Am I the only person who doesn't chop?

[Oggums]

I usually don't chop grassland forest w/o fresh water. 2 food 1 prod is just fine as it is.

But I don't hesitate to chop plains / hill / tundra forests. Because they provide only one food, so my city won't utilize that tile anyway. I count possible number of 1 food tiles the city can support and chop down excesses.

I'm the exact opposite. To me, since the point of leaving forests is because you're short on hills and need the production, grasslands forests are the first to go. One hammer isn't worth working, so they get chopped, either to be replaced with a cottage, or irrigated so I can work a hill.

Plains forests stay, so I can work them when I need to build something, or after I've hit my happiness max and want to avoid growth. Tundra forests definitely always stay if they're in a city's workable radius, because it makes an otherwise useless tile worth something, after you get railroaded lumbermills and biology.

River tiles pretty much always get chopped regardless of what type, so I can access that free extra commerce.

Anyway, when people say chop this, chop that, it doesn't necessarily mean they've clear cut the capital. You can chop anywhere. Hills are always better mined, so you can always just run around and chop those without losing anything.

 

[Oggums]

He guys, a world with beautiful forests is far more beautiful than some bare terrain! Don't forget we are playing a game in which we shape a civilization the way we want it to be. I rather play a game in which I build a beautiful civilization instead of using all kinds of exploits in order to get some extra points on my end score...

You should start up a Diety game, and see how long you can last roleplaying an environmentalist.

 

[Seanirl]

I'm only just before the industrial era in my first game but what I did was I chopped most forests and left a few to let the area regrow at some point. They did a little, then I'd chop 'em again. Now I'm building sawmills or whatever they're called... probably should've got rid of the forests but... meh.

 

[shadow2k]

Damn tree huggers!

If you need production from forests, that city should not be a production center, plain and simple.

 

[Uncle_Joe]

Since, by now, I think its been just about universally proven that chopping in nearly always beneficial, my question is: Is that a good thing? Most of the game's decisions seem to be based on trade-offs. But there doesnt really appear to be one here...chopping is just better.

So, is this something that people feel should change in an upcoming patch? Or is it just something that is 'expected' to be done, with the decision being when to do the chopping (not if)? Personally, I would prefer some reason to not chop, but as it is now, I just dont really see it all that often.

If it were to be changed, what would be a good way to go about it? Simply reducing the number of hammers gained by chopping might work, but I get the feeling that they would REALLY have to reduce it to make that viable. What other alternatives are there? Maybe having Forests provide .4 happiness as well as .5 health? Any other 'solutions'?

Thoughts? Always chopping a good thing? Or make it more of a tough decision of whether to do it, not when?

 

[Saint_Saturn]

Since, by now, I think its been just about universally proven that chopping in nearly always beneficial, my question is: Is that a good thing? Most of the game's decisions seem to be based on trade-offs. But there doesnt really appear to be one here...chopping is just better.

Thoughts? Always chopping a good thing? Or make it more of a tough decision of whether to do it, not when?

In my opinion, chopping is always a good thing, but only in moderation. Chopping does have restrictions, as chopping too much can become more of a curse than a blessing if you chop your entire city boundary early on. You also are using up a worker during the chop period, so he is not building any improvements, and in the early portions of the game, every turn can have a large impression of what will occur later on.

 

[LawLessOne]

There are two reasons to chop. One is to 'rush' build something and the other is to better 'utilize' the land. Often you can do both of these at once.

 

[trundle]

Since, by now, I think its been just about universally proven that chopping in nearly always beneficial, my question is: Is that a good thing? Most of the game's decisions seem to be based on trade-offs. But there doesnt really appear to be one here...chopping is just better.

So, is this something that people feel should change in an upcoming patch? Or is it just something that is 'expected' to be done, with the decision being when to do the chopping (not if)? Personally, I would prefer some reason to not chop, but as it is now, I just dont really see it all that often.

If it were to be changed, what would be a good way to go about it? Simply reducing the number of hammers gained by chopping might work, but I get the feeling that they would REALLY have to reduce it to make that viable. What other alternatives are there? Maybe having Forests provide .4 happiness as well as .5 health? Any other 'solutions'?

Thoughts? Always chopping a good thing? Or make it more of a tough decision of whether to do it, not when?

I think the solution might be to actually tone down cottages, not beef up forests some more. If you think about it, the big downside to chopping forests right now is that you lose an irreplaceable "improvement." The problem is that if you can replace them with something better, you haven't really lost anything at all.

