Chopping and Balance

[DSChapin]

One thing that has long struck me as essentially unbalanced in Civ IV is the power of chopping. While there is still a healthy (no pun intended) debate about whether to chop all your forests or not, almost every high-level strategy treats chopping not just as a useful tool, but as a centerpiece of the path to victory. The only thing with similar overimportance is the use of cottages (often with the Financial trait).

But I see very few mods that attempt to reduce the power of chopping. Is that because people don't see it as a problem? Or for some other reason?

In my home games, I've modded chopping to give 1/3 of the vanilla reward, and my personal feeling is that it makes for better gameplay. But I'm interested to know what other Civ players have to say. What do you think?

 

[Raisin Bran]

Im a chopper myself. I love to chop rush the pyramids to get the civics ... in all the games I play I dont even try to found a religion I rather rush for the pyramids as it leaves me the options to research other tecs and to forget others ... (if I get the pyramids I never research monarchy if I dont have wine in my borders. I research it when im obligated or when Im way better that the other civs in the tech race !)

IMHO

In Bran We Trust!

 

[GiantRaven]

I've never thought it was unbalenced

 

[olafM]

wood once was a strategic resource, why shouldnt it play a big role ?
maybe you find it overrated in comparison to other
resources (i dont), but once woods chopped down its gone.

 

[Kalleyao]

I think chopping is fine.

 

[King Flevance]

I can see where an unbalanced viewpoint can come in but I think it should stay as it is. I think the over emphasis on cottages as more of a problem than chopping myself.

 

[Qwack]

I will agree that both cottages and chopping seem to be a bit too strong/important in most strategies I have seen posted in these forums.

I think alot of people that think chopping isnt unbalanced think that way because most of thier strategies require chopping and if chopping is weakened they will have to adapt differently.

I think the return on chopping should be around 25% less. Either that or make lumbermills a bit earlier in the tech tree(machinery possibly) or make them stronger than they are currently..

 

[Breunor]

Unfortuantely, I think chopping is an 'issue'. I don't play on the highest levels, I'm not good enough. But the people that do say they NEED chopping to stay in the game.

At lower levels, it is probably still the best strategy. IF it is, then chopping isn't a good game element because it reduces the otherwise neat choice at the beginning of the game (should I chop, build fishing to get clams, agriculture for my farms, etc.). If its just chopping, it makes the game less fun since there is less choice (at least for me).

However, if they nerf chopping, will the game simply be impossbile on higher levels?

So, I don't want to vote. Reducing chopping's power would be good for ME, but I don't want to make a change that makes the game less fun for players at higher levels.

Best wishes,

Breunor

 

[Kerrang]

I voted "somewhat unbalanced but should stay as is" because I did not see another option that reflected the change I think should be made.

I think the most unbalanced thing about chopping is the ability to switch your production to workers or settlers just before the chop is finished to get them produced without impacting your population. Something needs to be implemented to prevent this from happening, but otherwise I think chopping is fine as is. The question becomes, what can be done?

There are a couple of angles that the problem can be attacked from. One way would be to disallow switching production to these two unit types, or from building production to unit production (or some combination). Along the same lines, penalties could be imposed for making these production switches.

Another way to address the issue would be to reduce or eliminate the hammer value of chops for these two unit types. The difference in hammers could either be discarded, diverted to the next closest city, or held over for the next unit produced by the city. In the latter two cases, the same restrictions should be imposed if the next city or queued production is producing a worker or settler.

Finally, the problem could be solved by reducing the food yield of a city by the number of hammers brought in by the chop if it is applied to a worker or settler. This should also effect the food yield for the city for whatever number of turns it takes to make up for the hammers brought in. So if you chop for 30 hammers, applying all of it to the production of a Settler, and the food yield of a city is 3 per turn, the city would be reduced to 0 food for 10 turns, leading to starvation, and a similar loss in population as there would have been had the city been producing a Settler all along.

Of course there are challenges to implementing each of these suggestions, but I am sure the fine programmers at Firaxis will be able to work it out (I believe the problem is being addressed in the upcoming 1.53 patch).

 

[History_Buff]

There should be an environmental aspect to chopping. Many a civilization has been done in when they chopped their way into massive ecological disruption, like the Easter Islanders, the Anasazi, the Mayans, Iceland, etc. How you implement that I don't know, but it should definitely be a factor.

