Money Does Grow on Trees: How to Convert Forests into Lots and Lots of Gold

I was not sold on such idea.

Click to expand...

Nor was I, I'm still not sold on it today.

I do however remember Snaaty a few times doing the walls trick in some very tuff Deity-AW Teamer games, though I still didn't think it was worth it at the time (I even asked him to save the trees). But due to all the circumstances in those games, it possibly may have been optimal (though I wouldn't scream game-breaking).

Forests are precious and limited resources, there are better ways to use them.

Click to expand...

That's why I was yelling at him to knock it off

This is precisely the same scenario that led to the idiot nerfing of protective, the weakest trait.

Click to expand...

That is the biggest irony. The weakest trait got an instant nerf... as though it really needed it. Haha!

Epic Failaxis.

Might as well see how much more damage the rookies can do. Let's start up a new thread, and complain how Protective is BROKEN because you get TWO free promotions, instead of 1 like with Aggressive. OMG! We HAVE TO FIX IT! Nerf nerf nerf!

TheMeInTeam said:

The outcome is actually unbalanced and needs to be nerfed.

Click to expand...

Is horsecrap.

Click to expand...

obsolete said:

The outcome is actually unbalanced and needs to be nerfed.

Click to expand...

Please don't try to fix something that isn't broke.

Click to expand...

Sheesh, both of you suffer the same reading failure?

Hurkyl said:

I expect that one of the two following things are likely:

• The outcome is actually unbalanced and needs to be nerfed.
• The game would be better off if you had access to the outcome directly, rather than indirectly through wonder failure

Click to expand...

Boldface added for emphasis.

Duckweed said:

In the old day before Patch 3.19, someone (crusher1 I believe) already advocated the same idea of translating forests into cash, in a more general and easier way by utilizing the leader's trait. Such as protective wall, aggressive barrack, and creative library. I was not sold on such idea. Forests are precious and limited resources, there are better ways to use them.

If you go warmonger route, ~5 cities should be enough, then chop those forests to grab the decent sites as soon as possible is far more important, and the remain forests will also greatly speedup your military buildup when you have your expected military tech, which is crucial in high level.

If you go peacemonger route, then again chopping the 1st few settlers is also more important, moreover, wonders are far better to support your economy in the long term. Oracle, GLH, TGL, there are just too many.

Click to expand...

Yes it was indeed crusher1. The guy would accumulate 500~1k gold in the BCs from wall whips, REX mad and tech mad... makes Deity pretty easy.

Funnily enough, he disappeared about at the same time as 3.19 came out

I think it'd be better to improve Build Wealth. It's crazy that you can clear-cut forests and make axemen out of them, but you can't use them in your market activities. Also, it might make sense to average the gold and production bonuses. Same thing for Build Science.

If you don't do that, I'd support nerfing failgold. It should be a consolation prize, not a target. I suggest that the Ind trait could work similar to the Fin trait or give a small bonus to everything.

Building wealth is pretty awesome already though, and more consistent.

Thinking about what I wrote, my "improvements" would probably make people less inclined to build wealth. Averaging the bonuses would usually lower the multiplier and not being able to store hammers from chops and whip overflow is not usually a good thing. Hmm. So, no go.

I think that improving the value of Build Wealth or at least Build Research is that it makes the game less warlike. Some like battles, but I'd like them to be equally valuable.

How about replacing Build Wealth/ Research/ Culture/ (Espionage?) with small multipliers. Like, if you build Wealth for X , you get a +5% bonus in that city, repeatable as often as you like.

The game would be better off if you had access to the outcome directly, rather than indirectly through wonder failure

Click to expand...

The problem with this is, it messes with ROI payback and makes it harder to assign the current bonus to IND.

I think it'd be better to improve Build Wealth.

Click to expand...

Build wealth is already good enough for it to beat out a lot of infra investment timings though...

Look TMIT: I agree there are much worse things in Civ 4 which need patching much more badly than the current implementation of failgold. Unless you use the tactics as described in the OP the effect is not that large anyway. I was never trying to say it is overpowered, but I do feel it is too strong. Indeed I would feel that the implementation of "bonus when failing a wonder" should at most be as good as "never tried the wonder in the first place", otherwise there would be no detriments in going for a wonder, reducing the intricacy of deciding whether to do it. And the argument I gave shows that the current implementation fails that test, and thus, preferably needs to be adjusted (with low priority).

While you say nobody has shown that the current implementation is overpowered, I respond that nobody has given any argument that it is good that there is a motivation to build a wonder with no intention of finishing it. The fact that there is the latter is for me enough proof that failgold is "overpowered". (With overpowered I do not mean "game-breaking awesome good which needs to be changed or the game will fall apart", but just "stronger than optimal").

Moreover, this is not about nerfing industrious. If failgold is needed to make industrious competitive, than I'd think that one should try and improve industrious in a different way regardless of whether you "nerf" failgold. If a trait is only competitive if one uses tactics that, I would presume, were not foreseen by the creators, something is wrong regardless. (BTW Industrious is not a great trait, and can probably use a boost, perhaps we can make industrious civs build wealth more efficiently all the time.)