By the time you get lumbermills and railroads, that cottage could be an 6-8 commerce, 1 hammer tile. With the ability to gold-rush, the forest just can't keep up (not to mention that you passed up the opportunity to chop, and the forest has been lagging desperately behind until the discovery of replaceable parts).

 

[Spiral]

He guys, a world with beautiful forests is far more beautiful than some bare terrain! Don't forget we are playing a game in which we shape a civilization the way we want it to be. I rather play a game in which I build a beautiful civilization instead of using all kinds of exploits in order to get some extra points on my end score...

What about ugly forests? Is chopping ugly forests exploiting for points?

 

[KillerCardinal]

Since, by now, I think its been just about universally proven that chopping in nearly always beneficial, my question is: Is that a good thing? Most of the game's decisions seem to be based on trade-offs. But there doesnt really appear to be one here...chopping is just better.

So, is this something that people feel should change in an upcoming patch? Or is it just something that is 'expected' to be done, with the decision being when to do the chopping (not if)? Personally, I would prefer some reason to not chop, but as it is now, I just dont really see it all that often.

If it were to be changed, what would be a good way to go about it? Simply reducing the number of hammers gained by chopping might work, but I get the feeling that they would REALLY have to reduce it to make that viable. What other alternatives are there? Maybe having Forests provide .4 happiness as well as .5 health? Any other 'solutions'?

Thoughts? Always chopping a good thing? Or make it more of a tough decision of whether to do it, not when?

Well, there is actually one more benefit to the forests that I haven't really heard anybody mention(and may in the end not be considered useful, but I figure I'll just throw it out there anyway). Forests give a 50% tile defense bonus, which is larger than ANY other tile defense bonus(besides the 75% bonus for forested hills, but that is still a forest).
The importance I can see for this is for defending your city from barbarian raids, especially if for some reason you haven't gotten archers. The reason I say that is because melee units(if memory serves) can gain the forest defense promotions but not hill defense promotions, so leaving forests unchoppped for defensive purposes may have some merit.

Personally, if I can find almost any benefit for leaving at least some forests during the early game(besides on river tiles) I like to keep them around for the later lumber mills and health bonuses in the late game(assuming that I have 1 or, even better, 2 food resources in my city limits to make that health bonus useful at some point.

Now, all that being said, I would like it if there was a resource(I don't really care what), that could not only be harvested without clearing the forest first, like deer, fur, and ivory, but actually can't be harvested(or has it's harvest significantly reduced) if the forest is cleared.

For the record, I do chop a decent amount of forests, but I DO consider doing it a tradeoff which I seriously consider before doing so.

Just my two cents on the issue

 

[shadow2k]

If it were to be changed, what would be a good way to go about it? Simply reducing the number of hammers gained by chopping might work, but I get the feeling that they would REALLY have to reduce it to make that viable. What other alternatives are there? Maybe having Forests provide .4 happiness as well as .5 health? Any other 'solutions'?

Thoughts? Always chopping a good thing? Or make it more of a tough decision of whether to do it, not when?

Well they already tried to curb it by making forests give .5 health instead of .4, but that wasn't enough. I think they'll change it again, and lower the shields gained by it. They should also make it so that you can't chop outside your borders.

 

[Smirk]

I find it historically accurate and meaningful the way it is. Changing it to reduce clear cutting doesn't make it more fun, regardless if it settles the tone of some tree huggers.

Making lumbermills available earlier or more effective might make some reconsider but this is kinda false and manipulative. Its already a bit far fetched as it is, health bonuses, lumbermills... These are modern day creations because of environmentalism, they aren't "better".

 

[Smirk]

He guys, a world with beautiful forests is far more beautiful than some bare terrain!

Thats true, so why are you posting on a gaming forum when you could be outside taking advantage of that beautiful natural landscape?

Don't forget we are playing a game in which we shape a civilization the way we want it to be. I rather play a game in which I build a beautiful civilization instead of using all kinds of exploits in order to get some extra points on my end score...

This isn't exactly true, we are playing a historical simulation game. The history is ours and we can't really depart much from that. We can maybe skip the dark ages and more quickly get to modern times but our end and mindset is still firmly in our history. For example we can't decide to not be an iron based civilization and discover some other technologies that are equally as powerful. You most definately cannot be a pacifist, nor a harmonious religious civilization, as ultimately the only power designed for in the game is military might.

