Is this an Exploit?

[Aeson]

Chopping Forests limits long term potential. Both in reducing the amount of Forest growth (and thus Forests you can potentially chop), and in reducing Health. At the most extreme, chopping a Forest on turn X, which would have allowed growth of another Forest on turn X+1 basically costs you a full chop worth of production, and can be with absolutely no gain over having chopped the Forest on turn X+1. So chopping ASAP isn't always the best move, even if you're set on chopping. The longer you give your Forests, the more likely they are to spread.

Health is the limiting factor in population for most of most games. Drama means virtually unlimited Happiness potential, so can Hereditary Rule if you're running it. Health has no slider. A chop that costs you a pop point in a city or three for 100+ turns is a very bad chop IMO. That can potentially be thousands of F/P/C being lost over the course of the game. You can't even reliably say that chopping to a Health plateau is a good idea, because the lost chance for Forest growth could have gotten you to the next plateau.

CIV is not an exponential growth game. Getting a head start early with chopping doesn't mean chopping later, or not chop at all, won't be able to catch up. Because in the meantime those other's can be doing things the chopper can't. Religions are potential way to go. Wonders can be built. Early Chariot, Quechas, even Warriors/Archers can be effective). Terrain improvement are a way to go. Deep tech beelines are a way to go. Bronze Working and chopping ASAP can factor into some of them, but can also detract from others.

 

[mzprox]

Yeah I think chops are overpowered. They should only give 10 hammers, not 30.

I agree. It should be less. 20 is ideal I think (choping trees would be a strategy still, but not the only one)

 

[Quantum7]

Chopping Forests limits long term potential. Both in reducing the amount of Forest growth (and thus Forests you can potentially chop), and in reducing Health. At the most extreme, chopping a Forest on turn X, which would have allowed growth of another Forest on turn X+1 basically costs you a full chop worth of production, and can be with absolutely no gain over having chopped the Forest on turn X+1. So chopping ASAP isn't always the best move, even if you're set on chopping. The longer you give your Forests, the more likely they are to spread.

The chance for forest growth seems to be too small for this to be a strong argument against them. I have never seen more than 3-4 growths in a game.

Health is the limiting factor in population for most of most games. Drama means virtually unlimited Happiness potential, so can Hereditary Rule if you're running it. Health has no slider. A chop that costs you a pop point in a city or three for 100+ turns is a very bad chop IMO. That can potentially be thousands of F/P/C being lost over the course of the game. You can't even reliably say that chopping to a Health plateau is a good idea, because the lost chance for Forest growth could have gotten you to the next plateau.

At lower difficulty levels health is a non-issue. Even at higher difficulty levels health really isn't very important. In the worst case scenario you can just let the city grow those 2 sizes onwards. The only negative effect is the 2 health extra (which can be fixed with 2 extra farms (1 with biology).

CIV is not an exponential growth game. Getting a head start early with chopping doesn't mean chopping later, or not chop at all, won't be able to catch up. Because in the meantime those other's can be doing things the chopper can't. Religions are potential way to go. Wonders can be built. Early Chariot, Quechas, even Warriors/Archers can be effective). Terrain improvement are a way to go. Deep tech beelines are a way to go. Bronze Working and chopping ASAP can factor into some of them, but can also detract from others.

This argument is more interesting. My argument would be that whatever you want to do instead of chopping, it is something you can more easily do it BY chopping for it. If you want to fight a war, chopping will enable you to get more cities & units faster. If you want to build terrain improvements, chopping will enable you to get more workers than normally and build these faster. If you want to build wonders, chopping will enable you to get these faster. If you want to get techs (including religion), chopping will enable you to get more cities (at high commerce position) or commerce specific buildings or commerce specific improvements faster.

What is true though, is that you'll probably miss an early religion. But with chopping you can get more cities, therefore generally more luxuries, thus also happiness (and a later religion by the increased tech pace).

