I was thinking today about refining my philosophy of civ4. Generally, I think that land is power.

However, what do you think of this refinement: The prospect of winning increases as a function of the number of grassland (and floodplains, which are basically grasslands on steroids) tiles you control.

Grassland tiles are of course food-neutral and thus can feed themselves, which is great. They also can do a number of things. You can cottage them, which is good as towns are a very powerful tile after the CE civics come online. You can farm them, which is also good as post-biology one grassland farm can support one specialist. They also help with whipping and drafting. You can also workshop them mid-to-late game for some very powerful production, especially with state property. Some of my most powerful production cities were majority grassland tiles that got workshop spammed.

I find that the best games I have are games where I have a large empire consisting mostly of grassland tiles. If I have surroundings that feature a lot of coast, mountains, desert, tundra, and plains I view my chances of winning as diminished relative to seeing lush grasslands around my neighbourhood.

So, what do you think, if land is power, is grassland the secret to that power?

Since Tundra, Desert, and Ocean are all useless than yes Grassland is power but so is coast to an extent.

well, i'm also talking about plains, hills, etc. of course hills are very important for production early in the game (and later as well to a certain extent), and if you don't have production early you are often screwed, but if you have hills but very limited grassland (i've had games like that) i wonder if you are in worse shape in the grand scheme of things.

i don't know what the ratio would be, but i'm thinking if you have > a certain ratio of grassland tiles over the course of your 20+ city empire then you will have a better chance of winning than if you don't exceed that ratio, something like that.

Postulate 1: A food-neutral tile that produces 1h is too slow to bother working.

So plains farms are out pre-biology, as are windmilled hills before replaceable parts. Grassland forests should be chopped mercilessly.

What do we have left?

grassland hill + grassland farm = 1.5h
plains hill + 2x grassland farm = 1.3h
grassland farm + slavery = 1.3h to 2.6h
any food resource + any hill = 1.3h to 2.8h per tile

In conclusion, the limiting factors are grassland and food resources. Grassland hills are 12.5% more productive than plains hills given infinite grassland, and 50% more productive given limited grassland.

Here's how I think about it:

Each tile produces food, hammers, and commerce.

Hammers allow you to build units/buildings and commerce goes through the slider and becomes beakers, EP and gold.

But the food resource is more important than hammers/commerce because it is a prerequesite for generating those hammers and commerce.

For example, a tile with no food means it can't support the citizen working it. No food = no hammers/commerce.

This doesn't hold true the other way around. It doesn't make since to say a tile with "No hammers = no food/commerce".

Indeed, a tile with sufficient food may generate all commerce and no hammers (think cottaged grassland) or vice versa.

Grassland tiles are self sufficient. They are the baseline and the amount of food generated by a city is directly proportional to it's output of hammers/commerce.

well, i'm also talking about plains, hills, etc. of course hills are very important for production early in the game (and later as well to a certain extent), and if you don't have production early you are often screwed, but if you have hills but very limited grassland (i've had games like that) i wonder if you are in worse shape in the grand scheme of things.

i don't know what the ratio would be, but i'm thinking if you have > a certain ratio of grassland tiles over the course of your 20+ city empire then you will have a better chance of winning than if you don't exceed that ratio, something like that.

That is true for the most part, since all cities need Food to grow bigger, and that is how they become more powerful in general.

However, city growth is meaningful only when your cities are secure (a city without military units can easily be in danger), and sometimes it is better to favor production over growth, in order to ensure that your cities are secure.

I determine my ability to win by the amount of hills I control. Grassland is nice, Grassland hills are better. What am I going to do with grassland before the modern era? Cottage or farm, the only reason to farm is so I can work hills.

I've lost many a game where I've been able to out tech my opponents but they could out produce me with weaker swarms (this is, strictly speaking of MP as I do not play Civ SP). Production is the key and I base my entire empire around having the best production in the world.

I agree if you're going to take a game through the industrial age - but until you get all those bonuses that make grasslands so stinkin' versatile (as well as State Property), grassland is mostly just food or commerce - no hammers.

A formerly-jungle, riverside grassland city with lots of workshops and watermills is a sight to behold, but I'll take that city site from your cold, dead hands if I have food + hills early on and you don't.

To a degree I agree with your train of thought on this, but I think you're stating it a bit more firmly than I would go along with. :)

Food is power.

I think Morgrad summed up my thinking. Late-game a grassland city can be very powerful but your early cities need a balance. Some grasslands/floodplains/food resources and some hills (or less optimally forests). I agree plains don't contribute a lot. If on a plains heavy map food resources tend to be the main factor in where I place my cities so I can work whatever else is there. Also a grasslands farm is only +1 food, a food resource up to +4 food, so early game when cities are small food resources are much more important than grasslands.

Your basic philosophy that "Land is power" is almost right, unless it's useless land. Basically:

Food is power.

Repeat 3 times.

