Is it better to chop or keep forests?

[Suspiria]

Is it better to chop or keep forests, early on in the game? I always keep forests because they have good production hammers and come in handy when you get lumbermills later on.

I have heard a lot of people here prefer to chop rush all of their forests. Is it worth it in the long run?

 

[voek]

I almost chop all forest during the game, unless it's a production low city (no hills) and I need some production latter on. The health bonus is too small imo. I play at Emperor. I play at least standard size maps (or bigger) and like to conquer a lot, giving me lots of health resources. I think the increased build up from the forest is needed.

 

[carl corey]

If I'm going for an early wonder the forests around that city get chopped. Otherwise, it just depends on the number of good tiles I can improve. Lots of good tiles mean less chops, since my workers will be busy with improving those. Hmm. On second thought, lots of good tiles can mean another worker that also gets to chop. So yeah, most of the time it's chopped forests.

Plus, I don't like being attacked and having to kill the AIs forces while they are stationed in MY forests. I'd rather chop the forests to build an army and attack first.

There's another case in which I don't chop early on. Depending on the techs I research, I might find myself in the situation where I don't have lots of useful build options in my cities. In those cases I'd rather let the workers build roads to connect parts of the empire,to make it more easily defendable or to prepare attack routes, instead of chopping forests to rush a not-so-needed production.

 

[bitplayer]

Chop now worry later is my philosophy.

 

[carl corey]

"Don't worry, be chopping"?

 

[Pitboss]

I leave them be, and when available apply envirmentalism.
For now I haven't had to much production problems, beacause of it.
So I guess you could just keep em, but you'll loose somethng ...

But logic would dictate to do the oposite, since you have the chopping benefits, for the greatest part of the game, and the woords for a much smaller part.
If it would have more influence from start to end, you might have a reason ...

 

[gamemaster3000]

I've been wondering this myself. I don't know how you can chop them all at emperor level and have enough health.

But I guess I also don't know how you could keep up with an AI that's playing with significantly different rules than you are without chopping.

One thing I can say is always keep an even number if you're doing health benefits. The .5 per forest is rounded down.

Also I keep forgetting to chop forests outside the 20-tile fat cross...there's no reason not to.

Basically I have a hard time parting with my last 2 forests. I usually save 2, sometimes 4. More if it's a really late city I placed with lumbermills available soon.

 

[Jorunkun]

On emperor and above, having forests is a key advantage and often a major factor in deciding city sites. Not for the health-bonus though, but because they let you accellerate early workers, settlers, military for the first war or an early wonder.

I think many players overvalue the health bonus - there are dozens of ways of improving health (specials, trade, terrain improvement, granaries, harbors, aquaeducts, grocers ...), and temporary unhealthiness is not the end of the world either. IMHO, the advantages of the early production boost from forests far outweighs its health benefits. Only if the city is really suffering in health (because of location & terrain) or there is no other source of hammers available would I consider keeping them.

 

[Kamino]

On emperor and above, having forests is a key advantage and often a major factor in deciding city sites. Not for the health-bonus though, but because they let you accellerate early workers, settlers, military for the first war or an early wonder.

I think many players overvalue the health bonus - there are dozens of ways of improving health (specials, trade, terrain improvement, granaries, harbors, aquaeducts, grocers ...), and temporary unhealthiness is not the end of the world either. IMHO, the advantages of the early production boost from forests far outweighs its health benefits. Only if the city is really suffering in health (because of location & terrain) or there is no other source of hammers available would I consider keeping them.

I totally agree with this opinion.

 

[Charles 22]

I haven't heard hardly anyone speak on this approach I have related before concerning this, but I don't read the entire forum either. I'm not saying my strategy is the best, but I think it's at least an interesting alternative.

In my present case my strategy is to never chop before you get the full chop bonus. Of course there is no bonus for chopping jungle so there is no delay there. My strategy when it does come down to chopping trees is to do this primarily with hills in the early going (after full chop bonus), the reason being that there's usually enough clear land to build cottages and farms on, and since when I want to mine hills this makes it the best place to first start chopping, since the hills are more likely to sprout resources the longer they're operational.

