not letting cities grow during the production of settlers and workers.

@ Ribannah

Beat me too it, :p, good explanation :)

@ any moderator

sorry for making two threads thought it was a good idea at the time... noob error... :blush:
Jumping back and forth now is getting tiresome :(

is there any way to combine them?

Being http://forums.civfanatics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=3380722
And
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=144214

or is this a bad idea? :confused:

Sorry for the trouble again :sad:

It's an exploit.

Hopefully it will be patched.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough about that. :)
The flaw is not that the work done is not lost, I like that too, but that you can use this new feature to undo the necessary balancing that was introduced by not letting cities grow during the production of settlers and workers.
Oh, I see. Fair enough.

BTW, I totally agree with you on why exploits are so bad. You are totally forced to use them to be competative. BTW, do RBC do a GOTM? They always had a good (IMHO) view of exploits.

Realms Beyond is starting the Civ4 Epics right now.

For the time being there's no difference in how this issue is viewed between GOTM and RBC. :)

@ any moderator

sorry for making two threads thought it was a good idea at the time... noob error... :blush:
Jumping back and forth now is getting tiresome :(

is there any way to combine them?
...
or is this a bad idea? :confused:

I've merged the other thread into this one. You can decide whether it works or not. :)

...necessary balancing that was introduced by not letting cities grow during the production of settlers and workers.


New game, new design, new thought. Break your conditioning. I read the short essay at the end of my manual and it seems settler and workers were changed because it was a hangup for new players and created unnecessary confusion. The fact that food gets applied to settler and workers are really just an artifact of how old Civs played, they could just have easily forgotten the entire affair and made settlers and workers just like all other production tasks. They didn't, and actually added food as a surrogate for production thereby speeding up expansion, and generalizing the early map resources so one high in food or shields doesn't necessarily suffer in the opposing aspect.


I think its been adequately discussed and shown to not be the boss of all strategies and many cases its not even useful. Compare that to the ring corruption flaw in Civ3 which *does* force all competative players to think about using it, the latter was fixed. This "flaw" seems to me an inherent aspect of the system in place, and all the fixes mentioned so far don't address the issue and leave holes for other problems.


Also don't confuse useful strategies that everyone must know to compete and exploits that everyone must know to compete.

Next, I'll be hearing that using more powerful units versus weaker is an exploit! Everyone is forced to do this to stay competitive. Damn I have to micromanage single units and keep track of their power? BUG!

Maybe it's just jet lag, but I'm not understanding the issue here. Can someone explain to me in simple English what exactly the difference in outcome is between A and B?

A. Worker will finish chop on turn X, warrior is due on turn X+1. Switch to settler before the chop message comes up; afterwards, switch back to warrior. Next turn, warrior finishes with hammer overrun; switch to settler and finish that.

B. Worker will finish chop on turn X+1 with warrior due the same turn. Next turn, warrior finishes; switch to settler. Chop hammers go to settler along with any natural overrun. Finish settler.

It seems you're all saying that A will result in fewer lost growth turns than B, but I'm not yet seeing how that's the case.

A good solution to all of this would be if chops and overflow could not be assigned to settlers and workers at all (but would be assigned to the next build).


Perhaps the best thing to do would be to make food going toward settler/worker production optional. I think I'd find restrictions on where I can allocate my chops/overflow hammers to just be annoying.

Yeah, this would result in being able to expand without slowing the growth of your city, but your expansion might be slower when going that route. Plus the AI could also optimize this to finish settler/worker production more quickly. IMO it's annoying micromanagement to have to tell the city to not start work on a settler this turn, but to wait a turn or two to grow in size first.

If food toward production was optional, it could automatically figure out whether only using hammers until growth would be optimal, and cut down on micromanagement even more.

Maybe it's just jet lag, but I'm not understanding the issue here. Can someone explain to me in simple English what exactly the difference in outcome is between A and B?

A. Worker will finish chop on turn X, warrior is due on turn X+1. Switch to settler before the chop message comes up; afterwards, switch back to warrior. Next turn, warrior finishes with hammer overrun; switch to settler and finish that.

B. Worker will finish chop on turn X+1 with warrior due the same turn. Next turn, warrior finishes; switch to settler. Chop hammers go to settler along with any natural overrun. Finish settler.

It seems you're all saying that A will result in fewer lost growth turns than B, but I'm not yet seeing how that's the case.

By switching to settler for each chop, you can be on the settler for its last turn only because the game saves partial production. If you chop enough so that the overrun is enough to create the settler the next turn, there's no difference.

Ok, I get it now. Thanks. :)

Just a note regarding creating roads as an automatic action (done last). This always really annoyed me with civ3, and thankfully has been fixed in two ways.

First, you can 'activate' a worker, and it doesn't lose it's work status. So you click on the worker building a road, and tell it to build a road, and it completes it.

Second, there is a key combo (Ctrl-/ ???) that makes all automatic moves take place.

I think it's a fair tradeoff. You get the Settler out more slowly, or have to chop more Forests, by not putting any food into it. There are situations where it will be slightly better, situations where it will be slightly worse.

In this case, you have Stone. Chopping a Forest towards Stonehenge, Great Lighthouse, Hanging Gardens, or the Pyramids would give you double the production per Forest Chop as long as it will be fully counting towards the build. Plus the longer you keep the Forests around, the more likely a Forest will grow, giving you more potential chops.

Chopping 3 Forests towards a Settler this way costs you at least 90 potential production... is it worth it?

Just a note regarding creating roads as an automatic action (done last). This always really annoyed me with civ3, and thankfully has been fixed in two ways.

First, you can 'activate' a worker, and it doesn't lose it's work status. So you click on the worker building a road, and tell it to build a road, and it completes it.

Second, there is a key combo (Ctrl-/ ???) that makes all automatic moves take place.

Actually, there are 3 ways: if you just pass with all of your other units (with ENTER), then the automatic moves will be triggered, and you can then move your other units.

I think it's a fair tradeoff. You get the Settler out more slowly, or have to chop more Forests, by not putting any food into it. There are situations where it will be slightly better, situations where it will be slightly worse.

In this case, you have Stone. Chopping a Forest towards Stonehenge, Great Lighthouse, Hanging Gardens, or the Pyramids would give you double the production per Forest Chop as long as it will be fully counting towards the build. Plus the longer you keep the Forests around, the more likely a Forest will grow, giving you more potential chops.