Your basic philosophy that "Land is power" is almost right, unless it's useless land. Basically:



Repeat 3 times.

Which then translates to, "Citizens/Pop is power," no?

This is making me re-think the power of the Kymer UB, which basically reads "turn one plains into a grassland in every city."

Which then translates to, "Citizens/Pop is power," no?

Pretty much! You can't get the population without generating the food, though.

This is making me re-think the power of the Kymer UB, which basically reads "turn one plains into a grassland in every city."

Or "+0.5 population".

Land is power and food is power because in the end speed is power. How fast can you REX? How fast can you rush your neighbor? How fast can you tech to Liberalism? How fast can you beat the game? Food is the basis for doing all of that because food lets you do more stuff faster, whether that be by letting you work more squares, run more specialists, or whip/draft more. I'd agree with futurehermit's OP, grassland is the secret to the power of land. Better yet, flood plains (the game's won by the time unhealth is a problem). Better still, food resources. Good land beats lots of land any day.

I would make the exception of areas where there are lots of resources in a concentrated area. Like a bunch of deer and silver in a spot where a city can be founded (but is tundra). Or what about that seafood city where there's four seafood tiles (but the land is plains or lots of desert). Through a Moa Statues there and watchout. But otherwise yeah, grassland is power. Some of my best end game cities have been strictly grassland, no hills. I think of jungle as grassland about to happen.

Postulate 1: A food-neutral tile that produces 1h is too slow to bother working.

So plains farms are out pre-biology, as are windmilled hills before replaceable parts. Grassland forests should be chopped mercilessly.

What do we have left?

grassland hill + grassland farm = 1.5h
plains hill + 2x grassland farm = 1.3h
grassland farm + slavery = 1.3h to 2.6h
any food resource + any hill = 1.3h to 2.8h per tile

In conclusion, the limiting factors are grassland and food resources. Grassland hills are 12.5% more productive than plains hills given infinite grassland, and 50% more productive given limited grassland.

You forgot:

Grassland farm + grassland workshop (w/Caste System + Guilds + Chemistry) = 2h per tile.

Even with just Caste System + Guilds, which you can run for a fairly long time, flatlands with a workshop are as good as hills with a mine.

When you are trying to squeeze the most out of your terrain, grassland workshops aren't that useful.

Suppose you start with 2x grassland, 2x grass hill.

You could do 1 farm + 1 workshop for 4h.
Or you could do 2 farms + 2 mines for 6h.

When you are trying to squeeze the most out of your terrain, grassland workshops aren't that useful.

Suppose you start with 2x grassland, 2x grass hill.

You could do 1 farm + 1 workshop for 4h.
Or you could do 2 farms + 2 mines for 6h.
With chemistry & caste system, and without state property and railroads...

Let's suppose you don't have replacable parts either.


If you can do 1 farm + 1 workshop for 4:hammers:, then you can do 1 farm + 1 workshop + 2 windmills for 6:hammers: 2:commerce:, which is better than 6:hammers:.

Of course, these comparisons change a lot throughout the course of a game.

Depends exactly where on the tech tree you are.

Windmilled grassland hill=2f 2h each, and a bit of commerce.

Unless im running state property, what i do is build mines and workshops early on, then change them to watermills and windmills later when the population is high enough. Gives more overall production than mines, because they are food neutral.

So, what do you think, if land is power, is grassland the secret to that power?

absolutely, that's why most people play "temperate" climate maps..... anything else and you're asking for a real challenge :)

PS I like your designation of floodplains as being grassland on steroids... in other words they give you get a powerful boost, but at the expense of long-term health :)

But I'll bet nobody spends the early game looking for that perfect site with 20 grassland tiles. Grassland are the perfect chameleon tile - depending on what you need they can supply it - but in and of themselves pretty boring especially in the early game.

edit: It also occurs to me that its largely a function of the map how much grasslands or whatever you have available. I suppose that you could claim the tropical region that appears on most maps regardless of who you are playing.

Depends exactly where on the tech tree you are.

Windmilled grassland hill=2f 2h each, and a bit of commerce.

Unless im running state property, what i do is build mines and workshops early on, then change them to watermills and windmills later when the population is high enough. Gives more overall production than mines, because they are food neutral.
(the following assumes bts)

Food neutral does not imply more production. The reason windmills and watermills are so good for the short period right after you get replacable parts is because of the relative strengths of the various improvements; everything gives 2 units1 except the farm, so maximizing hammer output means avoiding farms.

1: assuming your workshops are giving -1 :food: +3 :hammers:


The most straightforward way I know to maximize hammer output is to first imagine your land improved to give as much food as possible. Then, you replace food tiles with hammer tiles (by changing the improvement or changing which tile is worked) one at a time, always trying to get the best ratio.


