Planting a settler on forest should give hammers.

And the same amount of hammers than a chop.

... What? I think you need to explain what you mean a little clearer.

Nako doesn't like to explain himself. Everyone is supposed to know what he means.

He likely means building, or "planting", a farm on a forest tile.

Any improvement that clears the forest gives you the hammers. Building a mine on a forested hill gives you the hammers. Building a plantation on a forested tile gives you the hammers. Building a watermill or workshop on a forested tile gives you the hammers. Camps do not inherently clear the land, so building a camp on a forested Deer, Elephant or Beaver wont give you the hammers unless you chop the forest (if Beaver and Elephant tiles can even have forests on them, not sure, I know you can have Elephants on jungle tiles, and the camp doesnt clear the jungle)

I assumed he meant planting a settler.

The settler clears the land when it builds the city, so getting the hammers (or even half the hammers) kinda makes sense. Worker actions already get you the hammers, so obviously its not that.

Getting hammers from a settler doesn't make any sense at all.
A settler clears the tile in 0 turns. No worker required. If you want the hammers, then you send a worker to clear it before you settle a city there.

Elkad said:

I assumed he meant planting a settler.

The settler clears the land when it builds the city, so getting the hammers (or even half the hammers) kinda makes sense. Worker actions already get you the hammers, so obviously its not that.

Click to expand...

You are right, it is of course planting a settler. I thought "planting" itself was enough, i'm not very good in english.

And it makes sense. Worker labour or not, the forests go away when you plant, that's a fact. So it would be cool that the hammers of the forests go in the first production of a city. Would had some spice to multiplayer games.

Like Bladerstrom says building a city happens instantly so it would be a little unfair to get hammers from it. Similarly with other improvements clearing forest and providing hammers, it is actually better to clear the forest before you build the improvement as this provides the hammers sooner but the improvement will take the same total time. ie chop takes 10 turns, building mine takes 9, building mine on forest takes 10+9=19 but you don't get the hammers as fast.

Anyway I would like to see cities/settlements, and resources (such as wood) handled in different ways so this is obsolete for me.

I thought by "planting" you meant building a plantation...

I think it would make sense if you had to clear the forest/jungle from a tile before you can found a city on it. The settler unit could do this by itself so you don't have to send a worker. It would delay founding the city for a few turns (the same time it would take for a worker to clear the forest) and you could speed it up by using a worker as well. Once this is done, the city is built and you get the hammers.

Also, I think you should need the relevant tech (bronze/iron working) before you can do this (obviously there would be no forests on the settler starting location tiles). If you start near the jungle, Iron Working would become an essential tech (even more so than it is already) because you can't build a city there until it is researched. This would prevent players from founding a useless city there early on to claim the gems/bananas/dyes, and so would add more interest to the early tech race.

Thats a bit excessive Clammy. That would really cripple CIVs in Forest/Jungle heavy land. Especially maps using PerfectWorld's mapScript, which generates a heck of a lot more Forest than I recall previously.

The Civs that REX are Tundra/Desert civs in that scenario? hehe.

The idea that a settler can delay the city to "Chop" w/ possible Worker assistance, and have the hammers go towards the new city seems plausible enough though.
-> A new BuildCITY icon: BuildNOW | ClearForest&Build.

Civs that start near the jungle would build their first few cities away from the jungle, and then fill in this space later once they have the tech. I'll agree that it could be a little harsh in some cases though (eg. civs that are totally surrounded by jungle or on a peninsula connected to jungle land). However, if jungle chops came earlier (either on BW or an inexpensive tech before IW) then I don't think it would be unreasonable for civs to have one city until this research is done. It wouldn't hamper expansion any more than a polar start. In fact it would be much better than a polar start because the land actually has some good potential.

In fact, Clam Spammer, i think it is already the case. You can't plant on a forest of you don't have BW, and you can't plant on jungle if you don't have IW. Hmm no, you can plant on a forest if you don't have BW, but you can't plant on a jungle if you don't have Iron Working, well I think so.

The advantage of having the hammers if you plant on a forest would be very interesting in multiplayer if you actually plant on a forest. That would make prefer forest brown hills over brown hills and elephant and marble or stone, and possibly even forest on brown hill over stone or marble over brown hills, and (forest) brown hills over any other type of square.

I like this idea, +30 hammers toward the first item built in the new city.