Chopping 3 Forests towards a Settler this way costs you at least 90 potential production... is it worth it?
The reason it seems like an exploit isn't that you're using the forests to rush the Settler, but you're chopping the forests and cranking out the Settler in the exact same turn, instead of having to wait 1 turn for completion.

Now this particular exploit may not seem to be a big deal to you, but I can assure you that even this one will already decide over who gets the awards, And this is just the first, there wil be others. So the top competitors will play the exploits, and will in fact be actively looking for new exploits as happened in the 3OTM, and are sure to find them. They will minimize their write-ups, or not report at all, in order not to reveal any newly found exploits, or they will boast about them, and teach the less experienced participants that the game is all about exploits. In either case, the competition degenerates.

In other words, you're going to *****, *****, *****, about the Civ IV GOTM, just as you did incessantly about the Civ 3 GOTM. Wouldn't it be better, at some point, to just go run your own game with the people who agree with you? If you hate the GOTM so much, why are you here?

No need for the flaming - debate the points, not the people.

I especially like how, if I reveal everything I know about the game, then I am evil, and if I don't talk about what I find, then I am also evil. How neat your logic is.

And, if "exploits" are allowed, then GOTM sucks, but if the administrators were to create a long list of precise rules about exactly when each player is or isn't allowed to change the contents of their production queue, and then try to explain those rules to hundreds of new players in long threads on these forums, then I'm sure you would whine about that. Somehow it just seems like your goal is to create a no-win situation.

The reason it seems like an exploit isn't that you're using the forests to rush the Settler, but you're chopping the forests and cranking out the Settler in the exact same turn, instead of having to wait 1 turn for completion.

You can't ever finish the settler in the very same turn you chop the forest. The hammers get added to the total for the settler, but production using those hammers doesn't occur until the start of the next turn.

Well said, DaviddesJ! :)

Possibly a bug, definitely NOT an exploit! (IMO) An exploit implies some significant advantage, which has not been consistently demonstrated, simply a change in game behavior. Maybe that was the designer's intent anyway, maybe not. Discussing it is good and to be commended! This provides everyone with the knowledge to use this tactic if desired.

Very rarely should you use the AI as an example of how you should play. Play like the AI, and lose! If I wanted to play like the AI, I could just set all AI players, pick one, and follow its progress. I prefer to play like a human, make choices, and gradually improve my skills. Hopefully I don't make the same mistakes over and over again!

Submit your game, Memphus. You deserve to after generating this much discussion; if the GOTM staff decision changes, it can be rejected later.

Perhaps the best thing to do would be to make food going toward settler/worker production optional. I think I'd find restrictions on where I can allocate my chops/overflow hammers to just be annoying.
Hey, that is an excellent idea, Vardis! That would quite elegantly solve the problem, turn exploits into strategies, and at the same time remove some redundant micromanagement. My compliments! :) :king:

Perhaps the best thing to do would be to make food going toward settler/worker production optional.

It is. Say you have three slices of bread per turn and one hammer per turn -- then just build four Workers and delete the first three before you use them. That way you have used no food towards the production of your Worker.

Wouldn't it be better, at some point, to just go run your own game with the people who agree with you?
Certainly it would, as I and others did with Civ3 when people who share your views got their way. We are not yet at this 'some point', however, and 'the people', here and elsewhere, still have to form an opinion.

Meanwhile, I would appreciate it greatly if for any personal issues that you have with me, you use private mail, instead of hijacking a thread. Agreed. Please take this discussion off line

At the beginning of the 3OTM we did create a list of forbidden exploits (and with Civ2 we managed it that way as well). Perhaps that was before you joined. It only changed later, when for instance resource-revealing graphic mods were allowed, and all kinds of end-of-turn trickery.

I think it's a fair tradeoff. You get the Settler out more slowly, or have to chop more Forests, by not putting any food into it. There are situations where it will be slightly better, situations where it will be slightly worse. ...

It seems absolutely true. Especially this is true on higher dificulty levels where the city cannot grow above size 4 earlier in the game. There is little point in trying to maximize growth because the city will reach the maximal allowed size before more happiness can be acquired. It this case, it seems that having that first settler earlier is more important than growth. However, it all depends on the actual situation in the game. Overall, it does not make much difference imho.

Also, may be I'm the only one having troubles with this but it does not work exactly like described in the patch 1.09. For example, I was building settler, switched to barracks. When the chop is ready and I switch back to settler, the governor sets the second settler in the building queue. Of course, you can delete that second settler and select the first settler from the queue. May be this is how this feature is intended to work?

It is not apparently an exploit, and it is a huge trade off imo. You can either grab a location with the settler built earlier or miss the location which would then be settled by somebody else.

Arguably it might be more "realistic" to have forests deliver their production over the course of chopping instead of all at the end, but then you'd need some fancy accounting for partially-chopped forests. And it doesn't take very long to chop a forest, so it's not worth the complication.

This would actually be awesome. For a 30 hammer forest that takes 3 turns, I'd love to get 10 per turn. It would really help when trying to build warriors quickly early and would eliminate this switching discussion.

Provided they are assigned before you can switch.
Yes, this is another good solution, I think. And it makes sense. :)
In fact, I would like to see a partial chop reflected in the graphics, as well as a chance that the forest regrows to full size!

Keep in mind though that in order to make it consistent, you would no longer be able to postpone the chop until an improvement has been built. But that makes more sense than it is now, too.
Or, maybe, you will be allowed to leave 1/3 of the forest while building the improvement.

This would actually be awesome. For a 30 hammer forest that takes 3 turns, I'd love to get 10 per turn. It would really help when trying to build warriors quickly early and would eliminate this switching discussion.
The only problem with this is people chopping a forest for 2 turns to get 20 free production, then leaving the forest for their city. I think it would be fun to have each forest contain a random amount of production - from 10 to 40 - so you never know how long you'd have to chop it for it to go away.

The issue here is not how you MM to get more food while still building a worker/settler, it is "Should warrior/settlers require food?"

In CivIII, they did, because they used up population which had been created with food. It cost 40 wheat or 20 with a granary to build a settler, regardless of where the shields came from.

