Forest Preserve

[s.bernbaum]

I was under the impression that a lumber mill stops that forest from spreading, and preserves doubles growth.

I was under that impression regarding lumber mills as well but in a recent game I decided to check it out. I cut one forest and lumber milled its neighbors. Elsewhere on the map, on the same types of tiles, I left the cut forest tile's neighboring remaining forests undeveloped. New forests grew in both places, at about the same rate. This was on marathon in a space race game. As to the preserves, I don't build enough of them to have a definite answer as to whether or not they increase the odds.

 

[Gregonar]

...seriously, 400% and more bonuses on almost everything are nothing but insane. It's actually amazing, that AI is scripted that bad, that it can lose with those bonuses at all.
Seraiel

Indeed.

Yet somehow I personally find playing on NOBLE versus humans to be much more interesting than playing the AI at any level.

I find that playing the AI at Emperor and above forces me to play a certain style, not unlike what you suggest. However, I think that playing vs people is much more unpredictable and requires more engagement and thought every turn.

 

[Gregonar]

And to bring it back on topic...I don't get the opportunity to build preserves very often in mp games. I only remember a couple of instances of riflemen/infantry slugfests where I was getting -10 happy per city from a combination of WW/no emancipation/Zeus and I used my idle workers to change a few lumbermills to preserves.

 

[pob]

I was under the impression that... preserves doubles growth.

I've since looked this up; a forest preserve makes it 8 times more likely that the forest will spread.

 

[Robert Mokler]

Because CIV Deity AI is the greatest challenge I've yet found. I've played numerous other games prior to CIV, but neither one was so difficult, and none had a community comeing only near to the one on Civfanatics.

Hey Seraiel! Have you tried playing multiplayer? I was getting to the point where I was feeling unchallenged in civ, and then I started playing multiplayer and it's totally re-invented the game! I've never looked back, and now I mostly only play single player games to test out strategies for upcoming multiplayer games!!! If you don't even make it to railroad on a single player game then it's basically wasting 1/2 the code that the good people at fraxis slaved over. A modern era war is unbeatable for fun of play in multiplayer. Add to that the fact that a experienced human player is incomparably better as a general in the field then the AI, and I think it could give you the challenge you're looking for...

 

[Seraiel]

Hi Robert

I've played PvP the last 10y of my life (not in CIV) . I think I've actually grown out of it, and I do not like that there is no real possibility to pause a game frequently, because it'd mean to let the other players wait. I also have think, that CIV-PvP wouldn't bring me as much joy as I had in MMO's, Shooters or RTS, because CIV has the RNG, and I could never get over having lost to another player because of bad luck.

Atm. I'm happy with as it is, because beating the winning dates that were scored by other skilled players in the HoF is already very challenging and takes a lot from me, while trying to get an Elite Quattromaster forces me to play games that are really different from each other, as I have to achieve 2 wins on every map, 2 with every Civilization, 2 on each speed, and so on.

Playing PvP again, would be a step in the wrong direction for me[/b], but like the song "1 step forward 2 steps backwards", I cannot garantuee that I will forever stay away from it. Chances are good that I'll start on Elders Scrolls Online once it's available.

Regards,

Seraiel

 

[AdamCrock]

It sounds funny but I think that everything that is evil is good in Civ 4 Chopping forests, killing little fur animals for their pelts, forcing Your religion on another, razing cities, slavery , whipping, draft ]:-> (aka. forcing Your citizens to go to war while You whip the rest) ... nuke mayhem (aka. capturing whole empires on one turn ) this game should be 18+ hehehe

 

[Antilogic]

There are nukes in this game?

 

[AdamCrock]

I wouldn't call 'em nukes either because thay don't have enough kick to raze a city in one shot, but yeah they are there (with limited functionality but still somewhat worth the effort )

 

[s.bernbaum]

…. killing little fur animals for their pelts ...

This one does not fit, despite the beliefs of the bleeding heart crowd. The eras where fur is available in CIV are before the creation of modern artificial fibers, just like in the real world. At that time fur was used to keep people warm. It was not done for luxury or avarice but to keep from freezing to death.

