Farms on Hills - Yeah or Nay?

[Stalker0]

So a few versions about the change was made that farms could no longer be put on hills even with access to water.

I was curious what people's thoughts on this change have been? Originally I think it made more sense because mines weren't always that good. Now I find mines to be pretty solid, they offer a LOT of hammers.

By allowing farms on mines, it gives you more choice in your terraforming. It also makes farm triangles easier (which people may argue is a good or bad thing). But it also means you are liking to see more farms and less mines, at least to a certain degree.

So overall what do people think?

 

[Bromar1]

I think it'd be better to have the option to build farms on hills, it would mostly be a qol change

 

[CrabHelmet]

I don't think it was a very meaningful change. If I remember rightly, it was done to encourage making Mines, but frankly speaking, Mines just aren't very good to work in most situations. Instead now I just leave doing anything to hills for ages. They're usually where I stuck Great Person improvements now.

 

[CrazyG]

I used to build farms on river hills quite often. It was much easier to get a farming triangle back then.

A mine on without a resource is just a weak tile conceptually. Very rarely will a city want to more than one of them.

 

[Almonds]

CrazyG put it well, and I'd also like to add that it does make gameplay sense sense to be able to improve your land to be more fertile around rivers, even if it's probably not ideal IRL. I wasn't active when this feature was removed, so did it make triangle farming too easy? Or was it simply that farms on hills are weird?

 

[Rekk]

CrazyG put it well, and I'd also like to add that it does make gameplay sense sense to be able to improve your land to be more fertile around rivers, even if it's probably not ideal IRL. I wasn't active when this feature was removed, so did it make triangle farming too easy? Or was it simply that farms on hills are weird?

This change happened at the same time as the change that gave farms on rivers +1 . I think it was used to reduce the amount of triangle farms that were able to spawn on the river.

 

[Gazebo]

This change happened at the same time as the change that gave farms on rivers +1 . I think it was used to reduce the amount of triangle farms that were able to spawn on the river.

This is accurate. Y'all are forgetting about that buff.

G

 

[CppMaster]

How about if you can unlock building farm on hills with fresh water with certain tech like Civil Service? IIRC It used to buff farms in Vanilla.

 

[ofmiciv5]

how about having a triangle mine to buff it up like farm? seems reasonable?

I used to build farms on river hills quite often. It was much easier to get a farming triangle back then.

A mine on without a resource is just a weak tile conceptually. Very rarely will a city want to more than one of them.

 

[CrazyG]

how about having a triangle mine to buff it up like farm? seems reasonable?

I think it would change the game very little. Its hard to find places to get a mine triangle. I can only work so many non-food tiles and I usually want specialists. I don't see myself working 3 resourcless mines in a city very often. A city with a ton of hills, the kind that could build a few triangles, already has food problems. I don't think cities not working more than 2 mines is a problem at all and doesn't need a change to address it.

 

[ofmiciv5]

I think it would change the game very little. Its hard to find places to get a mine triangle. I can only work so many non-food tiles and I usually want specialists. I don't see myself working 3 resourcless mines in a city very often. A city with a ton of hills, the kind that could build a few triangles, already has food problems. I don't think cities not working more than 2 mines is a problem at all and doesn't need a change to address it.

i'm not a godly player and only plays up to emperor and that would be good option. somehow it helps on projects (world fair etc), new cities (would just send a route on food to grow it up. or perhaps... i'm NOT playing the game correctly because your opinion says otherwise. i mean, you seemed like a diety player.

now on the topic, i think.... YEAH? but how does that affects the UI on inca? the terrace farm would look like a joke.

 

[pineappledan]

I liked the change when it was implemented, and I still support the decision to keep farms off hills.

• It makes Inca more special
• It makes the availability of triangle farms a significant factor for where to settle, rather than a trivial thing
• It differentiates tiles more, and makes hill vs flatland a larger factor in city planning and tiles improvement orders

Overall I think limiting farms has made farms a more engaging aspect.

 

[TwoPodRay]

I liked the change when it was implemented, and I still support the decision to keep farms off hills.

• It makes Inca more special
• It makes the availability of triangle farms a significant factor for where to settle, rather than a trivial thing
• It differentiates tiles more, and makes hill vs flatland a larger factor in city planning and tiles improvement orders

Overall I think limiting farms has made farms a more engaging aspect.

I agree with this line of reasoning.

I also stopped building mines on resource-less tiles after distress was added. I much prefer Lumbermills, since they have a bit of both food and production, though I do play with Reforestation mod.

Should there be any bonus to having a triangle of Lumbermills? Would this add any strategic options or factors to this improvement? Or triangle Logging Camps (which I find extremely underwhelming and almost never build in their current state)?

 

[Bromar1]

Or triangle Logging Camps (which I find extremely underwhelming and almost never build in their current state)?

Yeah +1 prod on lumber Mills is much better than +1 gold on logging camps. Maybe should just be +1prod on both?

 

[TwoPodRay]

Yeah +1 prod on lumber Mills is much better than +1 gold on logging camps. Maybe should just be +1prod on both?

Well I like that they have a specialization of gold or maybe could be science, it’s just not enough. I’d rather build villages for a good mix of yields plus gold and culture.

 

[CrazyG]

Lumber mills could use a buff but I don't a triangle is the right approach.

Edit: I meant logging camps, the one on jungle. Forests become a good tile. Jungle does not.

 

[chicorbeef]

Mines are fine really, imo. And I'm not in the camp that says freshwater hill farms should be allowed.

For Lumber Mills/Logging Camps, I think they could just come earlier. Having to wait till Machinery to get Logging Camps is kind of a long time.

 

[neo_arcadia]

Is there any early building that buffs farm similar to "+2 production for mines" from forge?

 

[CrazyG]

Is there any early building that buffs farm similar to "+2 production for mines" from forge?

No

 

[tu_79]

Lumber mills could use a buff but I don't a triangle is the right approach.

Edit: I meant logging camps, the one on jungle. Forests become a good tile. Jungle does not.

They could give a bit more gold, especially given how late they are built. Gold is just less valuable than production, but it has its uses (unit upgrades, yeah). Alternatively, more science, but we risk science civs letting all jungles be on purpose, like in vanilla.

Having them available sooner will ruin the RL effect of most forests being chopped by certain date.