forest chopping

[dlsmith2]

new to the forum so not sure if this has been asked before but i couldnt find any answers for civ 3 only 4. what is the best forest chopping strategy for civ 3? Eliminate all forests? Keep some ratio? 50/50? 60/40? Is there any benefit to keeping any forests at all? Thanks and any help is appreciated

 

[Donny Brook]

Here's everthing-you-always-wanted-to-know-about-forests and you weren't afraid to ask! It's not as easy to find as it should be - I just happened to know where it was.

http://www.civfanatics.com/content/civ3/strategy/cracker/civ3_starts/forestry.htm

 

[Spoonwood]

Sorry Donny Brook, but that's not everything. In Vanilla/PTW it takes 10 turns to chop a forest with a non-industrious worker. In Conquests it takes only 4. With Industrious workers it takes 5 turns in Vanilla and 3 in Conquests. The power graphs don't take this into account (it got written before Conquests existed, so why would it?). This "When two or more towns can overlap the same square of forest, the harvest bonus will go to the town that is working the forest square at the moment the forest is harvested." also doesn't come as correct.

I think it best to chop a forest in every square that you can. It can work out as a nice boost even to plant and chop forests, so long as you've managed to keep track of which squares you've chopped and which you haven't (screenshots might help here).

Addendum: Pre-sanitation and rails, in *regular* grassland squares, planting a forest can give you an extra shield, or on grassland food bonuses like cattle, wheat, and game also if you don't need the food for growth.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

This "When two or more towns can overlap the same square of forest, the harvest bonus will go to the town that is working the forest square at the moment the forest is harvested." also doesn't come as correct.

You are absolutely right, it doesn't work like that. Distance is used as a first tie breaker (rounded down), and "the clock" as a second tie breaker - both seen from the forest. You could use the numbers pad to show where the chop would go:
9-6-3-2-1-4-7-8
98-96-66-63-32-22-21-14-...-88

But really, I think the best mnemonic is to imagine a clockface on the forest.

(*Wealth* and Great/Small Wonders can be used to direct the chops)

 

[ecuwins]

(*Wealth* and Great/Small Wonders can be used to direct the chops)

So if there is a distance tie and one city is set to wealth or wonder, then the chop goes to the other city? Irregardless of the "clock"?

 

[Mathias]

Even if the wonder-building city is closer, the shields will go the other city. It is as thought the city building a wonder wasn't even there.

 

[Spoonwood]

It isn't. Because wonders don't exist

 

[Argetnyx]

only chop the forests you need, and any forests outside of the range of cities (they can't benefit off of them) dont cut, its a waste of time.

 

[Spoonwood]

You can get the shields from any spot within the fat X. It need not lie within your cultural borders.

 

[Bartleby]

I'd go as far as to say you should plant forests outside your borders--so when global warming starts to strike, it'll strike there and not in your grasslands.

 

[Aegis]

I do my best to chop forests, but there usually more pressing matters to take care of before I do that. It's a real pain when you have a forest adjacent to a city that is under attack and the AI can get that defensive bonus.

 

[Aabraxan]

The one thing that I would add to this discussion: Chop for structures, not units. I'd much rather have those shields added to a granary or rax than to a unit which could be lost in combat.

 

[Argetnyx]

To Spoonwood and Bartleby: thats kinda what I meant, it just didn't come out that way.

 

[Spoonwood]

I'd go as far as to say you should plant forests outside your borders--so when global warming starts to strike, it'll strike there and not in your grasslands.

Only a histographic player or maybe a Cheiftain or Warlord player would say such. But, Bartleby's probably right here.

 

[Argetnyx]

Outside of borders is only an option when you have a whole load of extra workers at your disposal.

 

[Bartleby]

You got me there. I am a histographic player, and I usually end up with hundreds of slaves.

 

[CommandoBob]

The one thing that I would add to this discussion: Chop for structures, not units. I'd much rather have those shields added to a granary or rax than to a unit which could be lost in combat.

Chopping to help a settler build is generally a good idea, too, since it will become a city in due time.

One chop can build a worker in one turn, but workers are usually built, not chopped.

About the only time I've chopped for a worker is in a large, captured city far from my capital that I am trying to starve down to reduce the flip risk of that city. That forest chop reduces a cranky/rebellious city in size and gives me a slave, which requires no upkeep. Not bad for chopping one forest.

But chopping for a Warrior, or Sword or Rifle or Tank? Don't do it.

 

[Aabraxan]

All good points, CB. I didn't even think about settlers or workers when I wrote that. Just had combat units on my mind.

 

[Argetnyx]

I only chop when I really need it.

 

[Chamnix]

The one thing that I would add to this discussion: Chop for structures, not units. I'd much rather have those shields added to a granary or rax than to a unit which could be lost in combat.

But chopping for a Warrior, or Sword or Rifle or Tank? Don't do it.

Why? Ten shields are ten shields. If units are what you need, and units are what you are building, and you have forests that should come down, and you can spare the worker turns, chop away.

It is easier to chop toward infrastructure because in general it costs more so it is easier to time the chop to make sure you aren't wasting it, but other than that, I don't see why you should prefer chopping infrastructure to chopping units.