In CivIV, warriors and settlers do not require food. They can be chopped, built with overrun, etc. If you think they should require food, potentially you could make it a requirement that every settler use 40 food, 20 with a granary as part of their unit cost. Not sure if this could be modded or not.

StanNP :cool:

I think the real "exploit" is forest chops. Any opening sequence (fishing boats, wonders, settlers, military rush) can be done at triple speed when you have a worker out chopping forest.

Going for an early worker and bronze working is the best strategy in all cases, so it becomes the only possible strategy in competiton.

Going for an early worker and bronze working is the best strategy in all cases, so it becomes the only possible strategy in competiton.

I'm calling it CET (Chop Every Tree) and it appears to be the RCP of CivIV

StanNP :cool:

edited to remove reference to IVOTM1 outside of spoiler thread

Yep, if George W. ever visits the Civ4 Game of the Month Forum, he'd think he'd found new friends, he would.

Yeah I think chops are overpowered. They should only give 10 hammers, not 30.

Here is my minimal impact change to remove the CET strategy from being so dominant during the QSC.

Today Bronze Working gives you the ability to chop and Iron Working gives you the ability to clear jungle.

Just switch these so you can't chop until you get Iron working, but you can cut Jungle down with Bronzeworking. If you want to use a chop heavy strategy and you beeline to Iron Working, you are 30 turns into the game and you have not been able to use your workers to improve roads, camps, farms or pastures. Might still be worth it, but not as a dominant strategy.

Later in the game (assuming you ever get Iron working, :eek: ), forests can be converted to shields using the current ratios.

StanNP :cool:

Chopping Forests limits long term potential. Both in reducing the amount of Forest growth (and thus Forests you can potentially chop), and in reducing Health. At the most extreme, chopping a Forest on turn X, which would have allowed growth of another Forest on turn X+1 basically costs you a full chop worth of production, and can be with absolutely no gain over having chopped the Forest on turn X+1. So chopping ASAP isn't always the best move, even if you're set on chopping. The longer you give your Forests, the more likely they are to spread.

Health is the limiting factor in population for most of most games. Drama means virtually unlimited Happiness potential, so can Hereditary Rule if you're running it. Health has no slider. A chop that costs you a pop point in a city or three for 100+ turns is a very bad chop IMO. That can potentially be thousands of F/P/C being lost over the course of the game. You can't even reliably say that chopping to a Health plateau is a good idea, because the lost chance for Forest growth could have gotten you to the next plateau.

CIV is not an exponential growth game. Getting a head start early with chopping doesn't mean chopping later, or not chop at all, won't be able to catch up. Because in the meantime those other's can be doing things the chopper can't. Religions are potential way to go. Wonders can be built. Early Chariot, Quechas, even Warriors/Archers can be effective). Terrain improvement are a way to go. Deep tech beelines are a way to go. Bronze Working and chopping ASAP can factor into some of them, but can also detract from others.

Yeah I think chops are overpowered. They should only give 10 hammers, not 30.


I agree. It should be less. 20 is ideal I think (choping trees would be a strategy still, but not the only one)

Chopping Forests limits long term potential. Both in reducing the amount of Forest growth (and thus Forests you can potentially chop), and in reducing Health. At the most extreme, chopping a Forest on turn X, which would have allowed growth of another Forest on turn X+1 basically costs you a full chop worth of production, and can be with absolutely no gain over having chopped the Forest on turn X+1. So chopping ASAP isn't always the best move, even if you're set on chopping. The longer you give your Forests, the more likely they are to spread.

The chance for forest growth seems to be too small for this to be a strong argument against them. I have never seen more than 3-4 growths in a game.

Health is the limiting factor in population for most of most games. Drama means virtually unlimited Happiness potential, so can Hereditary Rule if you're running it. Health has no slider. A chop that costs you a pop point in a city or three for 100+ turns is a very bad chop IMO. That can potentially be thousands of F/P/C being lost over the course of the game. You can't even reliably say that chopping to a Health plateau is a good idea, because the lost chance for Forest growth could have gotten you to the next plateau.

At lower difficulty levels health is a non-issue. Even at higher difficulty levels health really isn't very important. In the worst case scenario you can just let the city grow those 2 sizes onwards. The only negative effect is the 2 health extra (which can be fixed with 2 extra farms (1 with biology).

CIV is not an exponential growth game. Getting a head start early with chopping doesn't mean chopping later, or not chop at all, won't be able to catch up. Because in the meantime those other's can be doing things the chopper can't. Religions are potential way to go. Wonders can be built. Early Chariot, Quechas, even Warriors/Archers can be effective). Terrain improvement are a way to go. Deep tech beelines are a way to go. Bronze Working and chopping ASAP can factor into some of them, but can also detract from others.

This argument is more interesting. My argument would be that whatever you want to do instead of chopping, it is something you can more easily do it BY chopping for it. If you want to fight a war, chopping will enable you to get more cities & units faster. If you want to build terrain improvements, chopping will enable you to get more workers than normally and build these faster. If you want to build wonders, chopping will enable you to get these faster. If you want to get techs (including religion), chopping will enable you to get more cities (at high commerce position) or commerce specific buildings or commerce specific improvements faster.

What is true though, is that you'll probably miss an early religion. But with chopping you can get more cities, therefore generally more luxuries, thus also happiness (and a later religion by the increased tech pace).

CIV is still an exponential growth game, the maximum increase curve you can achieve has only been decreased.

Even at higher difficulty levels health really isn't very important.

I quite disagree with this. Have you played at higher levels (at least Emperor)? You're often running many cities at the health limit. In other words, an extra health point is worth an extra food per turn per city, which is quite a bit.

In the worst case scenario you can just let the city grow those 2 sizes onwards. The only negative effect is the 2 health extra (which can be fixed with 2 extra farms (1 with biology).

This is not an accurate characterization of the Civ4 economic model. By the early middle game, all of your citizens will already be working fully improved tiles. You can't get an extra food just by building an extra farm.

The chance for forest growth seems to be too small for this to be a strong argument against them. I have never seen more than 3-4 growths in a game.

It's a factor that has to be considered. Clearcutting ASAP will not get as much overall production most of the time. Are you saying that 90-120 production (* multipliers) wouldn't be a factor worth considering?

