FORESTS.. clearing them

[F4Fergus]

in one of my more dismal games to date, found myself using workers to clear/plant forests next to cities, relentlessly, simply to use up turns. Then it says "X shields returned to Bloggsville or wherever". This SOUNDS helpful, but I cannot see where it makes any difference???

 

[Maleficence]

The first time you clear forests from a tile you will receive a bonus of shields. This bonus is applied to the city whose city radius encompassed the forest square.

Clearing a forest, replanting it then clearing it again will only yield one bonus. Continously doing this yield no benefits really, unless you're so utterly bored you decide this is the best you can do with your time.

 

[Zouave]

Originally posted by Maleficence
The first time you clear forests from a tile you will receive a bonus of shields. This bonus is applied to the city whose city radius encompassed the forest square.

Clearing a forest, replanting it then clearing it again will only yield one bonus. Continously doing this yield no benefits really, unless you're so utterly bored you decide this is the best you can do with your time.

Yea, this is another piece of MAJOR IDIOCY from Firaxis.

Can you imagine a real world with NO forests?? What do you use for paper or lumber?? What about erosion and air pollution? What about the lack of national parks for recreation?

But stupid Civ III and its braindead AI workers will clear EVERY forest EVERYWHERE if given the chance.

And what is this crap about being able to harvest a forest only once?? Every seventy years or so you should be able to harvest a forest; America is filled with second and third growth forests, and many lumber and paper companies replant trees all the time.

I guess all of this is unknown to the geniuses at Firaxis.

 

[alva848]

allthough not realistic, i do think it works for
gameplay reasons. anyway as the 'ai' doesn't
use this tactic you could say it is too much an
advantage for the human player.
so i think they did well to close this loophole

 

[Park Ranger]

Originally posted by Zouave
And what is this crap about being able to harvest a forest only once?? Every seventy years or so you should be able to harvest a forest; America is filled with second and third growth forests, and many lumber and paper companies replant trees all the time.

I guess all of this is unknown to the geniuses at Firaxis.

Funny, I thought the game was unrealistic also, but the other way. Don't know about 2nd gen forests in the US, but here in Canada we're just learning how difficult the harvesting of planatations is. Current 20-30 yr old plantations desperately need to be thinned, but the cost is so high I only know of one guy with a crew thinning and logging by horse (the harvesters developed for clearcutting won't work, as they damage standing trees).

So, to date, harvesting of planted areas does not make a commercial impact in our economy. Nor does planting seedlings (technologically only viable for a few decades now) yield forests within 5 years. More often the problem is the planted species (usually conifers) getting choked out by natural regen of less desirable (commercially) species.

Realistically, the planting option should only come with Ecology (not Engineering), and in number of turns, should take only a few to "plant" but many many more (50+ years) before a second harvest is possible.

But that might not be any fun, so better for now that 2nd harvests just don't yield any production bonuses.

But you're right, the animation of the worker casually throwing seeds on the ground shows that FIRAXIS don't know squat about reforestation.

 

[Maleficence]

Almost every forest in Europe is at least 2nd or 3rd generation, meaning most have at some point been cut down or transformed by humans during their habitation of the land.

Forests and other environments actually can grow back at a pace that's much more accelerated than people generally believe it to be. The main reason scientists and ecologists oppose deforestation is because this can kill off species which have reduced habits and will not live long enough to endure the time period it will take the habitat to recuperate.

In this respect plants are a bit more resilient than some animals.

Don't take me wrong, I'm not promoting cutting down every tree in sight, but forests and the like can and do grow back in less than a generation if they have appropiate conditions (ie, the terrain wasn't so terribly abused that it turned into an arid desert like has happened in parts of africa)

As far as yielding forests in 5 years, it depends on what type of trees you are trying to grow. Certain species have very accelerated rates of growth and can easily replenish an area in 5 years. With other species thrown into the mix to add variety.

