Forest Preserve

[Drakarska]

On the other side of this running commentary, there are those of us few individuals who actually like to play a full game our way instead of blitzing at a maniacal pace just to win the game as early as possible. Additionally, the pointed comments of "your wrong" or other even harsher epitaphs aren't really needed just because some of us enjoy playing the game a specific way.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Traius, the key word in what I said is 'higher'. You and Seraiel (et al) chop and rush for the resources, and I have no problem with that. You get more cap than you lose from chopping the forests so you are ahead of having just kept the forests. I have no doubt that you do get more cap than you lose so you come out ahead. But if you keep the forests and claim the resources then you have a higher cap than you get from just claiming the resources. As long as X and Y are both positive X+Y will always be greater than either one.

As I said, this higher cap shows up too late to matter to Seraiel, which is fine with me. It shows up too late to matter to you, which is also fine with me. I just enjoy having the outcome of the game still be in doubt in the industrial era so I play differently than you. Thanks for breaking it down, but I actually understood the first time.

 

[Macksideshow]

Thanks for your analysis Traius. I am new to looking at civ from such an economics point of view but I think you have missed some things:

1 chopped forest is approx equal to 1 axeman. But it usually takes the loss of more than one axeman to take a city in an axe rush. I would say 2-3 is about right. Granted a city may be worth more than 1 health resource but it might also be worth none. With the right infra a health resource might be worth 2 health though and that does go to all cities as you point out. But its wrong to imply 1 chopped forest = 1 captured city.

- Taking the city incurs a maintenance cost that leaving a forest does not have.

+ Taking the city incurs a xp bonus to the units which survive.

- Leaving a forest allows it to be worked for 1-2 base hammers. This is very marginal as working a forest is not usually a cities' best option and should probably be whipped but may be useful in production poor cities which are often FP heavy cities which are health critical.

? Leaving the forest does not necessarily mean not taking the city, as Timsup2nothing pointed out, chopping will get it sooner and therefore probably cheaper. So the comparison is often that finite but early cost saving from chopping (plus benefits received from city for the extra turns) vs the ongoing but delayed benefit of not chopping.

? A forest which is not chopped can always be chopped in the future and may, in fact, produce more forests by being left. Granted the value of the 30 hammers decays rapidly with time. I can imagine a situation where chopping that forest boosts the production of a longbow by 1 turn and saves the city. (ok I'm stretching)

Any comment and criticism of my analysis is greatly appreciated, this is something I want to get better at. Cheers.

 

[Seraiel]

Traius, the key word in what I said is 'higher'. You and Seraiel (et al) chop and rush for the resources, and I have no problem with that. You get more cap than you lose from chopping the forests so you are ahead of having just kept the forests. I have no doubt that you do get more cap than you lose so you come out ahead. But if you keep the forests and claim the resources then you have a higher cap than you get from just claiming the resources. As long as X and Y are both positive X+Y will always be greater than either one.

As I said, this higher cap shows up too late to matter to Seraiel, which is fine with me. It shows up too late to matter to you, which is also fine with me. I just enjoy having the outcome of the game still be in doubt in the industrial era so I play differently than you. Thanks for breaking it down, but I actually understood the first time.

Even that is wrong. If you simply chopped those forrests and took cities with the units from them, you would have had so much more research, that you could have easily gotten Future Tech already, and Future Tech also gives and .

What you're also totally not mentioning is, that and caps lie above 20 only from resources and good or even key buildings. Getting cities beyond a population of 20 is totally ineffective, because normal cities do not even have more than 15 tiles they could work, maybe 1/3 of them even being good.

Thanks for your analysis Traius. I am new to looking at civ from such an economics point of view but I think you have missed some things:

1 chopped forest is approx equal to 1 axeman. But it usually takes the loss of more than one axeman to take a city in an axe rush. I would say 2-3 is about right. Granted a city may be worth more than 1 health resource but it might also be worth none. With the right infra a health resource might be worth 2 health though and that does go to all cities as you point out. But its wrong to imply 1 chopped forest = 1 captured city.

- Taking the city incurs a maintenance cost that leaving a forest does not have.

+ Taking the city incurs a xp bonus to the units which survive.

- Leaving a forest allows it to be worked for 1-2 base hammers. This is very marginal as working a forest is not usually a cities' best option and should probably be whipped but may be useful in production poor cities which are often FP heavy cities which are health critical.

? Leaving the forest does not necessarily mean not taking the city, as Timsup2nothing pointed out, chopping will get it sooner and therefore probably cheaper. So the comparison is often that finite but early cost saving from chopping (plus benefits received from city for the extra turns) vs the ongoing but delayed benefit of not chopping.

? A forest which is not chopped can always be chopped in the future and may, in fact, produce more forests by being left. Granted the value of the 30 hammers decays rapidly with time. I can imagine a situation where chopping that forest boosts the production of a longbow by 1 turn and saves the city. (ok I'm stretching)

Any comment and criticism of my analysis is greatly appreciated, this is something I want to get better at. Cheers.