At lower difficulty levels health is a non-issue. Even at higher difficulty levels health really isn't very important. In the worst case scenario you can just let the city grow those 2 sizes onwards. The only negative effect is the 2 health extra (which can be fixed with 2 extra farms (1 with biology).

I don't know how you can say health is not very important. It's the limiting factor on city size in any well run empire for the majority of most games.

No chance for WLT*D with negative health. Something to consider.

Using Farms to offset Health issues means not using other improvements which have more output. As long as you aren't working the Forests that are giving Health, keeping them around is a benefit in addition to the tiles that are being worked. +2 Health is 5 Forests, so you can be size 15 before needing to chop Forests to work high output tiles. (By then you potentially could be to Replaceable Parts too, so they might be the high output tiles.)

Using Plains Farms pre-Biology doesn't address Health concerns at all. They can't address their own Food requirement and a Health requirement with just 2 Food. Using Grassland Farms to address Health is a very bad idea pre-Biology as the net output is 1 commerce per population if on a river, 0 if not on a river. Flood Plains Farms can work, but you'll get as good or better value from FP Cottages (or FP Farms allowing use of Mines) than that 1 extra Food will allow in Health restricted cities. And Civic upkeep costs scale by population, so you may actually be losing value by supporting that population point if it isn't creating anything other than it's food to eat. (Though unit upkeep costs also scale by population, so it could offset if you have units to support.)

Farms using their Food bonus to cancel Health is worse than any other Specialist or tile use option for the majority of most games. Better to take that 2 Food and make a Specialist out of it instead of working a Plains Farm or Lighthouse Coast, use a Mine instead of a Farm, a couple Cottages instead of a couple Farms, ect. Just about anything but throwing food into the Health pit.

This argument is more interesting. My argument would be that whatever you want to do instead of chopping, it is something you can more easily do it BY chopping for it.

Of course not the early Religions as you later qualify this with...

3 Shrines is potentially hundreds of commerce per turn by mid-game, with the additional benefit of being in more control of what Religions the opponents have, additional culture and happiness output early on for you, and not for the opponents, diplomatic bonus for founding the Religion, and sight bonus for owning the Shrine. All in all, a rather big consideration even if you can get later Religions.

If you want to fight a war, chopping will enable you to get more cities & units faster.

If you research BW while building Workers/Settlers first, you may have already passed up warfare that could be fought with Warriors, Archers, or Chariots. I've captured 6-7 Workers in a game with initial Warriors spam before, and captured plenty of Warrior/Settler or Archer/Settler pairs with the first Chariot off the line, not to mention capturing cities with them. All more quickly than going with BW first can match.

How many chops is that worth? Capturing a Worker, denying it to an opponent. Capturing a city, denying it to an opponent (or even eliminating them), and making use of it? :mischief:

BW focusing on Workers first also passes up all hut results you could have gotten with (extra) early explorers. Which is a double effect as now someone else will get them. Sometimes this can amount to a handful of gold... or in the case of the game in this thread... my first run through netted me Animal Husbandry, a Worker, Bronze Working, and some gold from huts. (ugh on the difficulty level... second time I got a Settler from the 3rd hut in addition to AH and the Worker...)

Plus early exploration is it's own reward. Knowing what the situation is is always important. If you find out you're on your own island, expansion suddenly becomes not such a big deal. Chopping those Settlers can wait if you're sure to get all the city sites first anyways. Maybe better to be chopping those Forests towards Lighthouses or Galleys later.

If you want to build terrain improvements, chopping will enable you to get more workers than normally and build these faster.

Um... terrain improvements that you still need to research to after BW... and which non-BW first have already built and are benefitting from, if only to spend less time getting to BW and do their own chops. If you are going Pottery->BW you are generally better off from a Commerce standpoint than going BW->Pottery. It's just quicker to get both BW and Pottery by going Pottery first, and your Cottages will be further along.

If you want to build wonders, chopping will enable you to get these faster.

Some of them. BW first will lag in tech, and in some cases the Wonders can be built before someone who researched BW can even get there. Then later, the ones who haven't chopped their Forests can chop their Forests still to win Wonder races if it comes to that.

Hooking up Stone or Marble first can easily blow BW first out of the water with many early Wonders, especially for IND leaders.

If you want to get techs (including religion), chopping will enable you to get more cities (at high commerce position) or commerce specific buildings or commerce specific improvements faster.

Pottery first gets it's Cottages up and running before BW first can. For each growth cycle on each Cottage up until BW catches up (if it ever does) in this regard, Pottery first will be getting +1cpt for the number of turns that BW took to catch up. You simply can't chop to make Cottages grow faster, while you can chop Forests later to get out more Workers/Settlers to build more Cottages.

You can get a Library up often before a BW and Writing tech line can even finish researching Writing. That means getting an Academy up first too. Later, chopping other Libraries can finish them quicker, but BW first may not even have their Forests at that point anyways. You can only chop em once.

The Oracle->Civil Service jump generally won't be hurried by chopping, as research time to Code of Laws is generally the limiting factor, and so BW will get to CS slower. This by itself can potentially count for a Forest chop or three in straight Production, not to mention the Commerce bonus that goes along with it.

There are plenty of other situations where chopping ASAP is just not going to be the best idea.

What is true though, is that you'll probably miss an early religion. But with chopping you can get more cities, therefore generally more luxuries, thus also happiness (and a later religion by the increased tech pace).

It gets faster cities, which may or may not mean more cities. At the extreme of "fast cities" is overexpansion into bankruptcy. The limitation on number of cities is Commerce more than Production or Food in CIV.

CIV is still an exponential growth game, the maximum increase curve you can achieve has only been decreased.

I was refering to extreme REX in Civ III. In Civ III, 1 city became 2, 2 became 4, 4 became 8... by 10AD it was possible to have over 200 cities on a Huge map. It is financially impossible to expand at that rate in CIV as you'll tank your economy to the point of having your Settlers and Workers disband themselves with such an exponential expansion approach.

Because of this, it's possible to catch up in number of cities. You have to wait for the Commerce to expand effectively, and so someone who focuses on Commerce early instead of expansion can catch up in number of cities.

Chopping has it's benefits and drawbacks. I'm not saying it doesn't have it's place, but it's not the end-all-be-all by any means.