This isn't an exploratory game its merely strengthing your already present beliefs. SMAC was closer to a game where your choice do determine your civilizations, and you chould choose tree hugger at the onset as your goal.

 

[Zombie69]

He guys, a world with beautiful forests is far more beautiful than some bare terrain! Don't forget we are playing a game in which we shape a civilization the way we want it to be. I rather play a game in which I build a beautiful civilization instead of using all kinds of exploits in order to get some extra points on my end score...

Don't forget we're playing a strategy game and beauty has nothing to do with strategy. You might be better off playing role playing games, honestly, if beauty is what you seek.

 

[Thalassicus]

Tree-cutting isn't "rushing", I don't know where that term came about. It's part of the new empasis on more interesting worker improvements. Workers can now do one of three basic actions:

- Build improvements
- Build roads
- Cut down forests

All three have distinct uses. Improvements increase the FPC of the local city, roads act as connectors, and tree-cutting selectivly boosts production. Trees represent the finite resources of the world that you have to carefully choose when and where to use. Trees can be saved up for particular projects or buildings, adding decision-making to worker improvements that makes it more interesting.

It's also a very realistic similarity to Europe: huge areas of forests were clear-cut to provide the timber for the vast navies of sailing ships (if at a different time). There's not really any disadvantage to harvesting timber, since you can use the production to put up some commerce buildings in your cities, and build cottages and (on plains terrain) farms.

What they need to do is add something to create forests again later on (possibly with a replanting order with Ecology), and tie it in more with Environmentalism. Maybe under Environmentalism forests could provide +1 food. This would make them similar to the forests or fungus of Alpha Centauri, useful end-game improvements that you can build everywhere. Start planting forests, and once you get enough up you could switch to Environmentalism for huge food, health, and happiness bonuses to boost your population and production.

I have the feeling the developers are far from done with forests though; I'm wondering where they're going to take them.

 

[sandman_civ]

Don't forget we're playing a strategy game and beauty has nothing to do with strategy. You might be better off playing role playing games, honestly, if beauty is what you seek.

Don't forget people play the game for fun and some for the aesthetics. A LOT of effort was put into the graphics this time. I for one miss the "city view" screen of civ2 where I used to admire the wonders in my capital. Does not take away for one moment the other facets especially the strategy that makes civ the best game ever made!

 

[Thalassicus]

They *are* missing a lot of the things that made the game immersive...city screens, trophy screens, special events. At some point you can make it too much of a modern "game" and lose the immersion it had

 

[Quantum7]

They *are* missing a lot of the things that made the game immersive...city screens, throne room, advisor council. At some point you can make it too much of a modern "game" and lose the immersion it had

Those last two are pretty debatable. To me especially the throne room most of the time felt like an annoying mini game, which had not much to do with the game itself being immersive. --> I'd rather not see it in expansion (there are alot more interesting things to implement =)).

 

[Seven05]

Since, by now, I think its been just about universally proven that chopping in nearly always beneficial, my question is: Is that a good thing? Most of the game's decisions seem to be based on trade-offs. But there doesnt really appear to be one here...chopping is just better.

So, is this something that people feel should change in an upcoming patch? Or is it just something that is 'expected' to be done, with the decision being when to do the chopping (not if)? Personally, I would prefer some reason to not chop, but as it is now, I just dont really see it all that often.

If it were to be changed, what would be a good way to go about it? Simply reducing the number of hammers gained by chopping might work, but I get the feeling that they would REALLY have to reduce it to make that viable. What other alternatives are there? Maybe having Forests provide .4 happiness as well as .5 health? Any other 'solutions'?

Thoughts? Always chopping a good thing? Or make it more of a tough decision of whether to do it, not when?

I think cottages should be more like workshops and remove one food from the tile they are built on. That way not only is it not a good idea to simply clear-cut and cottage-spam but it makes the measly +1 food from farms a bit more important since that is needed to feed the village people (sorry).

Another option would be to add more improvements for forrests or make the lumbermills a bit better and available earlier. For example if watermills didn't remove the forrest in the tile they were built on you'd gain an immediate +1 hammer making a grassland forrest tile 2 food and 2 hammers.

 

[Jasmine_]

They *are* missing a lot of the things that made the game immersive...city screens, throne room, advisor council.

Those just seemed to get repetitive and serve no purpose. At least that is the way I saw it. Now, if they had it linked so the way you built a throne room changed something else within the game, then that would be something.