So if you are unlucky to start with no forest where you plonk your first city down, that means you are immediately 30 behind. At the start of the game this could be an unbalanced handicap that you might never fully recover from.

eg. I have to initially spend 15 turns to build a Workboat. You have got the hammer bonus and have a boat out instantly (getting food bonus and powering away). 15 turns later, I put out a boat; while you have had 15 turns of way better growth & coin and have (or are) building other things!
Does'nt seem much, but it's a mean springboard....

My idea here is that you can't found a city on a forest or jungle tile until you have the necessary tech (currently you can found them on forests and jungles, and these are removed immediately). This means you can't found your first city on a forest because you don't have the Bronze Working tech. To make this work you would have to change the map scripts so that the tiles where Settlers start initially (and some other tiles around them so you can move the settler if you want) would have no forests or jungles.

Don't worry - no one will get a 30 hammer bonus at the start of the game because of this.

@Clam Spammer, I guess you don't play the perfectWorld script. If you wind up in the temperate zone, you could walk for 30 turns with a settler and still not be able to found a city. Forest as far as the eye can see. Oh wait sometimes there isn't forest on a Resource tile, so you can settle on that.

@Balderstrom - Please reread my post. Note the part about changing the map scripts so that what you just mentioned won't happen. I have put at least a little thought into this, you know...

I read it, it suggests "changing where settlers start". Which would (for a number of maps) make huge swaths of land unusable for start locations. I fail to see how this idea adds anything to CIV at all - beyond taking options away from the player/AI on where the optimal city location can be.

Ideas recommended thus far amount to:

1. Settling on Forest: Instant Hammer Bonus
2. Disallow settling on Forest, until Iron Working.
3. Settlers can assist Worker chopping so the new City would get hammers.

1 - Completely unbalanced. 0 Turn Hammers.
2 - Takes away player options and adds... what? (I don't see it)
3 - Workable, would need testing - an interesting boost to a newly formed city, instead of a reduced hammer output going to the closest other city.

What does option 2 add to the game? I can certainly see what it takes away.

Balderstrom said:

I read it, it suggests "changing where settlers start". Which would (for a number of maps) make huge swaths of land unusable for start locations.

Click to expand...

OK, it seems my wording was ambiguous here

What I meant by this was not changing where the settlers start, but removing forests from the tiles where the settlers start, and maybe a few others nearby so the player has a choice.

As for your other points...

1. Settling on Forest: Instant Hammer Bonus
Completely unbalanced. 0 Turn Hammers.

Click to expand...

It is not an instant bonus. You have to spend a few turns clearing the forest before the city is actually built, the same number of turns it would take for a worker. The effect would be similar to founding the city next to the forest and chopping it right away with a worker.

2. Disallow settling on Forest, until Iron Working.
Takes away player options and adds... what? (I don't see it)

Click to expand...

Only until Bronze Working. If you need to settle on a forest to optimize the city location, you'll have to research bronze first. By the time you have built a settler you'll have teched it anyway for its other benefits so it won't matter. The same applies to the AI so it won't affect them either (Deity aside, perhaps).

As for jungles - these are pretty much useless until you can clear them anyway. You can send your first couple of settlers somewhere else usually (though start locations right in the middle of a jungle would need to be addressed). This would make IW a higher priority for civs starting near the jungle. It would add another minor tech race to the early game, with the first civs to tech Iron being able to claim the jungle resources rather than someone founding a city that will be useless for years.

As for what it would add to the game: realism. You can't just build libraries and temples and such in the middle of the woods - those trees have to go. Which gives me another idea - maybe you could put a couple of small buildings (the beginnings of a new city) in the forest, but to really start developing the city you would have to clear the forest.

3. Settlers can assist Worker chopping so the new City would get hammers.
Workable, would need testing - an interesting boost to a newly formed city, instead of a reduced hammer output going to the closest other city.

Click to expand...

No doubt it would need testing, especially to see how the AI handles it. They do know how to chop forests, so it wouldn't be too hard to make the AI send a spare worker (if they have one) with a settler to a new city site. Even if they don't make use of this, though, I don't think it would give the player much of an advantage - it's only a couple of turns we're talking about here. What's more important is improving the land around the city.

I believe what you are talking about here, would play into one of my wishes for CIV V - which may have the side effect of doing away with the BFC.

Basically allow tiles to be zoomed to the point where a single tile takes up the whole screen (or most of the screen). Which might allow for placing buildings like planning the land-building-outlay of a city in an RTS. Actual walls around the city. People walking around. An exponential increase in the immersion level of the game.

In this type of game, units moving onto tiles with enemy units would not automatically fight - the map zooms down to the tile and you can tactically play/plan your assault.