 

[tombeef]

when I first started playing I never chopped. Now that I do, I've been able to win sooner, and on higher difficulty levels. I think its unbalanced, and I'm surprised so many people don't think it is.

 

[cthom]

There should be an environmental aspect to chopping. Many a civilization has been done in when they chopped their way into massive ecological disruption, like the Easter Islanders, the Anasazi, the Mayans, Iceland, etc. How you implement that I don't know, but it should definitely be a factor.

the romans chopped their once highly productive north african colonies into desert. they said 'nature has let us down', it was the other way round. no trees, no soil binding...

oh, i forgot about the great dustbowl in modern times, too. the civ answer would be to make useless desert tiles.

 

[Thyrwyn]

The power of chopping is huge. Too huge. Given the fact that it is tied to Bronze Working makes that tech far too important. I think chopping would be more balanced if it were possible from the start, but the yield started much lower and increased with the discovery of certain techs.

 

[scienide09]

Given that the AI doesn't use the chopping strategy (at least, not that I've seen), I'd say unbalanced.

 

[Dusty Monkey]

Given that chopping isnt at all necessary on Noble (the "balanced" level of play), i'd say that no.. its not overpowered at all.

Drop down a notch and stop chopping if that suits you. Seriously!!

Let the rest of us have our fun on Immortal and Deity moving from forest to forest smashing cities and chopping units before our steam runs out... even *with* completely unregulated chop-whoring, continental Deity is damn near impossible without a really good start.

 

[DSChapin]

At lower levels, it is probably still the best strategy. IF it is, then chopping isn't a good game element because it reduces the otherwise neat choice at the beginning of the game (should I chop, build fishing to get clams, agriculture for my farms, etc.). If its just chopping, it makes the game less fun since there is less choice (at least for me).

That's absolutely where I'm coming from on this. The best part of Civilization IV is that it adequately supports multiple paths to success/victory. Any situation where there is "one best path" makes the game not only less challenging, but less interesting.

 

[DSChapin]

I voted "somewhat unbalanced but should stay as is" because I did not see another option that reflected the change I think should be made.

I think the most unbalanced thing about chopping is the ability to switch your production to workers or settlers just before the chop is finished to get them produced without impacting your population.

Interesting point. I think you're definitely on to something there, though I'd argue that chopping for Wonders is also problematic. Should people really be able to power through mid-game Wonders by cutting down a whole bunch of forests at once?

 

[Olleus]

make the chopped forest square something really bad (like a tundra but named differently), and every turn their is 5% chance of it turning into a grassland or plain. Making it the exact opposite could work to and is probably more realistic but wouldn't penalise you in the early game.

 

[BeefontheBone]

I think the most unbalanced thing about chopping is the ability to switch your production to workers or settlers just before the chop is finished to get them produced without impacting your population

That's not an issue - the cost of those units is high to reflect the way you can put excess food towards them as well as hammers, which is what you miss out on if you chop them.

 

[Roland Johansen]

The power of chopping is huge. Too huge. Given the fact that it is tied to Bronze Working makes that tech far too important. I think chopping would be more balanced if it were possible from the start, but the yield started much lower and increased with the discovery of certain techs.

I agree. It would balance it and it would be realistic. Forests were burned down to make the land useful as farmland. Later, forests were indeed used for the wood they provided. Civilizations that thrived started in food-rich areas, not in dense forests. In civilization 4, it is the other way around.

But in earnest, the realism part has little to do with it. It should be about gameplay. 8 forests around a city represent 240 hammers worth of production (at normal speed) ready for the plucking. How can anyone look at that number and not say that it is unbalanced. That amount of production is enough for an early wonder (or a few settlers). Wonders shouldn't be available that easy. It should be a large investment of time of a city. And that's just one city. These heaps of production are spread all over the map.

I agree with the OP. I have also reduced the value of chopping (to 1/2 of the original value). Maybe, I'll reduce it further. I agree that it makes the game a bit harder, but that means that the AI needs less bonusses to pose a challenge, which is a good thing.

I play at immortal level at the moment with these rules. Deity at the next game, see how it goes. A game that depends on one type of strategy is not a strategy game.