 

[AdamCrock]

This one does not fit, despite the beliefs of the bleeding heart crowd. The eras where fur is available in CIV are before the creation of modern artificial fibers, just like in the real world. At that time fur was used to keep people warm. It was not done for luxury or avarice but to keep from freezing to death.

You're right I just wanted to add a little dramaticism to my description

 

[Antilogic]

Nah, you see, they are artificial beavers so their pelts are also artificial. Perfectly fine.

 

[Macksideshow]

I just want to say Sariel that simply asserting your point is correct because you claim to be awesome is extremely arrogant.

I usually chop most forests. I am too intellectually lazy to actually do some calculations and generally just wing things but I suspect there are certain situations where not chopping is better. Maybe not in your strategies but you don't know what you don't know so maybe you could learn something by not being so arrogant. You assume people come here to learn, you come here, are you not a person?

I like the checkerboard suggestion and I never realized forest preserves was a 8x regrowth boost. Everything in Civ is situational, if you are as good as you think you are you would know that. So about the only thing that is wrong is saying "Not chopping forests is (always) wrong"

 

[Seraiel]

"If you want to make your words count, you have to put a weapon behind them." Arrogance is one.

Regarding the regrowth of Preserves:

I knew that, because I found out in Replay #5, a game that is well documented and that I played a year ago (link in Signature) . What you're assuming is, that I didn't know it because I didn't teach it, but the reason to not do that, is, that Preserves come with Scientific Method, and the advice people get from me, is how to win the game before that, because I cannot imagine why winning later should be better.

So at least, we're both wrong, and what you're misunderstanding, is that I'm trying to give simple advice that will get people further, because I made the experience that one needs things to rely on.

What you should not forget, is, that even wrong advice, sometimes is the right advice.

 

[Macksideshow]

Lol arrogance is a pretty lame weapon.

I was just saying that I didn't know that preserves gave 8x bonus as a way of thanking the other contributors to the thread.

I take your point with regards to wrong (simplified) advice sometimes being the right advice.

EDIT: I can see you are very good at this game, I would like more justification of your arguments.

 

[Seraiel]

Arrogance is a pretty easy weapon that takes less effort, the really harsh one's are reserved for the really important cases :> .

I'm scary of justifying myself even more, because I already do that way to often. I could try to write a little less though and care a little more about the quality of what I write again, as I know I cut a little too hard on that lately, but seeing the same discussions from year to year contributed towards this behaviour.

Regarding Forrests it's actually really simple.

Hammers in the early game, are the rarest thing available, and they're the most valuable thing available. Getting 30 hammers from a chop is about 3 times as much, as a city at that time produces normally, which is not even important, because chops + normal production stacks. The time until Preserves are available is so long, that even if they'd have to be Goldmines to even come close to what the cities one can conquer with the units built by them can produce. And even if they were Goldmines, it wouldn't matter that much, because at the time those mines would be available, one could also have a fully grown Town on that place, which would be even better. Conquering cities giving resources solves the problems with the Healthiness, that some people argue for. It conquers the problems with Happiness too, and the advantages you get from the new cities multiply over time with even further cities conquered, resulting in an overall better winning date. So the problems Forrests or even Preserves solve, would not even exist if they were chopped in first place. Chopping basically is a totally unbalanced tactic, as it's Hammer-bonus is way too large and as improved tiles are even stronger than forrested ones via the various Civics. The fact that a Worker is built (or stolen ) once, but works for free from that point onwards, makes Forrests free Hammers in CIV, and it's hard to argue about something that's free and that benefits, right? :>

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Arrogance is a pretty easy weapon that takes less effort, the really harsh one's are reserved for the really important cases :> .

I'm scary of justifying myself even more, because I already do that way to often. I could try to write a little less though and care a little more about the quality of what I write again, as I know I cut a little too hard on that lately, but seeing the same discussions from year to year contributed towards this behaviour.

Regarding Forrests it's actually really simple.