CIV is still an exponential growth game, the maximum increase curve you can achieve has only been decreased.

 

[DaviddesJ]

Even at higher difficulty levels health really isn't very important.

I quite disagree with this. Have you played at higher levels (at least Emperor)? You're often running many cities at the health limit. In other words, an extra health point is worth an extra food per turn per city, which is quite a bit.

In the worst case scenario you can just let the city grow those 2 sizes onwards. The only negative effect is the 2 health extra (which can be fixed with 2 extra farms (1 with biology).

This is not an accurate characterization of the Civ4 economic model. By the early middle game, all of your citizens will already be working fully improved tiles. You can't get an extra food just by building an extra farm.

 

[Aeson]

The chance for forest growth seems to be too small for this to be a strong argument against them. I have never seen more than 3-4 growths in a game.

It's a factor that has to be considered. Clearcutting ASAP will not get as much overall production most of the time. Are you saying that 90-120 production (* multipliers) wouldn't be a factor worth considering?

At lower difficulty levels health is a non-issue. Even at higher difficulty levels health really isn't very important. In the worst case scenario you can just let the city grow those 2 sizes onwards. The only negative effect is the 2 health extra (which can be fixed with 2 extra farms (1 with biology).

I don't know how you can say health is not very important. It's the limiting factor on city size in any well run empire for the majority of most games.

No chance for WLT*D with negative health. Something to consider.

Using Farms to offset Health issues means not using other improvements which have more output. As long as you aren't working the Forests that are giving Health, keeping them around is a benefit in addition to the tiles that are being worked. +2 Health is 5 Forests, so you can be size 15 before needing to chop Forests to work high output tiles. (By then you potentially could be to Replaceable Parts too, so they might be the high output tiles.)

Using Plains Farms pre-Biology doesn't address Health concerns at all. They can't address their own Food requirement and a Health requirement with just 2 Food. Using Grassland Farms to address Health is a very bad idea pre-Biology as the net output is 1 commerce per population if on a river, 0 if not on a river. Flood Plains Farms can work, but you'll get as good or better value from FP Cottages (or FP Farms allowing use of Mines) than that 1 extra Food will allow in Health restricted cities. And Civic upkeep costs scale by population, so you may actually be losing value by supporting that population point if it isn't creating anything other than it's food to eat. (Though unit upkeep costs also scale by population, so it could offset if you have units to support.)

Farms using their Food bonus to cancel Health is worse than any other Specialist or tile use option for the majority of most games. Better to take that 2 Food and make a Specialist out of it instead of working a Plains Farm or Lighthouse Coast, use a Mine instead of a Farm, a couple Cottages instead of a couple Farms, ect. Just about anything but throwing food into the Health pit.

This argument is more interesting. My argument would be that whatever you want to do instead of chopping, it is something you can more easily do it BY chopping for it.

Of course not the early Religions as you later qualify this with...

3 Shrines is potentially hundreds of commerce per turn by mid-game, with the additional benefit of being in more control of what Religions the opponents have, additional culture and happiness output early on for you, and not for the opponents, diplomatic bonus for founding the Religion, and sight bonus for owning the Shrine. All in all, a rather big consideration even if you can get later Religions.

If you want to fight a war, chopping will enable you to get more cities & units faster.

If you research BW while building Workers/Settlers first, you may have already passed up warfare that could be fought with Warriors, Archers, or Chariots. I've captured 6-7 Workers in a game with initial Warriors spam before, and captured plenty of Warrior/Settler or Archer/Settler pairs with the first Chariot off the line, not to mention capturing cities with them. All more quickly than going with BW first can match.

How many chops is that worth? Capturing a Worker, denying it to an opponent. Capturing a city, denying it to an opponent (or even eliminating them), and making use of it?