I also favor leaving at least 3-4 tree places in every city, in the end game, but it varies somewhat depending on the pop, etc. I also generally favor building woodshops (or whatever they're called) at least for a pretty good period of time. Keeping all that in mind, my primary notion though is to try to find a few tiles that have trees and chop them and place no terrain improvement there. The idea being that not putting anything on the tile will make it more likely that the same tile will sprout trees anew, therefore giving me that much more I can chop. I can also confirm that this game definitely does that, that is it will fill in a tile that previously had trees on it. I even suspect that even if you have once had a mine on a hill, for example, and then raze that tile, that it is possible that same tile will sprout trees again, should it be adjacent to another tree tile.

 

[xifeng]

Don't chop trees only if you have a lot of water tiles.

 

[weasel77066]

One thing I did take note of... In the early game it seems that "a forest has grown outside of X city" happens quite alot" In the later game it barely happens at all. Possibly the difference in years per turn. Anyway, I like to save as much trees as possible, if a city is not lacking what it needs, especially if the food is two, then with lumbermill and tracks you get +2 shields and 2 food, plus any health bonus, + whatever shields the forest came with.. (1 or 2)
But like I said if the city is lacking in an area and I need to chop, then I'll take cut them down.

 

[drkodos]

The idea being that not putting anything on the tile will make it more likely that the same tile will sprout trees anew, therefore giving me that much more I can chop. I can also confirm that this game definitely does that, that is it will fill in a tile that previously had trees on it. I even suspect that even if you have once had a mine on a hill, for example, and then raze that tile, that it is possible that same tile will sprout trees again, should it be adjacent to another tree tile.

Tree will definitely regenerate. I like to keep a forrest regrowing as well. I found that doing it near other trees seems to make the regeneration happen frequently.


On larger maps where cities do not have to be so tightly spaced, I often leave buffer zones of forrest between cities fir late game chops after reforrestation.

 

[ZB2]

i save trees, but if there is a great abundance then ill chop, or if they cover some good water tiles ill chop. i dont really cut em down early in game becuase of the cheapness of buildings that early in the game.

i do chop any tree that spawns however, and sent its bonus to the nearest city to help out. if i have far too many too chop, then i improvise so that military units get the woodsman II promo in case of war.

 

[Boulle]

To chop or not to chop. Mmmm, difficult question sometimes. The strategy i'm trying that very moment, decides wether i'll chop some trees or not. If i'm in need of a unit or wonder right now, then they go down. If it's not needed, i'll let it be for the time beeing.

 

[wiser3]

Early on, i chop as needed. Such as to get a worker, settler or needed wonder. I never chop forests on tundra though, because once you chop the forest the tundra underneath is useless. Keep the forest and later you have a great lumbermill.

 

[Paeanblack]

Is it better to chop or keep forests, early on in the game?

It's definitely better to chop a forest than work a forest. You can always drop a farm on the tile, and one food beats one hammer any day of the week.

The tough decisions are when to chop the forests you aren't working. Unworked forests effectively produce .5 food, and this can sometimes be more valuable than the instant hammers.

 

[chronicdog]

Forest + Lumbermill + Railroad = Good Tile

 

[CivDude86]

Its a workshop that doesn't take 1 food, gotta love 'em.

 

[Charles 22]

Tree will definitely regenerate. I like to keep a forrest regrowing as well. I found that doing it near other trees seems to make the regeneration happen frequently.


On larger maps where cities do not have to be so tightly spaced, I often leave buffer zones of forrest between cities fir late game chops after reforrestation.

That's a good idea to use the empty areas for buffer zones, but funny I haven't done that in this game. I used to do that in Civ3 all the time. There was always a point where I did if for no other reason than to help offset the global warming, but in this game you also have the in-city benefits that Civ3 didn't give.

Another difference between this game and Civ3, is that I've learned to often leave the forests that border the other civs alone, and do my building exspecially of cottages the furtherest away from those borders. What ends up happening often enough is you have the border tiles of the cities with no forests, and then the outer portions of the fat cross, especially bordering the other civs, with forests, such that it gives a sort of walled look about it. The main reason I do that of course is to slow the enemy from any quick attacks. In most cases I then let them get next to my city the next turn and then kablammo.