Honestly though, the paper industry wouldn't work if it took more than 5 years to replenish the trees they use for their business. Climate conditions also affect these growth rates greatly, parts of the world where plants are relegated to only a few months of growth per year will obviously grow at a slower pace. Coming from a tropical country where conditions are prime for all sorts of plant growth year round, plants will grow at an accelerated rate in comparison to territorities in the northern latitudes.

But, seeing as Civ3 does not implement any sort of weather system based on latitude, expect these variations is unrealistic.

But definitely, being able to harvest a forest only once is pretty ludicrous in realistic terms.

As far as Park Ranger mentioning that it is not economically viable to harvest a planted area, I'd have to disagree. Thinning or trimming an area that has extended its intended perimeter will probably be of little economic impact as its more of a maintainance chore than a full blown exploitation of the terrain.

For a comparable analogy you'd have to look at the exploitation of forests in brazil and other areas where full blown exploitation of the terrain with the desire to leave the land barren of trees is the goal. In these areas it is commercially viable, and of course there's very little regard to harming other trees in the vicinity

 

[Park Ranger]

Originally posted by Maleficence
Honestly though, the paper industry wouldn't work if it took more than 5 years to replenish the trees they use for their business. Climate conditions also affect these growth rates greatly, parts of the world where plants are relegated to only a few months of growth per year will obviously grow at a slower pace. Coming from a tropical country where conditions are prime for all sorts of plant growth year round, plants will grow at an accelerated rate in comparison to territorities in the northern latitudes.

I admit I know little about silviculture in tropical countries, except that pine and eucalyptus can grow very fast, maturing in 10 years. But as far as pulp and paper, in Canada, we're still harvesting from natural forests. There are some plantations that have matured, but as far as I know (and I've worked 12 years in the industry) there are no large scale harvests of 2nd generation forests for commercial milling. The same goes for softwood lumber.

I mentioned the thinning because before we (here in the northern temperate and boreal forests) can harvest plantations they must be thinned to allow remaining stems to thicken to a point where they can be milled for a profit. This is problematic because it basically has to be done by hand to prevent damage to the remaining stems

My number of 50+ years to a second harvest is be biased towards my own experiences (the forests I work in are managed on an 80 yr rotation, and large scale silviculture has only been practised for about 30 years). Where does Europe get its paper from? I know that most of North America is supplied by boreal forests in N. Canada, and i was under the impression that our ecological homologues in Scandinavia and Russia do the same for Europe.

Anyway! To the point - I'm satisfied that planted forests don't give the same yield in civ3 that the "natural" ones do - matches my experience. But in converting land that was cleared back to forests (let alone plantations), I think our experience globally has made success very hard to come by, and reliable (if that!) only recently, with knowledge gained from conservationist policies and ecology.

What goes on in places like Australia? If plantations have been successful, there must be 2nd or 3rd gen harvests by now...?

@maleficence - thanks for the reply!

Any one have an idea on the size (in km2, hectares, acres, whatever) of a tile on a standard map? Would make thinking about when you actually "clear" a forest and not just get two shields/turn mean in RL easier...

 

[Maleficence]

Sure thing. And I totally agree with you on that there's a definite time limit as far as our current technology to being able to harvest a replanted area.

I'm sure geneticists have started tinkering long ago with special tree strains that do not curve their growth and grow incessantly, or have at least been trying to So i'm assuming some time soon we'll see this hellish plant strain unleashed on the world =O

 

[cephyn]

Originally posted by F4Fergus
in one of my more dismal games to date, found myself using workers to clear/plant forests next to cities, relentlessly, simply to use up turns. Then it says "X shields returned to Bloggsville or wherever". This SOUNDS helpful, but I cannot see where it makes any difference???

Actually, it is better to have forest on Tundra squares than just bare tundra.

 

[loki]

Originally posted by cephyn


Actually, it is better to have forest on Tundra squares than just bare tundra.

Yes. This is why the AI who loves to settle crappy towns all over tundra, will use all its workers to plant forests on these tiles. I hate it because it makes capturing/razing these towns very tedious, since you can't use three movement points with your fast units in forests.

loki