BW focusing on Workers first also passes up all hut results you could have gotten with (extra) early explorers. Which is a double effect as now someone else will get them. Sometimes this can amount to a handful of gold... or in the case of the game in this thread... my first run through netted me Animal Husbandry, a Worker, Bronze Working, and some gold from huts. (ugh on the difficulty level... second time I got a Settler from the 3rd hut in addition to AH and the Worker...)

Plus early exploration is it's own reward. Knowing what the situation is is always important. If you find out you're on your own island, expansion suddenly becomes not such a big deal. Chopping those Settlers can wait if you're sure to get all the city sites first anyways. Maybe better to be chopping those Forests towards Lighthouses or Galleys later.

If you want to build terrain improvements, chopping will enable you to get more workers than normally and build these faster.

Um... terrain improvements that you still need to research to after BW... and which non-BW first have already built and are benefitting from, if only to spend less time getting to BW and do their own chops. If you are going Pottery->BW you are generally better off from a Commerce standpoint than going BW->Pottery. It's just quicker to get both BW and Pottery by going Pottery first, and your Cottages will be further along.

If you want to build wonders, chopping will enable you to get these faster.

Some of them. BW first will lag in tech, and in some cases the Wonders can be built before someone who researched BW can even get there. Then later, the ones who haven't chopped their Forests can chop their Forests still to win Wonder races if it comes to that.

Hooking up Stone or Marble first can easily blow BW first out of the water with many early Wonders, especially for IND leaders.

If you want to get techs (including religion), chopping will enable you to get more cities (at high commerce position) or commerce specific buildings or commerce specific improvements faster.

Pottery first gets it's Cottages up and running before BW first can. For each growth cycle on each Cottage up until BW catches up (if it ever does) in this regard, Pottery first will be getting +1cpt for the number of turns that BW took to catch up. You simply can't chop to make Cottages grow faster, while you can chop Forests later to get out more Workers/Settlers to build more Cottages.

You can get a Library up often before a BW and Writing tech line can even finish researching Writing. That means getting an Academy up first too. Later, chopping other Libraries can finish them quicker, but BW first may not even have their Forests at that point anyways. You can only chop em once.

The Oracle->Civil Service jump generally won't be hurried by chopping, as research time to Code of Laws is generally the limiting factor, and so BW will get to CS slower. This by itself can potentially count for a Forest chop or three in straight Production, not to mention the Commerce bonus that goes along with it.

There are plenty of other situations where chopping ASAP is just not going to be the best idea.

What is true though, is that you'll probably miss an early religion. But with chopping you can get more cities, therefore generally more luxuries, thus also happiness (and a later religion by the increased tech pace).

It gets faster cities, which may or may not mean more cities. At the extreme of "fast cities" is overexpansion into bankruptcy. The limitation on number of cities is Commerce more than Production or Food in CIV.

CIV is still an exponential growth game, the maximum increase curve you can achieve has only been decreased.

I was refering to extreme REX in Civ III. In Civ III, 1 city became 2, 2 became 4, 4 became 8... by 10AD it was possible to have over 200 cities on a Huge map. It is financially impossible to expand at that rate in CIV as you'll tank your economy to the point of having your Settlers and Workers disband themselves with such an exponential expansion approach.

Because of this, it's possible to catch up in number of cities. You have to wait for the Commerce to expand effectively, and so someone who focuses on Commerce early instead of expansion can catch up in number of cities.

Chopping has it's benefits and drawbacks. I'm not saying it doesn't have it's place, but it's not the end-all-be-all by any means.

 

[Willburn]

Aeson i have two comments (maybe i a bit off topic?): A) It takes lots and lots of missionaries to convert for 3 religions. Those missionaries are waisted hammers..if you think about it your trading hammers for gold... Im not saying its usefull but I generally dont have the hammers for missionaries to spare. Id rather get more millitar / worker / settlers. And money isnt a big problem when you start doing tricks (like getting caste system and merchants in every city) you can still go at science with 100%.