Aeson i have two comments (maybe i a bit off topic?): A) It takes lots and lots of missionaries to convert for 3 religions. Those missionaries are waisted hammers..if you think about it your trading hammers for gold... Im not saying its usefull but I generally dont have the hammers for missionaries to spare. Id rather get more millitar / worker / settlers. And money isnt a big problem when you start doing tricks (like getting caste system and merchants in every city) you can still go at science with 100%.

B) you can chop warriors too and be offensive. But you can also chop a fast second city and THEN be offensive.

Personally i know what works on emperor / immortal levels and it sure aint going for 3 religions....(the computers WILL beat you to it no matter what)
What does work on the other hand is for example worker chop inca warriors. or worker chop fast second city near even more forrest and then worker chop warriors/archers. Use first warrior to steal a worker and then you can have 3 workers early with the fast worker chop strategy.

Oh and about saving forrests for later, personally i rather have 300 hammers early in the game than 500 hammers later. Later in the game you are producing way more hammers per round in your cities than in the beginning. It simply has the most dramatic effect in the beginning and can secure you a lead so you can get even more hammers in the end.

I could ofcourse lay this discussion dead by just playing a game and showing exactly how many hammers i earn in a full game by chopping early vs chopping late but ack I dont have time at the moment for this (college examns).

It gets faster cities, which may or may not mean more cities. At the extreme of "fast cities" is overexpansion into bankruptcy. The limitation on number of cities is Commerce more than Production or Food in CIV.

At challenging difficulty levels (say, Emperor-plus), the main limitation on the number of cities for the human player is getting enough space. That's why it's important to crank out units (settlers, workers, and military) early. You can catch up on most of the other stuff later.

Aeson i have two comments (maybe i a bit off topic?): A) It takes lots and lots of missionaries to convert for 3 religions. Those missionaries are waisted hammers..if you think about it your trading hammers for gold... Im not saying its usefull but I generally dont have the hammers for missionaries to spare. Id rather get more millitar / worker / settlers. And money isnt a big problem when you start doing tricks (like getting caste system and merchants in every city) you can still go at science with 100%.

Caste System + Merchants has it's own tradeoffs too. That means you aren't in Serfdom for faster Workers, or Slavery for pop rushing. Both of which are cheaper Civics than Caste System. Later in the game it means you aren't in Emancipation, which can be extremely harsh to not be in. It also means that you aren't running as many Engineers/Scientists/Artists/Priests or not working as many tiles (if not Mercantile or SoL which both have their own costs). A Merchant could be working a Mine, in which case you are still making that production:commerce tradeoff. Same with a Merchant and Engineer comparison, or a Merchant and Priest comparison. And of course there are research:gold tradeoffs, culture:gold tradeoffs and food:gold tradeoffs to consider among the various options.

So you're trading one tradeoff for others. That supports my argument, as there are various ways to approach these issues, which when taken advantage of correctly, can have similarly effective results. If you were saying Missionaries are never worth building, then you'd have a point, but it doesn't sound like you are, and in any case it's very obviously not so.

Let me be perfectly clear... I am not arguing for any "best" way of playing, I am arguing against Forest chopping ASAP (especially in relation to Workers Settlers, but not limited to it) being the only "best" way of playing. There are many other valid ways of playing.

B) you can chop warriors too and be offensive. But you can also chop a fast second city and THEN be offensive.

A chopped Warrior comes later than a regularly built warrior. A chopped Settler then Warrior takes even more time. But eventually you can chop more Warriors than straight production can produce, and/or build more from more cities. But it takes time. That is a tradeoff. Earlier Warriors, or more Warriors (or other units) quicker later. Although it doesn't have to work out that way, sometimes earlier Warriors pay off so much that they have much better long term potential. And sometimes they don't pay off at all, thus are wasted.

Personally i know what works on emperor / immortal levels and it sure aint going for 3 religions....(the computers WILL beat you to it no matter what)

I can get 6 of the 7 religions on Emperor almost every game with a Mysticism civ (especially with Saladin's SPI/PHI), and 5 is virtually guaranteed if you play well. I wouldn't recommend it as general gameplay, but it's an option to try for and in certain cases (ie. cultural victory ASAP) is approaching the only right answer. Also on heavy land/production maps (or situations) Shrines become increasinly important for their income potential.

What does work on the other hand is for example worker chop inca warriors. or worker chop fast second city near even more forrest and then worker chop warriors/archers. Use first warrior to steal a worker and then you can have 3 workers early with the fast worker chop strategy.

Yes, these can work. Forest chopping is a useful tool. It is not the only tool, nor is it the tool always fit for the job.

Oh and about saving forrests for later, personally i rather have 300 hammers early in the game than 500 hammers later. Later in the game you are producing way more hammers per round in your cities than in the beginning. It simply has the most dramatic effect in the beginning and can secure you a lead so you can get even more hammers in the end.

It's a tradeoff. Long term potential for short term gains. Which is exactly what I have said. Whether or not the situation will call for one or the other is situational.

I could ofcourse lay this discussion dead by just playing a game and showing exactly how many hammers i earn in a full game by chopping early vs chopping late but ack I dont have time at the moment for this (college examns).

No, to lay the discussion "dead" you would need to show that in all (or even most) cases chopping early vs chopping late is best. If you are arguing against me, that is what you are arguing.

At least understand what the argument is before claiming you can prove it.

At challenging difficulty levels (say, Emperor-plus), the main limitation on the number of cities for the human player is getting enough space. That's why it's important to crank out units (settlers, workers, and military) early. You can catch up on most of the other stuff later.

That is map specific. On your own island it's obviously not that big a concern to expand fast. In island settings in general, the limitation is strongly tied to tech level in regards to naval transport. On maps with plenty of room for expansion, it's a Commerce limitation. On crowded maps (regardless of whether difficulty makes it crowded or not) peaceful expansion is limited by speed, but military expansion is back to being limited by Commerce on higher difficulties. (In regards to this game posted as the example, it would definitely be Commerce limitation on that map.)

It's also playstyle dependant. You can catch back up in number of cities by carving out space militarily too. How much you can conquer/hold, and how fast, is mainly Commerce dictated. What resources you have can be speed limited though, so there are considerations.

I prefer 1 or 2 cities for military rushing (in a conquest sense, not a choke sense), and definitely chop later than early. I'd rather build the first few units normally and chop the last ones before going, rather than the other way around. Because support costs suck.

