Redcoat1
Warlord
Does a Forest Preserve provide a benefit if it is within Cultural boundaries of a Civilization but outside all cities BFC?
Forest Preserve
- Thread starter Redcoat1
- Start date
Rusty Edge
Deity
I don't often play that late into history.
If I build a forest preserve, it's usually in the previously useless city of Tundropolis, which was only founded to secure some oil or gold in my trade network.
If I build a forest preserve, it's usually in the previously useless city of Tundropolis, which was only founded to secure some oil or gold in my trade network.
Lennier
Emperor
Forest preserves only provide happiness to the city that has it in it's BFC. (Whether or not the city has the National Park.) For the National Park city, each forest preserve also provides a "free" specialist.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
It was mentioned not long ago that the happiness bonus is applied to both cities if the preserve is in an overlap square. I haven't tested that yet though so make of it what you will.
Redcoat1
Warlord
Thanks for the help.
Confirms what I thought.
Been wasting my time building Preserves in many cases.
Confirms what I thought.
Been wasting my time building Preserves in many cases.
Seraiel
If you want anything from I please ask in German
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2011
- Messages
- 8,165
Preserves are really good, if you build the National Park in that city. A National-Park-GP-Farm is often even stronger then one with the NE, both together are a really really good combo, but it's often difficult to find a city for that. Late jungle-cities or tundra-ones are often the best choice imo.
Preserves can be a good choice even if it's not in the BFC of your NP city. In an ideal scenario, you're running environmentalism because you're choking from all the coal plants and you're hitting your happiness cap because you're in a prolonged war. In these situation, a forest shared between 2 cities can give each +1 happy, and the city working that tile gets a +2 gold (+3 if financial).
Generally I try to save 2-4 forests for a lot of cities. Preserves give me the option of turning those saved forests into extra
Generally I try to save 2-4 forests for a lot of cities. Preserves give me the option of turning those saved forests into extra
No, it has to be within the BFC of a city. The effect is not empire wide, however if two cities are sharing that tile the benefits are gained by both cities.
The health benefits of the Forest are also shared by the 2 cities.
You don't need the National Park for the happiness benefit, they provide it anywhere they're built
I do. I always make sure not to chop any Grassland Forest that's being shared by 2 cities, and I also overlap my BFCs, so I typically end up with several of them. I also try not to develop tiles that overlap and have a chance at growing a Forest at some point. Those are always the last to be developed, when I just don't have anything else to work.
Drakarska
Epic Dadness
Same here. I try to at least maintain 2 forests for later on if possible. Of course I play mods, so that may be why as well.
Drakarska
Epic Dadness
You know, I get that your a master player, and a wealth of knowledge base, but if it's ok with you Good Sir, I'd really kind like to play the way I enjoy playing in order to have fun instead of being told "your wrong". I understand that your trying to help, and it's definitely appreciated, but I'm not a deity level player, and on some of the mods I play, it's actually a good idea to have a forest or two.
Well first of all, it's not just for Happiness, Health benefits from Forests are also shared between cities. And I don't save my Forests simply because of the benefits, it just a matter of efficiency. If you can share benefits between 2 cities by saving one tile, why wouldn't you? If you add up what you gain and compare it to what you would get if you simply farmed the tile or put a Cottage on it, you're going to much better off keeping it. As far as I'm concerned, not saving Forests in those circumstances is wrong, and grossly inefficient.
Seraiel
If you want anything from I please ask in German
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2011
- Messages
- 8,165
As someone once said, you can play as efficiently as you want, but if you don't get out those Settlers early enough, you'll still lose.
I'm not advocating that you should refrain yourself from having fun, I simply always assume, that people in general want to master the difficulty levels and mods aren't even in my thoughts when writing such things, because they're actually not the real game.
I've simply seen it way too often, that people argue like "oh, Forrests are so good if you build Lumbermills on them" or "oh, Forrests give Health, I must keep them" and sometimes even "Forrests are like working an improved tile" , of which 1. means that their games last longer then needed, 2. very very seldomly is even true (talking about the Capital, as that's probably gonna be the only really big city, maybe also the GP-Farm) and 3. means they have absolutely no idea about whipping as long as Workshops need to be effective.
It is wrong to try to play beautiful, and sometimes (as the example shows) even efficiently, I fall in both traps still way too often too, so don't get this wrong, but just think of how the good Chess players own the noobs, they offer them their best figure, so just chop those Forrests, and conquer yourself some land with the units you get for them, you'll increase your production, you'll have more research potential, you'll have no happy- and healthiness problems, and on top, you'll simply win ^^ .
I'm not advocating that you should refrain yourself from having fun, I simply always assume, that people in general want to master the difficulty levels and mods aren't even in my thoughts when writing such things, because they're actually not the real game.
I've simply seen it way too often, that people argue like "oh, Forrests are so good if you build Lumbermills on them" or "oh, Forrests give Health, I must keep them" and sometimes even "Forrests are like working an improved tile" , of which 1. means that their games last longer then needed, 2. very very seldomly is even true (talking about the Capital, as that's probably gonna be the only really big city, maybe also the GP-Farm) and 3. means they have absolutely no idea about whipping as long as Workshops need to be effective.
It is wrong to try to play beautiful, and sometimes (as the example shows) even efficiently, I fall in both traps still way too often too, so don't get this wrong, but just think of how the good Chess players own the noobs, they offer them their best figure, so just chop those Forrests, and conquer yourself some land with the units you get for them, you'll increase your production, you'll have more research potential, you'll have no happy- and healthiness problems, and on top, you'll simply win ^^ .
If you are so worried about efficieny, why are you so worried about health? The two aren't compatible. If you're playing efficient, health won't be an issue because your cities won't grow large enough to hit the health cap until very late-game.
Secondly, the health cap itself is nowhere near as much of a problem as the happy cap. Usually you just lose a bit of food resulting in slightly slower growth. +1
from a forest in the BFC eventually saves you 1
. This really, really doesn't outweigh the early-game 
steroid which you need every last drop of to carry out your game strategy, be it an ancient or classic-era rush, bulbing engineering, winning lib, whatever.. Which is where the game is won and lost in my experience.Saving a forest would be an exceptional scenario where you really need the bonus
to keep the city growing early, for example if you settle in many many FPs. Don't do it just because you can, do it because you need the health now.
I never build Preserves as I usually have no forests left by the time they are available.
Besides, getting the trees into those little storage jars is difficult.
Besides, getting the trees into those little storage jars is difficult.
Similar threads
