chopping down forests
- Thread starter Cromulent
- Start date
I am also a big proponent of using forests as early "Civ Batteries" to ramp up production and get a leg up on neighbors early in the game.
My basic thinking is - yes, with mills, forests become useful tiles- however, that isn't until late game, where there are dozens of other ways to ramp up a cities production... those 'mere' 45 shields are a god-send during the games first 100 turns- a _HUGE_ competitive edge (think, 10 Turns of average city production). an extra shield here or there later in the game when you have other options is nice, but not nearly as decisive of a boost.
Two forests = one settler... 10 turns to build in any city, anywhere on the map...
One forest = Worker, Military unit of choice... 5 turns to build, any city in your empire...
There is simply no better way to bolster your empire growth... combined with a smart growing strategy (good resource grabs/denial-of-transit locations) and you can dominate the early map very easily.
At least, this is my experience in Noble.
My basic thinking is - yes, with mills, forests become useful tiles- however, that isn't until late game, where there are dozens of other ways to ramp up a cities production... those 'mere' 45 shields are a god-send during the games first 100 turns- a _HUGE_ competitive edge (think, 10 Turns of average city production). an extra shield here or there later in the game when you have other options is nice, but not nearly as decisive of a boost.
Two forests = one settler... 10 turns to build in any city, anywhere on the map...
One forest = Worker, Military unit of choice... 5 turns to build, any city in your empire...
There is simply no better way to bolster your empire growth... combined with a smart growing strategy (good resource grabs/denial-of-transit locations) and you can dominate the early map very easily.
At least, this is my experience in Noble.
The way I see it forest management will be a critical part of long term civ4 strategy. What do you see the order of chops being?
With my limited experience this seems to be the order that makes sense.
Hill forests on a river seem to make the most sense first. Then the hill can be mined for production.
Plains forests would be next since there's not as much to develop early game on plains.
Off river grass forests seem to be next due to health.
River grass forests seem to be the chop of last resort. They can be useful for health reasons and the early shields.
Last but not least making sure the forests are somehow connected for that potential regrowth.
What are your thoughts?
With my limited experience this seems to be the order that makes sense.
Hill forests on a river seem to make the most sense first. Then the hill can be mined for production.
Plains forests would be next since there's not as much to develop early game on plains.
Off river grass forests seem to be next due to health.
River grass forests seem to be the chop of last resort. They can be useful for health reasons and the early shields.
Last but not least making sure the forests are somehow connected for that potential regrowth.
What are your thoughts?
My chop-down priority-
1 - Forests not in a city radius
1 - Forests on resources I'm otherwise going to chop down anyway
2 - Forests on hills (mine will make up for most of the production loss anyways)
3 - Forests by rivers (that make good farm canidates)
4 - Forests further from city
I do try an leave as many forests as possible - and once a city gets large enough that it can build workers/settlers in ~10-15 turns naturally, a forest chop is a pure waste (I.E, there is a natural end).
I will _not_ chop forests on Tundra unless absolutely necessary- the base terrain is worthless without.
1 - Forests not in a city radius
1 - Forests on resources I'm otherwise going to chop down anyway
2 - Forests on hills (mine will make up for most of the production loss anyways)
3 - Forests by rivers (that make good farm canidates)
4 - Forests further from city
I do try an leave as many forests as possible - and once a city gets large enough that it can build workers/settlers in ~10-15 turns naturally, a forest chop is a pure waste (I.E, there is a natural end).
I will _not_ chop forests on Tundra unless absolutely necessary- the base terrain is worthless without.
Whomp said:
Ye gads no.
A hill with a forest should be left alone. It has the exact same production as a hill with a mine, but you also get the benefit of the +health and you don't need techs or worker turns to get that tile to produce at its maximum. Forest+Hill == Leave it alone unless it has a resource that demands some other improvement to exploit.
ok... is +health more of an issue for _everyone_ else but me?
I have never had a city with health problems... forests or not, a diverse food selection seems to do a great job of keeping your populace healthy.
Granted, I've only played through Medieval times so far... I'd image the industrial revolution brings about more health issues.
I have never had a city with health problems... forests or not, a diverse food selection seems to do a great job of keeping your populace healthy.
Granted, I've only played through Medieval times so far... I'd image the industrial revolution brings about more health issues.
Vizzini said:
um actually no you are wrong sir. mine adds 2 production a forest only adds one. so a grassland hill with a forest produces 1 food and 2 hammers. a grassland hill with a mine produces 1 food and 3 hammers. a plains hill with a forest produces 3 hammers. a plains hill with a mine produces 4 hammers. mine = +2 hammers, forest= +1. plus mines give you a chance of finding mins, very important mins.
THE QUESTION IS when do you use windmills and when do you use mines? the ai auto worker mode seems to ALWAYS use windmills, once all techs are developed and the windmill gives +1 food, + 1 hammer, and +1 gold
word, mines ftw
I'll use the windmills in cities that are located in an area where there is no good farmland (usually cause I placed the city there to get a vital resource) or near a coast where I need to get food & production out of a tile. But so far I haven't used many windmills.
That's highly resource dependant. In my worst health game, the (large - was going for cultural win) borders of my 6 cities encompassed exactly 3 health producing resources. Having only 1 ocean resource from a largish pensinsula was particularly rotten luck. On the other hand, I've had games with 3 different land and 3 different ocean health resources in basically the same amount of space. By the time you double the benefit from the tech and buildings, that's a difference of 6 health.EridanMan said:
Plus little factors come into play. Lack of fresh water. Fresh water, but too much floodplain (a problem I like, but it's still tricky to deal with).
emoe said:
A Comprehensive Guide to The Cumulative Values of Terrain, Improvements and Resources, by Stuporstar:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=136433
(Stuporstar may be wrong of course...
)