Hammers in the early game, are the rarest thing available, and they're the most valuable thing available. Getting 30 hammers from a chop is about 3 times as much, as a city at that time produces normally, which is not even important, because chops + normal production stacks. The time until Preserves are available is so long, that even if they'd have to be Goldmines to even come close to what the cities one can conquer with the units built by them can produce. And even if they were Goldmines, it wouldn't matter that much, because at the time those mines would be available, one could also have a fully grown Town on that place, which would be even better. Conquering cities giving resources solves the problems with the Healthiness, that some people argue for. It conquers the problems with Happiness too, and the advantages you get from the new cities multiply over time with even further cities conquered, resulting in an overall better winning date. So the problems Forrests or even Preserves solve, would not even exist if they were chopped in first place. Chopping basically is a totally unbalanced tactic, as it's Hammer-bonus is way too large and as improved tiles are even stronger than forrested ones via the various Civics. The fact that a Worker is built (or stolen ) once, but works for free from that point onwards, makes Forrests free Hammers in CIV, and it's hard to argue about something that's free and that benefits, right? :>

They aren't free. They have the cost of lost future opportunities. Higher health cap in the modern era. Higher happy cap in the modern era from preserves. Available hammers (through rail connected lumbermill) in the modern era, when things cost a LOT of hammers. Of course, you consider playing in the modern era a lost game, so clearcutting represents no loss to you.

 

[Macksideshow]

I do chop forests into units to conquer cities, its a very profitable business model but what sometimes (more than sometimes less than often) limits that is not the number of forests I have but the maintenance burden of the cities I have conquered.

I will reach a point where I need to consolidate my economy and that can lead to a situation where my cities grow to their health cap as well as increasing their base hammer output and I decide a forest is worth more as the 1 food per turn saved as opposed to the the 30 hammer boost from chopping it. Especially when I factor in the future value of lumbermills, preserves or maybe even national park.

I can only finish a game before lumbermills/railroad on a pangea map and I don't always play them. I am on board that pangea map = chop all the forests but I dont know if its that simple on other map types.

EDIT: chopping forests also has the worker opportunity cost or the opportunity cost of building extra workers to cover that. I probably don't build enough workers which does lead to sub optimal chopping I think. Also, conquering health resources requires infra that one may not have or even be able to build early game.

 

[Tigranes]

Indeed.

Yet somehow I personally find playing on NOBLE versus humans to be much more interesting than playing the AI at any level.

I find that playing the AI at Emperor and above forces me to play a certain style, not unlike what you suggest. However, I think that playing vs people is much more unpredictable and requires more engagement and thought every turn.

I agree, and even opened a thread about it. Do you personally play PBEMs with mods? No WW2 victory feels as sweet and magnificent as when you win against humans!

 

[traius]

@ Timsup2nothing

You still aren't getting what Seraiel is saying. You say it has an opportunity cost of lost health and happy cap, but what seraiel has already explicitly said is that if you chopped, use the chop to make military units, and conquered earlier, you would have more health and happiness resources.
So let's break that down. You save forests so that 1 city (2 if overlapped) gets a health "bonus". Well, you only get that if you save 2 forests, and only for 1-2 cities. But if you had chopped and made Axes/HA's or some other unit and taken a city with a crab (or any other health resource) you didn't have, EVERY city in your empire would have an extra health, not just 1-2 cities. That's a net GAIN in health. So their is no opportunity cost in health.
Next you say forest preserves for happiness. But there is the exact same argument, that if you took a city with a happiness resource you didn't have, ALL your cities would gain happiness, instead of just one. Finally, with the happiness argument, happiness only matters when your cities are getting large. When they are getting large, they have to use tiles, or the happiness is pointless. If the happiness is only being used to work a crappy forest preserve tile, that's just slightly better than an unimproved tile (and much worse than a universal suffrage town). If you had chopped it, got an army and took a happiness resource, then put a workshop or something else on the tile, you would have the same happiness in that city, more in other cities, and be working a better tile right now, AND have crippled an opponent much earlier in the game so they are never a threat to you later in the game. Forest preserves are bad. Just bad.
Lumbermills are all right, but a SP workshop produces the same. So if I can get the exact same tile output, but with a bonus of extra hammers early in the game where it counts for the most, I would simply take the bonus hamers when it counts for the most. No opporutnity cost in hammers either.
So in the end, the only opportunity cost is in worker turns. I could have improved some other tile with the workers. But very very often, the best thing I could do with my worker turn IS chopping, so that is why I do it.