With all possible bonuses (which includes caste system & state property), it doesn't matter what improvements you use, as long as you're working all of your tiles and have neither an overall food surplus nor overall food deficit. It turns out that every improvement trades 1 food for 2 hammers relative to the best food producing improvement for that tile:

Workshop = sacrificing farm = -2 food +4 hammers
Watermill = sacrificing farm = -1 food +2 hammers
Mine = sacrificing windmill = -1 food +2 hammers

If you're not running both caste system and state property, then you want to avoid workshops. If you're not running state property, you want to avoid watermills too. (in this case, workshops equal watermills without caste system, workshops are better than windmills with caste system)

The commerce is the tiebreaker. Mines and workshops produce none. Of course, when we get improved farms its time to build mines and workshops again.

But I'll bet nobody spends the early game looking for that perfect site with 20 grassland tiles.

:mischief:

I do, I'll admit. But just for one city.

With chemistry & caste system, and without state property and railroads...

If you can do 1 farm + 1 workshop for 4:hammers:, then you can do 1 farm + 1 workshop + 2 windmills for 6:hammers: 2:commerce:, which is better than 6:hammers:.

Ok, that makes sense.

I lump Chemistry in with the other industrial revolution techs, but if you're doing a beeline you could take advantage of it in a few cities.

Which then translates to, "Citizens/Pop is power," no?

This is making me re-think the power of the Kymer UB, which basically reads "turn one plains into a grassland in every city."

It's even better than that when you think about speed of your population growth. The Khmer UB gives +1 food and that's not just an increased max population size, it's also a vast improvement on how fast you gain in population depending on the city.

Imagine a city that is entirely riverside grassland cottages. This is obviously going to be an immensely powerful commerce city eventually. You start out with a 2 food per turn surplus and as long as you don't hit the :) or :health: caps, you'll keep a 2 food per turn surplus forever.

With the Khmer Aquaduct, you have a 3 food per turn surplus. In any particular turn, you are gaining food 50% faster than the other civs. You're growing population less than 50% faster than your counterparts because you presumeably have a greater population and therefore need more food to grow, but it's still at least 30% faster even taking that greater population into consideration.

Imagine you had to work a plains tile for some reason (perhaps you're growing the tile for the capital to work later). The Khmer building turns that 1 food per turn surplus into a 2 food per turn surplus. That's a 100% increase in per turn food accumulation.


I've noticed that cities which have only grasslands with either no access to fresh water or which have only cottages built are dismally slow to grow. Add in a food resource and suddenly you have a commerce powerhouse. That's because even though the max population that the city can support is not significantly greater between irrigated corn + grassland cottages vs. grassland cottages alone, the irrigated corn city is going to get those population points 3 or 4 times as fast as the city that builds only cottages.


To me, the formula is:

Improved land being worked is power.
Improved land being worked is power.
Improved land being worked is power.

...if you're not working it, what good is that land doing you? And if you haven't improved it, then you're not really working it.

There's a very interesting map type of grassland only with 0 fresh water and 0 resources. The entire map is just a great big green featureless square.

Since you won't be putting down any farms and you don't have any health resources, the only thing you can do with your tiles is workshop or cottage. Cottage is absolutely the best way to go here and the only techs worth having are techs that give you wonders (stonehenge in particular) and techs that give you extra health (Mathematics) or military units that don't require resources (Archery and Feudalism). And Pottery, of course.

It's very interesting to see just how much the game changes with only grassland tiles available.

I don't have BTS yet, can someone tell me what the Khmer UB does? is it just aqueduct with +1 food? and unrelated to the thread, what does the Sumerian Ziggurat do? Back on topic, I agree that land=power is a little too simplistic, as noted by the computer's fustratingly persistant need to put a bad city in the one square not yet in your borders. I am aware of the whole, lots of coastal cities strat but I just prefer that 6-7 good cities over the 9-10 average ones, the amount of hills is more important to me than grasslands, atleast during the early game.

I agree if you're going to take a game through the industrial age - but until you get all those bonuses that make grasslands so stinkin' versatile (as well as State Property), grassland is mostly just food or commerce - no hammers.

I agree. Pre-Civil Service, I'd prefer a ton of hills, with enough grasslands/other food sources to work them all; you can turn production into military power, but the only way to turn commerce into military is over the long term, by getting a tech lead and advanced units. If your start is commerce-poor but production rich, as long as you can tech to bronze/iron, you can field an army and conquer a neighbor, and then take their commerce-righ sites.

After CS, however, I'd agree that grassland tiles are tops. At that point, you should have a large enough empire that production per city isn't quite as important, and commerce rises in importance. It's not until levees/universal suffrage/state property that grasslands can provide meaningful production, but that's fine because in most of my games that's when I begin transitioning from a commerce-centered to a production-centered empire, and prepare for military supremecy and invasions.

Guilds and caste system turns workshops into mined hills... You dont like mined hills?

I really love finding a nearby civ that is settling on a jungle. I know that the jugnle will stifle their growth, so they're easy pickings. I just wait and develop normally until I get macemen, then conquer them easily and clear out the jungle. Massive grasslands is amazing.