-----------------

Not to brag, as I already had more than a year's worth of experience with the game when it was released and no doubt in a year many players on these boards will understand the game as well or better than I do, but I'm getting sick of people trying to pull "high" difficulty rank in arguments against me. I've already beaten Deity several times, and it would be more if I actually played much at all. Various duel to small map rushes against 1-3 opponents, Spaceship on small continents vs 4-5 opponents, and Domination on Earth map (which admittedly can be easier than a random map that size). Culture victory is something I haven't tried, but I know I can always beat the date the AI's are launching at, so basically any map should be doable if you survive militarily.

I can basically sleep walk through most Emperor games. Simply bringing up "high" difficulty to make a point against me, or assuming I haven't played them, is not going to work. I am always arguing from (or including) a high difficulty perspective unless the topic or my qualification of my arguments state otherwise.

Aeson you have very good arguments for a varied approach to the game and that no strategy is allways the right.And I agree.

But i must again say one thing and im sure this is the case in most games. Chopping early for hammers can if used right net you more hammers in the long run than not chopping hammers early. Its simple logical that getting a second, third etc city faster will make those cities earn hammers and in the long run you are gaining more hammers than you would with a later chop.

I can ofcourse think of a few exceptions, say when you dont have potential to expand (locked on a island) you want to use every forrest to the maximum effiency or save them to allow your cities to grow bigger. But in any game with potential for more growth getting stronger faster is allways the way to go. (And that is what worker chop does in most cases.)

Oh and im not pulling "rank" on you by refering to empire games etc, im just refering to my own experience with empire/imortal difficoulty games. I have no idea if i will come to your conclusions in one year from now but at the moment i feel its not so good with 3 religions because it costs you so incredible much to invest into. And i feel those resources could be used elsewhere, for example if you have to missionare 10 cities for 3 religions that is 1200 hammers for missionaries... That will net you 30gold per turn. Im pretty sure i could get a powerfull army for 1200 hammers. Im also pretty sure i could pillage for way more than 30 gold per turn with a big army. (also you usually net like 100 gold for taking a city)

On the other hand if you can convince me with arguments that investing into 3 religions and using lots of hammers on missionaries is the way to go then that would just enrich my game so I would be happy for your advice! Im allways looking to improve my game. My goal is to make the perfect civ4 game sometime in the future :)

But i must again say one thing and im sure this is the case in most games. Chopping early for hammers can if used right net you more hammers in the long run than not chopping hammers early. Its simple logical that getting a second, third etc city faster will make those cities earn hammers and in the long run you are gaining more hammers than you would with a later chop.

It will depend on the situation. It definitely is not simple logic at work because faster cities are not always better and Production cannot stand alone. Long term it is definitely not simple, regardless of what answer you come up with. Here are some of the many thousands of considerations that may be (but won't always be) conflicting with BW first and Chopping ASAP. All of them can impact production either directly and/or indirectly.

- Researching BW and then not being able to research through Code of Laws fast enough to take Civil Service with the Oracle can cost you 30+ turns of +50% Production, +50% Commerce in your capitol.

- Researching BW, outside the beeline, and then being slower to unit X which misses or narrows it's window of opportunity and so gives less value from it's production cost and/or aquires less upfront and/or potential Production.

- Researching BW and then being slower to Alphabet and missing out on potential tech trades. Countless ways this can affect production both short term and long term.

- Researching BW, outside the beeline, and then being slower to tech which allows Wonder X and losing the Wonder race because of it. This can even happen on lower difficulty levels. The AI does use Great Engineers towards Wonders too. The only way to beat them in that case is to have the Wonder finished before they get the tech.

- Researching BW and then being slower to a tech which founds a Religion. Can affect so much... Shrines (Commerce), Diplomacy, FOW, Happiness, Civics (XP, GP, and/or build rates).

- Researching BW and then being slower to Music, missing out of the free Great Artist. These guys can be especially nasty early in the game. I've flipped 3 cities with just one, won wars that otherwise would be unfightable without them. Don't discount them. Same type of consideration can apply for getting to Code of Laws or Drama ASAP.

- Building Workers/Settlers right off instead of explorers/harrassers/invasion early on and missing out on Huts (which then go to neighbors), map intelligence, and/or early captures/conquests.

- Chopping a Forest that Health-wise costs you a productive pop point that could have been an Engineer geting you an extra (or earlier) Great Engineer may cost you a Wonder (race). (A similar type of example for every use of GP or tile working. 1x-3x as up to 3 cities can share the health benefit of a single Forest without Working it.)

- Chopping a Forest ASAP towards a goal which is a set distance in the future either way can cost you in numerous ways. Say you have Ivory and are going for Construction to stomp some neighbors. If you chop the Barracks (or anything else that wouldn't affect production post-Construction), you are being wasteful as you can't upgrade to either War Elephants or Catapults, but can normally build the Barracks first. Once you start construction on the actual units, you will take more time to get out any given number of units as you have less Forest (and potentially Growth) to chop to hurry them along.

- Chopping a Forest that would have spawed Forest growth limits overall production from Chopping and/or could miss a Health plateau if just chopping down to them. The extremes are of course growth that would have occured within the same build as the first chop, which is a total loss, and growth that would never have occured, which is a non-factor. So even within any given build determined to be chopped, all else equal, it's always best to chop on the last turn(s) possible to still get the build out on turn X.

- Chopping a Forest for a building before being in Organized Religion passes up +25% Production.

- Chopping a Forest for a unit before being in Police State passes up +25% Production. (Mainly a consideration with the Pyramids or later era starts.)

- Chopping a Forest towards a building that isn't your trait's reduced cost building(s) passes up +100% Production.

- Chopping a Forest for a unit to go with stack X costs more potential support to chop as the first unit into the stack's composition as it will as the last unit into the stack's composition and limits flexibility if the situation were to suddenly change.

- Chopping a Forest for a unit before switching to Vassalage and/or Theocracy creates a unit with less XP out of the gates.

- Chopping a Forest for a Wonder before connecting it's corresponding resource passes up +100% Production.

- Not having Forests later to chop in emergency situations. Chopping out a unit or two when a sneak attack comes can be a lifesaver.

