Forest Chopping - A Practical Test

[Zombie69]

I'm pretty sure the developers meant for this to be possible. They just didn't expect it to be so powerful (chopping in general).

 

[Pvblivs]

Why then isn't then just a button there for this if it was all intended.

"Turn off growth penalty"

Silly me, I should have thought about that!

 

[DaviddesJ]

Why then isn't then just a button there for this if it was all intended.

Boy, this has been discussed over and over.

There's no evidence that the designers intended a "growth penalty" when producing settlers and workers. The most straightforward explanation of how the game works is that (1) they wanted to allow cities with extra food to use that food to help produce settlers and workers---much as in Civ3, except that here the food goes directly to the settler or worker rather than into population that is then converted into the settler or worker, and (2) they wanted to keep the mechanism as simple as possible.

It's also important to repeat that the mid-turn switch is almost immaterial. You can get 90% of the benefit without ever changing production in mid-turn.

Chopping is worth too much. And chopping early workers and settlers is especially overpowered. And chopping wonders is also overpowered. But the whole "grow while chopping settlers" thing is a negligible part of it.

 

[kthcurtis]

While on the subject of chopping and early settler production, I have not seen anything in this thread addressing the additional option of irrigation/resource development vs. non-stop chop. One helpful thing I have noticed is that in the prodution of worker/settler the game considers a food to be the equivalent of a shield. So, any time you have 3F1G, it trumps any other undeveloped starting tile (ex. oasis) WHEN you are producing w/s. By irrigating this you get a quick "convertible shield" (ex. oasis). Similar & varied benefits via fishboat, mine, and pasture among the early options (well, depending on when you choose to get fishing).

 

[Paul Saunders]

There's no evidence that the designers intended a "growth penalty" when producing settlers and workers.

Yes there is, on page 160 of the manual; "cities simply stop growing while settlers and workers are created (with the food now turned into production)"

The most straightforward explanation of how the game works is that (1) they wanted to allow cities with extra food to use that food to help produce settlers and workers---much as in Civ3, except that here the food goes directly to the settler or worker rather than into population that is then converted into the settler or worker, and (2) they wanted to keep the mechanism as simple as possible.

The full explanation is as follows;

"We also looked at what game mechanics tripped up new players. One common example involved settlers and workers consuming population - cities could be finished building the units, but they wouldn't pop out unless the city was the correct size. In Civ IV, cities simply stop growing while settlers and workers are created (with the food now turned into production). This small difference took out one more little gameplay trap for first timers."

So the reason for the change is that the old way of doing things tripped up the newbies. By turning food into production, the food is then used to build the settlers and workers directly, instead of causing the city to grow and subsequently shrink when the unit is built.

So clearly settlers are meant to be built from food (or previously population, which was created by food), but now we have an illogical situation where settlers are being created purely from production. Settlers made of wood?

The intention was to make things easier for first timers, but it's had the unexpected side-effect of creating a loophole which allows more experienced players to create settlers from forests alone, which in my opinion is not in the spirit of the game. It wouldn't surprise me if they fix this loophole in a future patch, perhaps by not allowing forest chops to contribute to settler/worker production?

Chopping is worth too much. And chopping early workers and settlers is especially overpowered. And chopping wonders is also overpowered.

I don't think it is. Personally I like the advantages of keeping some forests (long term production, health, future benefits, defence bonus) so the production bonus for chopping has quite a few downsides (depending on your preferred game strategy). I do think that using it exclusively for workers and settlers is wrong in principle, and extra bonuses (like double for stone) is also wrong.

But the whole "grow while chopping settlers" thing is a negligible part of it.

And yet, when I described how I used the strategy, I was criticised for not growing whilst chopping. Apparently I'd have done much better if I'd grown in between chops, so why do you say the effect is negligible?

I think that being able to grow your cities while you produce settlers is a major advantage over the old way of doing things, albeit at the cost of lots of fiddly micro-management, something which the designers have specifically tried to minimise in Civ IV, so that also goes against the spirit of the new rules.

Paul

 

[DaviddesJ]

Yes there is, on page 160 of the manual; "cities simply stop growing while settlers and workers are created (with the food now turned into production)"

That doesn't say that it's intended to be a penalty. (And it's not, in general.) It's just intended to convert food into settlers and workers, as the further text you quote describes in great detail. Nowhere does this say that the design goal is to make it harder for people to grow their cities when they are producing settlers and workers; that is just a side effect. Sometimes it's a disadvantage, but sometimes it's an advantage.

So clearly settlers are meant to be built from food (or previously population, which was created by food), but now we have an illogical situation where settlers are being created purely from production. Settlers made of wood?

I also agree that that's undesirable. But it's a different issue---it applies whether or not you chop/switch, or just chop the settlers without switching.

And yet, when I described how I used the strategy, I was criticised for not growing whilst chopping. Apparently I'd have done much better if I'd grown in between chops, so why do you say the effect is negligible?

Because the people who criticized you are wrong.

 

[IvanCG]

Scuse me if I'm saying a stupid thing (I'm a newbie), but maybe in one of the eventually incoming patches they can change the things a little. For example one hammer used for producing a worker/settler will count only as 0.5.
One chop on normal speed will produce a maximum of 15 hammers (depending on the distance between the forest and the city).
Eventually if you will change production from worker/settler you will lose the hammers stored (so you will not be tempted to micromanage the city to allow growth and worker/settler production in the same time).

But again, I'm a newbie so I cannot foresee the eventual downsides of such changes in the gameplay.

 

[Innawerkz]

Scuse me if I'm saying a stupid thing (I'm a newbie), but maybe in one of the eventually incoming patches they can change the things a little. For example one hammer used for producing a worker/settler will count only as 0.5...

...But again, I'm a newbie so I cannot foresee the eventual downsides of such changes in the gameplay.

I agree with you in principle, but then the higher difficulties would need to be tweaked to account for this change. It is quite difficult without a high-quality start (lots of food & production bonus tiles) to maintain pace above monarch without some form of chop-rushing workers/settlers. These kinds of starts are fluke & few the higher you go.

I feel chop-rushing is a mild exploit, but it is rewarding to manage it effectively - especially now with DaviddesJ 's help on a simpler way of doing it.

 

[DaviddesJ]

I agree with you in principle, but then the higher difficulties would need to be tweaked to account for this change.

I don't agree. It's a good thing if the higher difficulties become harder to beat. That's what everyone says they want: an AI that is more competitive with lower handicaps.