PS My argument about "The AI can't use it" was meant to show that "fixing it has no priority, because if a player ignores it, it has no effect on the game". Not as a reason that it should be nerfed. (See the last sentence in that paragraph.)

I was never trying to say it is overpowered, but I do feel it is too strong.

Click to expand...

Why? What numerical in-game evidence/basis do you have for that feeling? I could say I feel that spears are too strong but that wouldn't make it correct.

Indeed I would feel that the implementation of "bonus when failing a wonder" should at most be as good as "never tried the wonder in the first place", otherwise there would be no detriments in going for a wonder, reducing the intricacy of deciding whether to do it. And the argument I gave shows that the current implementation fails that test, and thus, preferably needs to be adjusted (with low priority).

Click to expand...

So far your only basis for such a change is "I feel like I don't like the way the game does this". There's no gameplay balance reason shown thus far that demonstrates the advantage from this trick to be inordinate; the only arguments against it are strictly "this seems awkward". However, any change to the mechanic without at least somewhat affecting actual balance tradeoffs within the current model of civ would be difficult. I would not advocate further breaking balance (even with low priority) based on a feeling. I'd like to see some actual evidence that this is "too strong". Not arbitrary criteria, but an actual demonstration that applying forests in this manner is consistently one's best option...or even the best option half of the time for that matter.

While you say nobody has shown that the current implementation is overpowered, I respond that nobody has given any argument that it is good that there is a motivation to build a wonder with no intention of finishing it.

Click to expand...

This is more a design issue than a balance one, you can see it even in the structuring of this argument. You didn't challenge me to demonstrate that it isn't "too strong" at all, but rather are appealing to whether people feel/think/believe the current setup to be "right".

The reality is as obsolete/duckweed (very high level players, mind you) say: very often this is a suboptimal use of forests. It's the same thing with building wonders instead of wealth. Instead of hammering those mines, you can be producing GPP, or workers/settlers, or military, or infra en route to national wonders, etc...and you need to head to off-path techs to be able to start fail-gold wonders. And you need the trait. The end conclusion is that only SOMETIMES do you want to do this, and the decision is based on *strategy*. This is indeed a good thing for the game, even if it feels unorthodox.

"stronger than optimal" strategies are not dud moves in over half of games played...

I don't like the "AI can't use it" argument taken either way; certainly the AI doesn't use the AP well either, but that doesn't make its impact on the game any better or lower its priority much.

Not quite sure why so many people jump on the "seems overpowered" train... Civ4 is about decision making, and if you make the decision to turn forests or hammer into gold, you're free to do so. But you'll lack those hammers/forests in other parts of the game. To make it perfectly clear: your job is to proof, that this decision is the best in the majority of cases. I really doubt you can.

There are tons of things to consider wether or not going for failgold is the best you can do in a certain situation. Let's not forget that the only time where you can rely on failgold for a huge amount of your deficit research is the midgame on higher levels. Early game, you'll be occupied building infrastructure or troops/workers/settlers, pretty much like in the midgame. Yes, there are the games where you have the time to start building wonders, but otoh there are also those games where you don't. IND just changes the tradeoff/gain ratio, just like PHI does with running specialists or FIN with working cottages, and so do marble/stone in comparison to additional resources you might get: you can often sell cow for 12gpt, and you don't even have to "waste" hammers in this case. IMP overpowered? Cow overpowered? What if you have Marble, Stone and you're IND, but you're stuck with 3 cities and HAVE to break out? How exactly will failgold help you in this case? Longer research with -10gpt? And when you're IND+stone+marble, but could easily settle 15 cities? Will those ~18-20 workers magicly appear when you start building Statue of Zeus in 5 different cities? Yes, you have tons of gold in this case, but you don NOT have the improvements, both land- and citywise, to make good use of that gold. Gold isn't research by itself, commerce is what you want. Failgold does NOT create commerce. Then there are the games where the AI techs so freakin' fast, you barely will be able to even start on the wonders before they're gone. OTOH there are those games where you'll wait until 700 AD until you can cash in on the failgold for sistine chapel. How did your virtual failgold help you reach Lib in this case?

You might think that's a weak comparison and that i'm just throwing in arguments without validation - but after all that's just what you people are doing right now. I totally fail to see the clear advantage for failgold in the majority of cases compared to other alternatives.

Finally - yes, failgold is huge on some maps. But so is a HA or Cataphant rush. If you're able to make the best out of the map has to offer (and almost every map does offer an (close to) optimal strategical approach) and failgold is the best, then that's fine. If it would've been the best to rush several neighbours who are stuck without Feudalism until 500 AD, that's clearly more optimal than failgold building, just like it'd be to settle 10+ cities pre AD.

Seems like we need a "failgold series", where we can compare failgold strategies towards other approaches...

ecuwins said:

Yep...and the bigger the maps, the more units, the more redonk lag gets.

So, sort of back on topic - MarigoldRan, what kind of lag do you experience in all of these huge marathon games that you play? Also, what's your processor and RAM?