... I'm getting tired here. That will have to do it for now. Each of those things can work several ways. Chopping may be able to be worked in fine at some point to help out, sometimes going right for it is best, but simply going ASAP for BW, Worker, clearcut will often result in sub-optimal outcomes. (And it would be approaching always sub-optimal to take that sort of inflexible and blind approach to the game in general.)

But in any game with potential for more growth getting stronger faster is allways the way to go. (And that is what worker chop does in most cases.)

"Stronger faster" is not always the way to go. You are using the term "stronger" simply as in number of cities and overall production. If you were using "stronger" as in a nebulous "overall stronger", you'd be correct, but that would not be supporting your assertion because overall strength can actually be limited by overemphasis on production or number of cities, and in no case is limited to those things.

On the other hand if you can convince me with arguments that investing into 3 religions and using lots of hammers on missionaries is the way to go then that would just enrich my game so I would be happy for your advice! Im allways looking to improve my game. My goal is to make the perfect civ4 game sometime in the future :)

I think that you discount religion is very telling. Religion is a huge part of gameplay, and ignoring the vast amount of value there will definitely skew perspective in regards to the importance of other factors.

I've had Shrines at 50+ base gold per turn, with +250% modifiers (Bureaucracy, Market, Grocer, Bank, Wall Street) on it. That's nothing to scoff at. It didn't take many Missionaries either, I built maybe 10 at most for that religion. You give an AI a religion in one city, and they can spread it for you. But only if you can get it there early enough to make it their state religion. Passive spread also occurs, but only in cities which don't already have a religion and/or are in a different State Religion and Theocracy. Both of those things happen far more often for the first 3 religions. Especially if you have all 3.

Shrines are also heavily map dependant. The more cities possible and the less natural commerce available, the more useful Shrines become. On a Huge Highland map for instance, it's going to be approaching a no-brainer to get at least a few Shrines. On a Tiny Archipelago, it's not going to be worth it to try for more than one religion in a lot of cases, and a Shrine may not even be worth it at all. Having at least one Religion you found is generally a good idea though. Smaller land map rushes excluded, though even they can benefit.

Cultural victory date is highly dependant on how many Religions, thus Cathedrals and their +50% culture each, you have. And you may very well want to be chopping the Cathedrals in that case (Copper bonus), not the Settlers/Workers. Either that or towards tech speed boosting projects to get to the Cathedrals/Religions faster.

I've also have been able to stave off elimination or massive damage in several instances because Religion allowed me to see invasions coming. I used to argue for the Expansionist trait as a viable trait in Civ III, in large part due to this issue. Being able to see what is coming is so vital to being able to run a maxed out economy safely. (Assuming a no reload environment...) Because you can focus on economy more with the knowlege that you can respond to threats as they arise due to having a stronger economy to react with and more warning time. Being in the dark, you have to prepare for what could be coming, or you won't be prepared for it if it does.

It's a bit of a self perpetuating cycle in this regard. The further you can see, the more you can invest in seeing further, and the more cash you get from it. Or the more you can directly invest into your economy. The stronger your economy, the less of your economy has to go into defending your economy, so the more can go into advancing your economy or sight. And it works in reverse too. Having to support/build more units for defense means not having as strong an economy, which means being less safe from a tech standpoint, less able to pump out units in response to a threat, and not seeing the threats as early to start the response too. Which means to be safe you need to invest even more into supporting/building units for defense.

Lost this thread for awhile; will reply to the *LONG* reply later ;).

I quite disagree with this. Have you played at higher levels (at least Emperor)? You're often running many cities at the health limit. In other words, an extra health point is worth an extra food per turn per city, which is quite a bit.

Yes (Emperor). At which I had a few cities (temporarily) running at -2 or even -3 food. Which is naturally annoying as it forces you to build i.e. aquaducts which don't seem to be essential on i.e. noble difficulty level.

However, re-reading that sentence it probably should have read "Even at higher difficulty levels the extra health really isn't very important."
(meaning naturally that health itself IS important)

Example:
I'd rather have 5-6 cities with -1/-2 food due to health problems than 2-3 cities with no health problems. Also note:
- More cities / terrain --> Most likely more health resources.
- More settlers (and workers) --> Slightly less city growth, so slightly later chance of health problems.

This is not an accurate characterization of the Civ4 economic model. By the early middle game, all of your citizens will already be working fully improved tiles. You can't get an extra food just by building an extra farm.

Agreed. In practice I had to build one extra farm instead of probably a cottage. Meaning ofcourse you loose some money (although the city will grow faster / sustain more specialists once the health is present).

Not to brag, as I already had more than a year's worth of experience with the game when it was released and no doubt in a year many players on these boards will understand the game as well or better than I do, but I'm getting sick of people trying to pull "high" difficulty rank in arguments against me.

I didn't do anything of the kind. I made a comment, and I described the situations where it applies. It's no wonder that you feel people are trying to "pull rank" on you, if every time that anyone puts their comments in the context of the difficulty level you take it as some kind of personal insult.

I agree of course that fast territorial expansion is not so important on island maps, but I view those as a rather odd variant, not a usual game.

I think, in general, the playtesters are more likely to have blind spots regarding certain aspects of the game than people new to the game. Because, by definition, if there are any significant imbalances in the game, they would have to be things that the playtesters didn't fully realize. Because the things that did get realized in playtesting would have been fixed or changed.

The fact that you can win at Deity doesn't imply that you're using the best strategy or that there couldn't be some aspects of the game that you don't fully appreciate. The analogy to RCP in Civ3 is a good one---plenty of people could win at Deity without using RCP, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't a good strategy.

But, since I'm mostly on your side, I'm a bit surprised that you're choosing my comments to complain about.

I really like chopping early if my civ starts with mining. I like to chop one or two within the city area and one or two outside the fat cross.

I go for space victories usually and so religions are less important than for cultural victories, making chopping more attractive.

I never have a problem with health if I expand quickly enough to grab health resources. Chopping results in quicker expansion. For this style of play I think chopping is the way to go. If I do have health problems I don't hesitate to use slavery as to rush production.

I didn't do anything of the kind. I made a comment, and I described the situations where it applies. It's no wonder that you feel people are trying to "pull rank" on you, if every time that anyone puts their comments in the context of the difficulty level you take it as some kind of personal insult.

