(2-15) Proposal: Logging Camps merged with Lumber Camps

[Stalker0]

Proposal:

• Remove the logging camp from the game. Any bonus specific to the logging camp is removed.
• Lumber mills will now be buildable as the same tech time they are now, but be buildable on both jungles and forests. The lumber mill will produce the same yield benefits it does now, and this benefit will apply to both terrains.
• Lumber mills on both a forest and jungle will count each other for the purpose of adjacency.
• Bonuses that specifically effect jungles themselves (such as university bonuses) are unchanged.

Rationale: For a long time, logging camps have been the red-headed stepchildren of improvements, and there have been several attempts to improve them, including the original proposal for this segment.

However, I think there is a simpler answer....we don't need a logging camp. It doesn't provide anything interesting, its not really thematic (in fact people have often been confused as to why you can't build a lumber mill in jungle). For the most part, logging camps and lumber mills do the same thing....except logging does it later and lamer. So why not just merge the two and be done with it.

This also has the added benefit of making lumber mill triangles a bit easier to do (in places where forest and jungle meet).



EDITED: Updated language to clarify proposal, no fundamental changes.

 

[azum4roll]

You mean lumber mills right?

We had a discussion about this on Discord. Let me integrate that and make another counter proposal.

 

[pineappledan]

Can we keep the lumber mill name so we don't have 3 "camp" improvements: Camp, Encampment and Logging Camp ?

If there is no graphical or technical reason why jungle and forest can't have the same improvement then I think it should be done. It's simpler, and in the case of policies and tech yields, the game already treats them as the same. Jungle and forest can still be distinguished by different yields to the feature type itself. It would also solve the issue of mixed forest/jungle terrain not getting their adjacency boosts on 90% similar improvements.

What would you make the yields? I would propose +1 unimprovement and +1 for 2 adjacent. A bit from both.

 

[Stalker0]

Can we keep the lumber mill name so we don't have 3 "camp" improvements: Camp, Encampment and Logging Camp ?

That was my plan with this proposal. Logging Camp out, Lumber Mill in for both. I see I was a bit loose with my language, so proposal has been updated with tighter language.

 

[ma_kuh]

Is it a bad time to suggest a military camp improvement that increases local unit production? 😛

 

[Stalker0]

Is it a bad time to suggest a military camp improvement that increases local unit production? 😛

Not a bad time, but certainly the wrong thread

 

[CrazyG]

This makes jungle a lot stronger than forest, no?

 

[Stalker0]

This makes jungle a lot stronger than forest, no?

Forests give hammers at base, which is considered the stronger yield. Forests also tend to have better bonus resources. Jungles do get solid boosts later on with universities but they had to pay for that with a long tenure of weaker yields.

 

[stii]

Forests give hammers at base, which is considered the stronger yield. Forests also tend to have better bonus resources. Jungles do get solid boosts later on with universities but they had to pay for that with a long tenure of weaker yields.

Forests and jungles are the same in the default maps, although I'm not sure what percentage of people use the maps that make jungles 3f.

 

[azum4roll]

No, forests can also be 12 (on plains) or 1 1 (on tundra).

 

[Ranslee]

I prefer this one out of all current proposals to Logging Camps.

 

[azum4roll]

I sponsor this.

 

[Recursive]

Proposal sponsored by azum4roll.