You're right, 1 Forrest does not always transfer to 1 city, it can be less, it can be even more. If you i. e. play with Rome and build Praets against a Target having Archers (not even an unusual case) , 1 Praet can transmit into maybe 3 or 4 cities, as the chances of a Praet against an Archer are somewhere near 80%. Anyhow, it doesn't even matter if 1 or 2 Praets are lost, if the city is lets say size 5-6, because then it can replace the reinforcements itself, and as the city probably will have forrests again, the advantage of having taken it even further multiplies. This effect is known as "snowballing" in the strategy-players-community, because the snowball launched grows into a lawine and the earlier it's launched, the greater the lawine. And don't forget, that a conquered city also gives Gold, fueling the research, which already will be higher than normal because of the additional traderoutes and worked tiles.

P.S.: Lumbermills are, at least for me, no argument, because a Workshop with SP or even Caste + SP is better than one, as 1 = 2 .

 

[Willem]

Even that is wrong. If you simply chopped those forrests and took cities with the units from them, you would have had so much more research, that you could have easily gotten Future Tech already, and Future Tech also gives and .

You keep carrying on as if being a war-monger and finishing the game as early as possible is the only way to play. I hate to break it to you, but it's not. Chopping all Forests might be appropriate for your play style, but not it may not necessarily apply to others. And some people might want to have Preserves, just because. That doesn't make them wrong, it's the way they like to play. This is not a war game where the only possible outcome is to beat the crap out of your neighbours and subdue them. There's lots of different approaches that can be taken, each of them as valid as the others.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You keep carrying on as if being a war-monger and finishing the game as early as possible is the only way to play. I hate to break it to you, but it's not. Chopping all Forests might be appropriate for your play style, but not it may not necessarily apply to others. And some people might want to have Preserves, just because. That doesn't make them wrong, it's the way they like to play. This is not a war game where the only possible outcome is to beat the crap out of your neighbours and subdue them. There's lots of different approaches that can be taken, each of them as valid as the others.

Seraiel operates purely from the 'my way or the highway' perspective...unfortunately on the internet the highway can't get you out of reach of his harping.

 

[Macksideshow]

To be fair to Seraiel, the only way there can be this kind of discussion is to assume motivation towards optimal play. Anything can be justified on the basis of role playing and play styles, even whipping cottaged flood plains into the Chicken Itza. I like to role play Civ games too, there is nothing wrong with it, in fact its usually more fun in my opinion. But civ is also a very powerful economics learning tool and fun is not the only reason one might play it.

What I am trying to do is get Seraiel to *consider* the possibility that his optimum strategy is a local maximum in civ strategy space and not necessarily a global maximum. Arrogance as a weapon is one which often backfires on the person wielding it.

Nice point about captured cities providing more forests to chop.

 

[Seraiel]

I actually get the feeling that my definition for the word "wrong" is somewhat different to the one you're using. From my point of view, "sub-optimal" means "wrong" . To me, it makes the impression that you feel personally attacked because you refuse to adapt. What's so bad learning something that makes you more successful in the way that you'll win earlier, get more efficient, and probably can up your difficulty by 1 lvl at least?

I'd be really interested in answers to this, as I have enough of all those attacks against a slight tease that I formulated over a weak ago. I find that you overreact and refuse to take a chance to progress. If it helps you, I'm very tolerant in that form that I know having many mistakes myself, and as I learned, my freedom goes until where the freedom of the next person starts (definition by Kant) , why do you even feel disturbed so much from someone telling you that you're doing something wrong? In my world, everybody can make as much wrong as he / she wants, as long as he / she doesn't hurt others with it.

Last post from me until I get real answers to those questions, I'm immune to "style" arguments, as they have no value at all. Style is an absolutely personal matter and judging people for it is philistine.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Prerequisite to optimization is agreement on a defined goal. If your goal is to meet a set victory condition at the earliest possible date and my goal is to build a simulated civilization that pleases me and still manages to 'win' then neither of us is in a position to help optimize the other's play. In that regard I acknowledge that I have nothing to offer you. Though I do have a pretty good understanding of how to play to your goals, I am nowhere near as practiced. Offering help or training in optimization without acknowledging the difference in goals will almost always yield poor results, because the suggestion may well be totally counter to the goal...and may give the impression that you are judging people for their goals.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Style is an absolutely personal matter and judging people for it is philistine.

Yet you are judging people on their play "style". If someone doesn't want to play the same way that you do, they are "wrong" by your definition.

Just because someone doesn't want "to adapt" to your form of play, doesn't mean that they are wrong, nor does it mean that they don't want to learn. The problem here is not that others are wrong, but that you cannot accept any other opinion than your own. Your arrogance and strict adherence to your position are blinding you from the fact that not everyone likes the same game as you do. Not everyone enjoys "optimal" play, and that has been stated by a number of people here in this thread.

