Whats the point of chopping forests?
- Thread starter Gungalley
- Start date
Oftentimes, I will only use one to three forest tiles per city in the first half of the game anyway, because most of my worked tiles will be of a nonforest type, so any excess forests can get chopped because I'm not going to be using that 1 hammer from the forest anyway.
I find it a hard choice. Outside the city radius is easy. They can really feed growth early. A big drawback is that forests increase health, so chopping them can hurt your health and ultimate city size. If you wait until you get lumber yards, the forests can be really productive.
Conversely chopping gives you early shields and new terrain below.
Its a tough call often!
Breunor
Conversely chopping gives you early shields and new terrain below.
Its a tough call often!
Breunor
The only reason to keep forests would be the health bonus. A hill/forest/lumbermill gives the same food/production a hill/mine gives. And early on those 30 hammers you get for killing that forest are really much. I love choprushing settlers or workers (so I can chop even faster MWAHAHAHA)
And chopping really helps those low production cities where it would take like 40 turns to complete a libary.
I either let 3 forests per city alive to get +1 health or I chop them all.
And chopping really helps those low production cities where it would take like 40 turns to complete a libary.
I either let 3 forests per city alive to get +1 health or I chop them all.
Basically, it's a trade-off between hammers now and hammers later. If you take the 'hammers-now' track, you can cut maybe 5+ turns off the production of a settler, granary, or some other type of building. By getting that settler or whatever built faster, your empire improves more rapidly. As a general rule, I try not to chop forests unless there are some other tiles in the city radius with decent hammer production, i.e. hills or a resource like horses. If, on the other hand, the city is maybe size 3, has hills, and 6 forests, I'll start sharpening the axes. Also, I usually chop forest/hills very quickly since I know I can recover the lost hammer and 1 extra by building a mine.
Finite Monkey
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2005
- Messages
- 186
The health bonus from trees is fairly small. An early extra settler/military unit(s) or even a wonder become far more beneficial than having 3 extra forests around. Even if it is a question of hammers now or hammers later the Civ series have always been about getting the best start possible.
You don't have to take my word for it though, try a game where you don't chop and then try a similar game where you do. Your cities will be out earlier and better established. You will get 1-2 wonders you couldn't before etc. etc.
The exception I make to this is a forest on a hill. The lumber mill there really does make it worth it for me.
You don't have to take my word for it though, try a game where you don't chop and then try a similar game where you do. Your cities will be out earlier and better established. You will get 1-2 wonders you couldn't before etc. etc.
The exception I make to this is a forest on a hill. The lumber mill there really does make it worth it for me.
Lateralus said:
Of course you can! As far as I know, forest on a tile is chopped automatically when you build a farm/cottage (as soon as the building is done). The advantage of chopping directly may be that it is a little faster than building something in the place. The number of shields you get should be the same however.
However, many players don't research the basic worker techs at the beginning and instead go directly for bronze working, so they can only chop
Finite Monkey said:
I've heard other people post that, but I just don't understand the reasoning. A plains/hill/forest is 3 hammers. With bronze working, I can put a mine there and make it 4 hammers. For a lumbermill, I have to wait for replacable parts. I get +.4 health with the mill, but I lose the 30-70 hammers I get for chopping the forest and potentially I lose 1 hammer/turn for 200+ turns waiting to get RP. It just doesn't seem to be a very good trade-off. Am I missing something?
I'd rather have the early production, and the small chance of a mined hill popping a resource, rather than the single extra hammer your get with railroaded lumbermills at the end of the game.
Chopping hammer bonus aside, the production you lose early on from saving forest over mined, before lumbermills, also makes it a questionable strategy. I'd bet over the course of the entire game, you get more total hammers/turn from a mine. Regardless, a single hammer carries much more weight in the early game.
Chopping hammer bonus aside, the production you lose early on from saving forest over mined, before lumbermills, also makes it a questionable strategy. I'd bet over the course of the entire game, you get more total hammers/turn from a mine. Regardless, a single hammer carries much more weight in the early game.
Oggums said:
What extra hammer? Here's a screenshot of 2 plains/hill tiles.
One tile has a forest + lumbermill and the other has a mine. Both are producing 5 hammers. I checked the late game techs and civics, but I didn't see anything that would increase the hammer output of the lumbermill further.
warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
Railroads increase lumbermills by one.
warpstorm said:
Again, I'll point you to the screenshot above. The mine also got +1 hammer when I railroaded it. Both tiles have RR's, both tiles have 5 hammers. I popped open the worldbuilder and gave myself every tech (this SS is from a mid-industrial save) and it didn't change anything.
warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
Yeah, mines get the bonus too.
Gargoyle
Warlord
warpstorm said:
But in his screenshot the Hill/Lumbermill has a RR.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