If you didn't mean it that way, then no worries. I read it that way, but you know best of course.

I didn't call it an insult though, did I? If I felt it was an insult, I would have said so. I think that bringing up difficulty level to support a statement or argument that doesn't apply tends to just be showing off, "pulling rank" as I put it. While it doesn't offend me, it does annoy me. Which is what I stated.

I agree of course that fast territorial expansion is not so important on island maps, but I view those as a rather odd variant, not a usual game.

So what is your point? It's still a consideration for those who play on them. Could I dismiss Praetorians in a UU discussion simply because I don't ever play with Rome in games?

I think, in general, the playtesters are more likely to have blind spots regarding certain aspects of the game than people new to the game. Because, by definition, if there are any significant imbalances in the game, they would have to be things that the playtesters didn't fully realize. Because the things that did get realized in playtesting would have been fixed or changed.

I'm making no statements about what happened in playtesting, but I can speak about life in general though... (I actually agree with your theory in some ways, but it's not supported too well IMO.)

It would be nice if the world worked the way you seem to think it does, but it doesn't. Sometimes agreeing about what the problem is is tough enough. That should be a principle made abundantly clear in this thread already. Then a fix isn't always easy to come by either. Fixes even might not be figured out, may have to wait their turn, and can even break other things.

Otherwise there would be no problems in life.

The fact that you can win at Deity doesn't imply that you're using the best strategy or that there couldn't be some aspects of the game that you don't fully appreciate.

Did I say that I was using the best strategy? I specifically said, "... and no doubt in a year many players on these boards will understand the game as well or better than I do." How is that supporting your insinuation that I am claiming to be using the best strategy? It is an explicit statement that I accept there is no doubt better understanding of the game than I have.

The analogy to RCP in Civ3 is a good one---plenty of people could win at Deity without using RCP, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't a good strategy.

This is a good analogy, but for an argument against your playtester theory. RCP took years to surface, and wasn't something spotted by someone freshly picking up the game and saying "Hey now... rings!" It could have happened that way, it just didn't, or if it did, they never brought it to Firaxis' attention to be fixed. The point being that problems may just jump out at someone. They may lie dormant until someone studies enough to dig them out years later. They may never be idenfied. Or they may just hide until someone bungles their way into it.

It doesn't apply to what I said as already noted, I wasn't saying I was using the best strategy.

But, since I'm mostly on your side, I'm a bit surprised that you're choosing my comments to complain about.

I don't believe in sides. I'm not even on my side since it doesn't exist. If you are referencing the "pull rank" comments, I had segregated that off from the rest of my post. I wasn't just addressing your comment, as specifically noted. "------------" is my way of implying a new post or subject. I didn't want to post 2 times in a row when one post sufficed fine. If that was unclear, I appologize.

In practice I had to build one extra farm instead of probably a cottage. Meaning ofcourse you loose some money (although the city will grow faster / sustain more specialists once the health is present).

Terrain improvements can be changed on the tiles, other tiles used at various times, or even swapping tiles between cities. Use Farm while growing, other for output. You're stuck with using the Farm until the Health issues are taken care of somehow else. And then it's going to mean then the same decision at the new Health level until you're to max population with no Health deficiency.

Semi off topic, but does this timing issue with the changing of to the settler during the middle of the turn to get the food have to do with the speed of your computer? On my fairly fast computer when I am playing single player, the chop finishes well before I can even think about jumping into the city to switch the build order. I can actually manage this in multiplayer because of the lag time between turns from network traffic.

@Islandia

to answer your question yes and no. If you don't have an active unit somewhere on the map then yes if the game is lagging you can still do it.
However in the event that you have one active unit on the map, the game goes to that unit before you worker finishes the job. Note that if you move this unit/or do any action, then the worker will finish the chop. So there is a small window to change.

@Islandia

to answer your question yes and no. If you don't have an active unit somewhere on the map then yes if the game is lagging you can still do it.
However in the event that you have one active unit on the map, the game goes to that unit before you worker finishes the job.

As mentioned above, there's not really a timing issue. You can just cancel the pending worker order at the end of the last turn, after it completes its work for the that turn, and then you have as long as you want to schedule the worker for this turn (i.e., to change the production target).

So what is your point? It's still a consideration for those who play on them. Could I dismiss Praetorians in a UU discussion simply because I don't ever play with Rome in games?

My point was only to explain the context of my own thinking about the game (just as with the difficulty comment). View it as a qualification of my remarks. My thinking focuses on territorial expansion because I have been playing on standard maps, where that is important. You have more experience with the game and have played more different versions, and so those observations are useful, but different than mine.

This is a good analogy, but for an argument against your playtester theory. RCP took years to surface, and wasn't something spotted by someone freshly picking up the game and saying "Hey now... rings!"

You may know more than I do about many things, but you don't know more than I do about how I discovered RCP. It pretty much is just that: I picked up the game, I played a couple of times and followed the GOTM discussions; one day, I got interested in how corruption depended on distance, and the observation regarding cities at equal distance followed. And some longtime players were at first skeptical that it would be useful/significant, because it wasn't part of how they thought about the game. So I do think that it's more likely that people new to the game can have fresh insights about it, and think of different things that may be important.

Now, chopping down forests to build early settlers and workers (or, perhaps, rush military units) is a rather more obvious strategy than placing cities in rings, and it's hard to believe that the former wasn't thoroughly investigated by some Civ IV playtesters. It seems to me that there must have been some playtesters who thought it was a dominant strategy, just as there are some new players now who think so. But you haven't really said anything about that, so I'm only guessing.

Now, chopping down forests to build early settlers and workers (or, perhaps, rush military units) is a rather more obvious strategy than placing cities in rings, and it's hard to believe that the former wasn't thoroughly investigated by some Civ IV playtesters.

P.S. You haven't said whether the strategy of switching back and forth between settler and military/building production, so that the city continues to grow even while the shields from forest chops count toward a settler, was well understoond and thoroughly explored, by you or others, during playtesting. It seems fairly obvious to me, but, sometimes things that are "obvious" in hindsight can also be missed (like RCP).

Now, chopping down forests to build early settlers and workers (or, perhaps, rush military units) is a rather more obvious strategy than placing cities in rings, and it's hard to believe that the former wasn't t