B) you can chop warriors too and be offensive. But you can also chop a fast second city and THEN be offensive.

Personally i know what works on emperor / immortal levels and it sure aint going for 3 religions....(the computers WILL beat you to it no matter what)
What does work on the other hand is for example worker chop inca warriors. or worker chop fast second city near even more forrest and then worker chop warriors/archers. Use first warrior to steal a worker and then you can have 3 workers early with the fast worker chop strategy.

Oh and about saving forrests for later, personally i rather have 300 hammers early in the game than 500 hammers later. Later in the game you are producing way more hammers per round in your cities than in the beginning. It simply has the most dramatic effect in the beginning and can secure you a lead so you can get even more hammers in the end.

I could ofcourse lay this discussion dead by just playing a game and showing exactly how many hammers i earn in a full game by chopping early vs chopping late but ack I dont have time at the moment for this (college examns).

 

[DaviddesJ]

It gets faster cities, which may or may not mean more cities. At the extreme of "fast cities" is overexpansion into bankruptcy. The limitation on number of cities is Commerce more than Production or Food in CIV.

At challenging difficulty levels (say, Emperor-plus), the main limitation on the number of cities for the human player is getting enough space. That's why it's important to crank out units (settlers, workers, and military) early. You can catch up on most of the other stuff later.

 

[Aeson]

Aeson i have two comments (maybe i a bit off topic?): A) It takes lots and lots of missionaries to convert for 3 religions. Those missionaries are waisted hammers..if you think about it your trading hammers for gold... Im not saying its usefull but I generally dont have the hammers for missionaries to spare. Id rather get more millitar / worker / settlers. And money isnt a big problem when you start doing tricks (like getting caste system and merchants in every city) you can still go at science with 100%.

Caste System + Merchants has it's own tradeoffs too. That means you aren't in Serfdom for faster Workers, or Slavery for pop rushing. Both of which are cheaper Civics than Caste System. Later in the game it means you aren't in Emancipation, which can be extremely harsh to not be in. It also means that you aren't running as many Engineers/Scientists/Artists/Priests or not working as many tiles (if not Mercantile or SoL which both have their own costs). A Merchant could be working a Mine, in which case you are still making that production:commerce tradeoff. Same with a Merchant and Engineer comparison, or a Merchant and Priest comparison. And of course there are research:gold tradeoffs, culture:gold tradeoffs and food:gold tradeoffs to consider among the various options.

So you're trading one tradeoff for others. That supports my argument, as there are various ways to approach these issues, which when taken advantage of correctly, can have similarly effective results. If you were saying Missionaries are never worth building, then you'd have a point, but it doesn't sound like you are, and in any case it's very obviously not so.

Let me be perfectly clear... I am not arguing for any "best" way of playing, I am arguing against Forest chopping ASAP (especially in relation to Workers Settlers, but not limited to it) being the only "best" way of playing. There are many other valid ways of playing.

B) you can chop warriors too and be offensive. But you can also chop a fast second city and THEN be offensive.

A chopped Warrior comes later than a regularly built warrior. A chopped Settler then Warrior takes even more time. But eventually you can chop more Warriors than straight production can produce, and/or build more from more cities. But it takes time. That is a tradeoff. Earlier Warriors, or more Warriors (or other units) quicker later. Although it doesn't have to work out that way, sometimes earlier Warriors pay off so much that they have much better long term potential. And sometimes they don't pay off at all, thus are wasted.

Personally i know what works on emperor / immortal levels and it sure aint going for 3 religions....(the computers WILL beat you to it no matter what)

I can get 6 of the 7 religions on Emperor almost every game with a Mysticism civ (especially with Saladin's SPI/PHI), and 5 is virtually guaranteed if you play well. I wouldn't recommend it as general gameplay, but it's an option to try for and in certain cases (ie. cultural victory ASAP) is approaching the only right answer. Also on heavy land/production maps (or situations) Shrines become increasinly important for their income potential.