Instead of blindly asserting your point and upsetting everyone, why not open your eyes and accept a difference of opinion, and acknowledge that that opinion may be as valid as your own. Agree to disagree without preaching your truth as Gospel and the only way.

That is an answer to your question.

 

[Drakarska]

Similar philosophy from me as well. I accept that others who play this game have different play styles and strategies, and that they have a wealth of knowledge to impart to those of us who wish to improve our game. What I don't accept is someone telling me I'm consistently wrong in choosing my particular style of play for a game that I enjoy. Just because I don't follow all specific strategies or tactics by deity level players, that shouldn't justify some rather pointed comments. It comes across as condescending and patronizing.

 

[Willem]

To be fair to Seraiel, the only way there can be this kind of discussion is to assume motivation towards optimal play.

Again. Why is playing as a war-monger and winning the game as early as possible considered optimal play? Optimal according to who? You'd use a totally different approach if you were going for a cultural win, or a space race. What's optimal for a domination or conquest victory isn't necessarily optimal for the others.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Again. Why is playing as a war-monger and winning the game as early as possible considered optimal play? Optimal according to who? You'd use a totally different approach if you were going for a cultural win, or a space race. What's optimal for a domination or conquest victory isn't necessarily optimal for the others.

This isn't necessarily accurate. If you look at 'optimized' games you will find lots of cultural and space race victories. Generally they involve some sort of 'domination avoidance' gymnastics because beating the AI civs into the ground so they can't interrupt your drive to victory is considered 'step one'.

 

[Seraiel]

Again. Why is playing as a war-monger and winning the game as early as possible considered optimal play? Optimal according to who? You'd use a totally different approach if you were going for a cultural win, or a space race. What's optimal for a domination or conquest victory isn't necessarily optimal for the others.

In cultural games there are no happiness issues in the time that matters, due to the nature of the culture-slider, making trading away all happiness-resources for healthiness possible.

And Space-Races are won fastest like Tim says, get to 50% as fast as possible, wait until the Research-bomb that's created by the number of cities explodes. Read the Writeup on WastinTime's 700 AD Space-Victory for that (can be found in HoF forums) .

 

[Macksideshow]

Again. Why is playing as a war-monger and winning the game as early as possible considered optimal play? Optimal according to who? You'd use a totally different approach if you were going for a cultural win, or a space race. What's optimal for a domination or conquest victory isn't necessarily optimal for the others.

Normalized score. The word optimal has economic implications. Trying to find the most efficient strategy does mean winning the game as early as possible. From what I understand pangea map, war monger strategy is the best way at that. I think chop all the forests is simplified but sound advice along those lines. Stating that anything else is wrong has obviously pushed a few buttons, including mine, and I think that has been acknowledged.

Imagine domination/conquest is turned off or a certain map type is specified, that would change things a lot and would be an interesting challenge. And as I've tried to say a few times, trying to play optimally within the constraints of the game settings chosen is not necessarily the most fun way to play but is a useful economics learning tool. To analyse one strategy vs another it is necessary to quantify their outcomes; normalized score does this, amount of fun had does not.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Normalized score. The word optimal has economic implications. Trying to find the most efficient strategy does mean winning the game as early as possible. From what I understand pangea map, war monger strategy is the best way at that. I think chop all the forests is simplified but sound advice along those lines. Stating that anything else is wrong has obviously pushed a few buttons, including mine, and I think that has been acknowledged.

Imagine domination/conquest is turned off or a certain map type is specified, that would change things a lot and would be an interesting challenge. And as I've tried to say a few times, trying to play optimally within the constraints of the game settings chosen is not necessarily the most fun way to play but is a useful economics learning tool. To analyse one strategy vs another it is necessary to quantify their outcomes; normalized score does this, amount of fun had does not.

Yup. However I'm actually playing this game for fun, not an economics lesson...and having had many economics lessons in my life if I were looking for another I frankly wouldn't be looking here.

That aside, turning off domination/conquest basically makes no difference. It has also been clearly demonstrated that the most efficient path to any victory condition is to effectively destroy all rivals first. If you turn of domination it actually makes things easier, you just beat down all the AIs and leave one city standing, then take whatever victory condition you prefer. Not that the gymnastics of avoiding a domination victory add that much of a challenge, but it's something.

 

[AdamCrock]

So we 'ave dealt cards both striking and true, but the question remains : Do You build a forest preserve dude ? Ha !

 

[Willem]

So we 'ave dealt cards both striking and true, but the question remains : Do You build a forest preserve dude ? Ha !

Yes, just because. I'm playing to build a civilization, not get the highest score in the shortest period of time. And since building Preserves whenever I get an overlap between two cities has a positive benefit, albeit a small one, I see no reason not to. The only problem I see with the Preserves is that they come too late in the game. I think if they could be built earlier, like with Monarchy, even the war-mongers might find them useful as they'll help adjacent Forests to grow, so they'd get more chops out their cities.