Am I the only person who doesn't chop?

[Oggums]

Tree-cutting isn't "rushing", I don't know where that term came about.

Well, it came about due to the fact that you can rush your production by cutting trees.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=rush
rush
verb
To perform with great haste: rushed completion of the project.

If the shoe fits...

 

[alexti2]

It seems to me that almost every strategy discussed on this board makes very liberal use of the worker-chop.

In many cases there're decent benefits from chopping, however basing the strategy on the chop is generally not a good idea, because you can get forest-free start.

 

[Thalassicus]

Actually, what I was thinking of was not the throne room, but the trophy screen from Alpha Centauri. Civilizations you wiped out, techs you researched first, milestones you reached, were added there for you to bask in the glory of your Empire

I always enjoyed when I'd be the first to a Secrets tech, or the first to reproduce a native life form, and it'd pop up with the screen saying you beat everyone else to it.

All you have right now when you wipe someone out is a note in the event log. It's almost like an afterthought.

 

[Uncle_Joe]

Thalassicus brings up some interesting point about forest perhaps representing consumable resources near a city. And yes, a lot of Europe was deforested in the name of progress, so there is definately some historical basis for it.

But it seems that you are always better off cutting your forests earlier rather than later in Civ4, and that leads to rapid deforestation long before any 'realistic' cultures would have done so. The reason is the static hammer yield. And since its static, 30 hammers in 3000BC is worth far more than those same 30 hammers in 1300AD. So, it behooves the player to chop and chop early to maximize the benefit.

Sooo, what if the hammer yield started out small, but increased as you go higher in tech? Say it starts at 10 hammers, and then progresses by 5 or 10 with select engineering/industrial techs. It doesnt make a whole lot of sense that a primative culture can maximize clear cutting anyways (what do you DO with all that wood, especially before its even possible to build a Lumber Mill???), so I think it make things feel more realistic as well as restoring balance.

If this was implemented, you truly would have to make decisions as to when to chop, or if to chop. Adding a few hammers early in the game can still be a big help, but perhaps it would be better to wait a bit and up the yield? And by that point, perhaps it might be worth keeping the forest and putting down a Lumber Mill etc. In war time, it might be worth it to just chop for units.

In essence, something like that would restore the 'interesting decisions' that the game seems to be trying to evoke.

Thoughts?

 

[logical_psycho]

Pretty funny, I've been playing the game ever since it came out and I just discover that Forests give you health by reading this topic. I knew jungle is bad for health, that was obvious. Maybe this will change my "Always chop" mentality. I always chopped forests because I didn't see any use for them except for blocking my possibilities to improve cities and for enemies to hide in them.

 

[trundle]

Thalassicus brings up some interesting point about forest perhaps representing consumable resources near a city. And yes, a lot of Europe was deforested in the name of progress, so there is definately some historical basis for it.

But it seems that you are always better off cutting your forests earlier rather than later in Civ4, and that leads to rapid deforestation long before any 'realistic' cultures would have done so. The reason is the static hammer yield. And since its static, 30 hammers in 3000BC is worth far more than those same 30 hammers in 1300AD. So, it behooves the player to chop and chop early to maximize the benefit.

Sooo, what if the hammer yield started out small, but increased as you go higher in tech? Say it starts at 10 hammers, and then progresses by 5 or 10 with select engineering/industrial techs. It doesnt make a whole lot of sense that a primative culture can maximize clear cutting anyways (what do you DO with all that wood, especially before its even possible to build a Lumber Mill???), so I think it make things feel more realistic as well as restoring balance.

If this was implemented, you truly would have to make decisions as to when to chop, or if to chop. Adding a few hammers early in the game can still be a big help, but perhaps it would be better to wait a bit and up the yield? And by that point, perhaps it might be worth keeping the forest and putting down a Lumber Mill etc. In war time, it might be worth it to just chop for units.

In essence, something like that would restore the 'interesting decisions' that the game seems to be trying to evoke.

Thoughts?

I think this is a pretty sound idea; probably one of the best I've heard. =)

 

[Khift]

~snip~ 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. ~snip~

A little sidenote: This is a bad thing. Having forests on your borders is like begging your neighbors to put stacks of units onto them, and woe be you if the forests form a path to any of your cities. It is never a good idea to have a tile where your opponents could move onto without any fear of reprisal -- and +50% defense says just that.


