Lord_all_Mighty
Watching....
i always do that(except on bonus tiles) as I like to get at least some production from my tiles, is this a good idea?
Is it good to mine grassland?
- Thread starter Lord_all_Mighty
- Start date
Yep. And mine the bonus ones, too; in fact, do them first.
Here's how it works:
In despotism, the government you start out in, any tile which should normally produce three or more of food, shields or commerce has its output reduced by one. So irrigated grassland, which should produce 3 food, has its output reduced to only 2 food, same as if it were mined (or left alone). You may as well mine it all and get a shield or two along with your 2 food.
Renata
Here's how it works:
In despotism, the government you start out in, any tile which should normally produce three or more of food, shields or commerce has its output reduced by one. So irrigated grassland, which should produce 3 food, has its output reduced to only 2 food, same as if it were mined (or left alone). You may as well mine it all and get a shield or two along with your 2 food.
Renata
As long as the average food produced in your city equals 2 food per citizen per turn you are ok. So if you have 5 citizens and are producing 10 food per turn you are ok. If you have less than 10 - irrigate a grassland or 2 to produce more food for that tile.
zagnut
Monarch
The general rule is to irrigate plains and to mine grassland.
BigBrother
Chieftain
Good to know, i always just irrigated the crap outta my land, and mined hills...guess i'm gonna start overhauling a little bit. 
Dr Elmer Jiggle
King
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2003
- Messages
- 811
You might as well irrigate (or nothing) in your super-corrupted cities too. Some cities are so far outside your core that no matter what you do, you'll never get more than 1 shield out of them. At that point mining is useless. The extra shields are just going to the criminals in your empire. Irrigation might be worthwhile (depending on various circumstances), since it can help you support specialists in those cities. Otherwise leave the tiles unimproved. No point in wasting your workers' efforts making improvements that won't actually improve anything.
In the early game I just mine all grasslands and irrigate all plains. After I get hospitals I'll grow my city and irrigate just enough until every space in the city radius is worked... I don't find the extra specialists to be very useful so I just remine until it isn't growing anymore.
Just my take on things.
Just my take on things.
Irrigation exists because every city needs it sometimes, and mostly because not every city is located in perfect areas like the one in the picture. If you have ten hills, then the rule is irrigate all the grasslands. As long as you have a city of size 20 it's fine.
General rule of thumb is always have 2 spare food to support a mountain or 2 hills, and then 2 left over to halt growth. Basically, you only need a size 20 city. (notice the wheat is pushing the city over size 20 in the screenshot).
You could look at it like this:
More mountains/hills = more irragation.
Plains are tricky, since you can mine them, and they have the same effect as a mined hill. But, you can also irragate them, which actually make plains cities great with rails.
You could look at it like this:
More mountains/hills = more irragation.
Plains are tricky, since you can mine them, and they have the same effect as a mined hill. But, you can also irragate them, which actually make plains cities great with rails.
Procifica
ACW Scenario Creator
What I do is after I'm done building improvements in a city (toward end game I now have Aqueduct, Marketplace, Hospital, Courthouse, Mass Transit, Police Station, and Bank in most of my cities), and I switch it to wealth, I knock out all the mines and forests and convert to all irrigation. Those specialists might not add up to much in one city, but get say 100 cities with specialists, and watch your income or science fly.
Right now I've got a game where I'm getting almost 800 income alone just from taxmen and wealth.
More irrigation before this point occurs also will speed your growth up to that magic 20 number, and more population means more everything, in my opinion.
My civ's population last I checked was like over 350 million!
Right now I've got a game where I'm getting almost 800 income alone just from taxmen and wealth.
More irrigation before this point occurs also will speed your growth up to that magic 20 number, and more population means more everything, in my opinion.
My civ's population last I checked was like over 350 million!
barron of ideas
Barron
To quote somebody (Sirian?) population is power. At different times you may want different things. It isn't wrong to mine grassland, in general, but circumstances alter cases, and especially in the middle or end game you may want a big population and thus lots of specialists rather than shields from mining and the production they can bring.
So the answer is, as so often it is in Civ, "it depends."
So the answer is, as so often it is in Civ, "it depends."
Sims2789
Fool me once...
you should improve every piece of land you can, even in the outlying areas of your empire. In the border towns build courthouses and watch as corruption gets cut in half. It means some more work, but it can pay huge dividends down the line when you need to boost military production.
Don't give in and allow a city to wither because it's full of criminals. Build cultural improvements and get your populace under control.
Also, be careful about converting a city's production cycle to wealth. You can micromanage your economic output to the point where adding on that one gold per turn per city would mean jack squat. If you handle the situation right, you can come up with a suitable combination of specialists and laborers to effectively keep the social fabric in balance without breaking the bank.
Personally I like to keep a certain amount of the game within a realistic strata by never overburdening the populace with overtaxation. Even in social-democratic governments you rarely see a tax rate above 50 percent, so why should you do the same within the game? It kind of goes against the spirit of the game. But that's just what makes me happy.
Anywho, you want every town producing something of intrinsic value besides cash. You can subsidise your society's bankroll through trading, loans and technical tradeoffs. Infrastructure development is far too important if you want a solid score and a realistic representation of the game. But hey, if you want to go straight military, trust me, help yourself and go communist.
Don't give in and allow a city to wither because it's full of criminals. Build cultural improvements and get your populace under control.
Also, be careful about converting a city's production cycle to wealth. You can micromanage your economic output to the point where adding on that one gold per turn per city would mean jack squat. If you handle the situation right, you can come up with a suitable combination of specialists and laborers to effectively keep the social fabric in balance without breaking the bank.
Personally I like to keep a certain amount of the game within a realistic strata by never overburdening the populace with overtaxation. Even in social-democratic governments you rarely see a tax rate above 50 percent, so why should you do the same within the game? It kind of goes against the spirit of the game. But that's just what makes me happy.
Anywho, you want every town producing something of intrinsic value besides cash. You can subsidise your society's bankroll through trading, loans and technical tradeoffs. Infrastructure development is far too important if you want a solid score and a realistic representation of the game. But hey, if you want to go straight military, trust me, help yourself and go communist.
Similar threads