This game is single threaded, no? Or am I confused with its predecessor?

Click to expand...

I play on normal maraton, and I get inbetween turn issues around reinessanse.
Starting to be 1-2 seconds delay, which increases to 5+ second in modern era.

Playing on a core i7.

I don't want to know how it feels if you play huge, or with a lesser advanced computer.

For the record. Tech trading is more overpowered and gamebreaking than failgold could ever be.

MarigoldRan, about the failgold from forests issue.

There are some factors that make your experience in maraton difficult to translate to normal settings.

First of all, workerturns.
In normal, it costs 3 turns to chop a forest (4 if you count wantering into the forest.)
and it costs 9 (10) on maraton.

4 to 10 is a favorable ratio for maraton. To be consistent with the "times 3", it would require 12 turns to chop a forsest.
Hence, you are having a greater ease to find workerturns to chop with.

Secondary, building units (this somehow includes workers, but discounts settlers) on maraton, gives a -20% discount.
If you build 4 workers on normal, and you would spend the same ammount of hammers on maraton, you would instead get out 5 workers.

In normal settings, workerturns is a much more scarce commodity, than it is on maraton.

I was never trying to say it is overpowered, but I do feel it is too strong. Indeed I would feel that the implementation of "bonus when failing a wonder" should at most be as good as "never tried the wonder in the first place", otherwise there would be no detriments in going for a wonder, reducing the intricacy of deciding whether to do it. And the argument I gave shows that the current implementation fails that test, and thus, preferably needs to be adjusted...

Click to expand...

When I try to think of major historical wonders of the last century.. I think of putting a man on the Moon.

Yes, the Russians FAILED to get there first. But that certainly does not mean that they did NOT or were NOT able to use the lost hammers (commerce abstraction) from that failed race to continue with their uber spy-satelites (and hundreds of other project spin-offs).

Alright, technically the Apollo is a PROJECT and not a WONDER in this game...

I would much rather have the hammers back from abandoned/failed wonders (a set % worth), however, the way Failaxis screwed up OF right now, that umm.... really wouldn't work very well. Haha!

At least the abstraction through commerce can be a little versatile in ways.

obsolete said:

When I try to think of major historical wonders of the last century.. I think of putting a man on the Moon.

Yes, the Russians FAILED to get there first. But that certainly does not mean that they did NOT or were NOT able to use the lost hammers (commerce abstraction) from that failed race to continue with their uber spy-satelites (and hundreds of other project spin-offs).

Alright, technically the Apollo is a PROJECT and not a WONDER in this game...

I would much rather have the hammers back from abandoned/failed wonders (a set % worth), however, the way Failaxis screwed up OF right now, that umm.... really wouldn't work very well. Haha!

At least the abstraction through commerce can be a little versatile in ways.

Click to expand...

Well, that's the way that it worked in Civ III (missing a wonder basically overflowed) and they wanted to change it.

What I really liked in Civ III, was the micromanagement of disbandment. It's always nice to park a cartload of extra shields in a key city

krikav said:

MarigoldRan, about the failgold from forests issue.

There are some factors that make your experience in maraton difficult to translate to normal settings.

First of all, workerturns.
In normal, it costs 3 turns to chop a forest (4 if you count wantering into the forest.)
and it costs 9 (10) on maraton.

4 to 10 is a favorable ratio for maraton. To be consistent with the "times 3", it would require 12 turns to chop a forsest.
Hence, you are having a greater ease to find workerturns to chop with.

Secondary, building units (this somehow includes workers, but discounts settlers) on maraton, gives a -20% discount.
If you build 4 workers on normal, and you would spend the same ammount of hammers on maraton, you would instead get out 5 workers.

In normal settings, workerturns is a much more scarce commodity, than it is on maraton.

Click to expand...

Yes. Circumstances might be different between huge maps and standard maps.

Nonetheless, regardless of the settings, this IS a very effective strategy that you can use. Never said you should use it all the time, in all situations. If you desperately need the forests for production, than you should use it for production. But anytime you need commerce and not production, especially after you've over-expanded or over-rushed, consider fail-gold and forests instead of just building wealth. In those situations you've got too much production anyways. May as well convert the forests into gold.

Remember: it's a 1 hammer - 2.75 gold conversion ratio if everything's in place!!!! That's a pretty good conversion.

And for some reason people are arguing against the bogeyman that "all forests should be converted into fail-gold." Never said that.

Sure, chop some forests for the early settlers, etc.

But if you can, save some for later, because those forests are worth a lot of money.

Is fail-gold OP? I don't know. But I do know that I can use it to become FILTHY RICH.

Now if only this can be done in real life....

Remember: it's a 1 hammer - 2.75 gold conversion ratio if everything's in place!!!! That's a pretty good conversion.

Click to expand...

One hammer is with a little more than 3 gold on average though, so the ratio looks bad even there.

well now, that's a silly thing to say. When you need commerce, commerce becomes better. When you need hammers, hammers become better. It's not some sort of 3:1 ratio.