Just another 2c why forest chopping is good.

 

[Memphus]

My strategy:

If there are forests chop.
My games are usually over before railroad or replacable parts so I never build a lumbermill

However I tend to leave one near each city with unimproved tiles around it as long as I can (i.e. unless it is a crucial chop for a wonder) so that I can get a couple of extra forests growths.

This strategy of leaving one forest is usually really helpful.
However if my city is getting to size where it can use all the tiles, then that forest gets chopped

Order of chopping forests:
Hills first
Grasslands
Plains

Tundra...very rarely as the tile sucks if you do

Special Note: I do not chop the forest if I can build a camp, because from what I can observe the forest stays.

 

[genjiboy]

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?

Yes, it's always good to chop, even if only a little bit.

That said, you don't need to chop, at least in single player. It would need to be changed if that was the only possible way you could win a single-player game. It's highly possible to win on levels up to Emperor without chopping. A little bit trickier, but still possible.

Multiplayer, however, is a different kettle of fish. Chopping is necessary to keep up in most games. The winner is the one who chops intelligently.

 

[Charles 22]

I personally think this chop-rush thinking is just a throwback to prior Civ's. Even if I were an advocate of this, I would see certain situations where it would be counterproductive, even in the early game, as having a high amount of flood plains in one city, will cause a lot of sickness if you're going around chop-chop. I would think that for the chop advocates that you would at least leave 1-2 woods hexes just for the hope of it expanding to more hexes later.

Anyone know, if you have chopped a hex before, if it can ever grow back (assuming you haven't put anything other than a road on it)?

 

[GIO888]

Has anyone else noticed if you leave a Plains or Grassland square "fallow" it will eventually grow a forest you can repeatedly chop throughout the game?

I find this more recurrent since the v1.52 patch, although I had noticed it before.

And I'm not saying it's the best use of a square either!

 

[Wodan]

Sooo, what if the hammer yield started out small, but increased as you go higher in tech? Say it starts at 10 hammers, and then progresses by 5 or 10 with select engineering/industrial techs. Thoughts?

The game already does this. You might have noticed, but the # of hammers is affected by production bonuses such as Forge and Factory.

That is probably not what you're thinking of per se, but the net effect is the same.

Wodan

 

[Flak]

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.

It would be cool if for every improvement of the throne room, your capitol had 1 point of extra culture. It's small, but it would really bring the whole concept into the game in an interesting way. I'm also dissappointed about the city screens. When you consider the graphics they have put into this game, I bet the city screen for some of these cities would be absolutely stunning, perhaps even enough to crash a few computers with graphics issues. They could really have gone all out here with relatively minimal effort I think.

On topic: I think you guys are very much underestimating the player response if you were to lower the forest chop outputs. What you would likely see is people chopping even more trying to eek out those extra shields and keep up with the AI.

Personally, I've just now started my first game where I'm trying to use some strategic chopping and the difference is amazing. On Noble, I can finally meet my upkeep costs for the few cities I have and I'm in a position grab a bit more land before the AI sprawls on over to it. I actually have gotten a chance to build a wonder in my capitol city, something I very rarely accomplished previously unless the city was naturally setup for production from the start. Something even more startling happened which I've never had happen before: I actually fell behind in the Tech race and then caught back up and took the lead! When I saw this, I just sat there blinking, wondering how the heck I did it. But it doesn't take to much investigation to see how. I had libraries and monastaries in all my cities very early. That didn't seem to help much at the time, but boy does that build up as your cities grow. One other thing, I'm not having to dedicate so much of my time and resources to just fighting barbarians, even if they still pass blithely by less-than-3 size AI cities with an undefended worker outside, just to get to my fortified archers/axeman on a mined hill. Even with that silliness, I can now just get the units out that I need when I need them, and since the human player tends to win most of those battles anyway, it's getting genuinely easier as the game goes on because of promotions.

I really don't want Firaxis to change too much more to make this game even more frustrating, atleast not on the lower levels. If I can get just get decent at beating this game on Noble, the game will really be more fun. I'd like that and I'd like to not have to mod the game to be easier just to bring it down as a challenge. Despite all of the wonderful advice in this forum, not everybody is mastering the game with ease. I hope Firaxis keeps that in mind and lets chopping remain a viable tactic.

I'm going to play around with this a bit more. Thanks for all the strategies!

 

[Glinka]

Has anyone else noticed if you leave a Plains or Grassland square "fallow" it will eventually grow a forest you can repeatedly chop throughout the game?

I think those of us who are strategic choppers have been well aware of it since day 1. The problem is you can't count upon this happening at any given time, so a random factor is involved. I've had some fallow plots never redevelop a forest throughout an entire game, which is why I've pretty much chopped and built as required. I do so a lot less in the latter game, of course, when lumbermills and railroads become available, but even then, I'm inclined to chop for granaries and forges.

 

[DangerousMonkey]

I don't think that there can be any debate on the topic of "is chop-rushing good" because the obvious answer is "yes." I think the only way to make mass deforestation anything less than the best option would be to either: a) Greatly reduce the short term yeild of a forest chop, or b)Greatly increase the long term yeild of forest tiles.

Personaly I would favor option B, say, increasing the yeild of forest tiles by +1 production. This would make them pretty viable long term assets. I don't really favor option A, as I think theres some pretty clear historical examples of mass deforestation being highly useful, at least in the short term.

 

[Quantum7]

I don't think that there can be any debate on the topic of "is chop-rushing good" because the obvious answer is "yes." I think the only way to make mass deforestation anything less than the best option would be to either: a) Greatly reduce the short term yeild of a forest chop, or b)Greatly increase the long term yeild of forest tiles.

Personaly I would favor option B, say, increasing the yeild of forest tiles by +1 production. This would make them pretty viable long term assets. I don't really favor option A, as I think theres some pretty clear historical examples of mass deforestation being highly useful, at least in the short term.

From a gameplay perspective that would be pretty interesting. Either chop forests for the immediate gain or gamble that you can survive without chopping until you can get the squares lumbermilled and outproduce your enemy .

 

[Uncle_Joe]

I don't think that there can be any debate on the topic of "is chop-rushing good" because the obvious answer is "yes."

Well, by 'good', I meant 'is it a good thing for the game from a design and strategy viewpoint', not good as in 'is it beneficial to do it in game'

And again, thats why I suggested lowering the base yield earlier in the game and then increasing it as the game goes till it gets to its present levels, perhaps at the same time that Lumber Mills are available.

To me, that gives the best of all worlds. People who want the quick hit early on can still get some of it, but its now ALWAYS beneficial to do so. People who hold out for later can get a bigger yield, but they sacrifice the early gain. Finally, people who want to hang onto and use the forests can do so knowing that they arent handicapping themselves so much in the early game.

When something like this ceases being a option and almost becomes a required (like at the higher difficulty levels or when playing MP), then the game's strategic depth suffers a little. Its far better to have multiple viable options to pick from rather than the 'must do' that we currently have. Granted the strategy becomes what to rush, but that still has less depth than if the decision whether to do it or not were ALSO viable.

 

[tezster]

This has been an interesting thread to follow.

I know a lot of people here are very good CIV players. And in the final analysis, for most people, the object is to win the game and maximize your score while playing at the highest difficulty possible.

To these players, the challenge of finding that optimal strategy, and playing as efficiently as possible: breaking down the game into a number-crunching, min-max excercise as of it were a game of chess is the way to go.

Personally, I don't find this "fun"... granted, I'm only an average CIV player, and I don't have a need (nor desire) to play in the highest difficulty levels.

I guess what I'm wondering is how many people play the game just for the sheer fun of it (like me), without necessarily thinking ahead to the endgame from turn 1. I do like to experiment and try different things, but what I do isn't necessarily dictated by winning the game, but simply enjoying the journey from start to finish.

Just as an example, on a lot of the games that I play, as a matter of principle - except for the need to harvest a resource - I don't forest chop at all.

I'd like to think that I'm not the only one that plays this way.

 

[ClamBoy]

....<snip> 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...<snip>

I like this idea a lot. Mess with the habitat too much and you lose the resource.

 

[DangerousMonkey]

Well, in answer to tezster and others like him, I would say that high end civ players do play the game sheerly for the fun of it, but they derive that fun from stratiegic thought. In order to think stratiegicly you have to have a goal, and for me that goal is to win. If you have some other goal you are going for, fine, but you are posting on the wrong forum. This particular area is for discussing how to win games. If you have a different goal that's fine, but you should probably stay out of the "Strategy & Tips" section of Civfanatics.