What does work on the other hand is for example worker chop inca warriors. or worker chop fast second city near even more forrest and then worker chop warriors/archers. Use first warrior to steal a worker and then you can have 3 workers early with the fast worker chop strategy.

Yes, these can work. Forest chopping is a useful tool. It is not the only tool, nor is it the tool always fit for the job.

Oh and about saving forrests for later, personally i rather have 300 hammers early in the game than 500 hammers later. Later in the game you are producing way more hammers per round in your cities than in the beginning. It simply has the most dramatic effect in the beginning and can secure you a lead so you can get even more hammers in the end.

It's a tradeoff. Long term potential for short term gains. Which is exactly what I have said. Whether or not the situation will call for one or the other is situational.

I could ofcourse lay this discussion dead by just playing a game and showing exactly how many hammers i earn in a full game by chopping early vs chopping late but ack I dont have time at the moment for this (college examns).

No, to lay the discussion "dead" you would need to show that in all (or even most) cases chopping early vs chopping late is best. If you are arguing against me, that is what you are arguing.

At least understand what the argument is before claiming you can prove it.

 

[Aeson]

At challenging difficulty levels (say, Emperor-plus), the main limitation on the number of cities for the human player is getting enough space. That's why it's important to crank out units (settlers, workers, and military) early. You can catch up on most of the other stuff later.

That is map specific. On your own island it's obviously not that big a concern to expand fast. In island settings in general, the limitation is strongly tied to tech level in regards to naval transport. On maps with plenty of room for expansion, it's a Commerce limitation. On crowded maps (regardless of whether difficulty makes it crowded or not) peaceful expansion is limited by speed, but military expansion is back to being limited by Commerce on higher difficulties. (In regards to this game posted as the example, it would definitely be Commerce limitation on that map.)

It's also playstyle dependant. You can catch back up in number of cities by carving out space militarily too. How much you can conquer/hold, and how fast, is mainly Commerce dictated. What resources you have can be speed limited though, so there are considerations.

I prefer 1 or 2 cities for military rushing (in a conquest sense, not a choke sense), and definitely chop later than early. I'd rather build the first few units normally and chop the last ones before going, rather than the other way around. Because support costs suck.

-----------------

Not to brag, as I already had more than a year's worth of experience with the game when it was released and no doubt in a year many players on these boards will understand the game as well or better than I do, but I'm getting sick of people trying to pull "high" difficulty rank in arguments against me. I've already beaten Deity several times, and it would be more if I actually played much at all. Various duel to small map rushes against 1-3 opponents, Spaceship on small continents vs 4-5 opponents, and Domination on Earth map (which admittedly can be easier than a random map that size). Culture victory is something I haven't tried, but I know I can always beat the date the AI's are launching at, so basically any map should be doable if you survive militarily.

I can basically sleep walk through most Emperor games. Simply bringing up "high" difficulty to make a point against me, or assuming I haven't played them, is not going to work. I am always arguing from (or including) a high difficulty perspective unless the topic or my qualification of my arguments state otherwise.

 

[Willburn]

Aeson you have very good arguments for a varied approach to the game and that no strategy is allways the right.And I agree.

But i must again say one thing and im sure this is the case in most games. Chopping early for hammers can if used right net you more hammers in the long run than not chopping hammers early. Its simple logical that getting a second, third etc city faster will make those cities earn hammers and in the long run you are gaining more hammers than you would with a later chop.

I can ofcourse think of a few exceptions, say when you dont have potential to expand (locked on a island) you want to use every forrest to the maximum effiency or save them to allow your cities to grow bigger. But in any game with potential for more growth getting stronger faster is allways the way to go. (And that is what worker chop does in most cases.)

Oh and im not pulling "rank" on you by refering to empire games etc, im just refering to my own experience with empire/imortal difficoulty games. I have no idea if i will come to your conclusions in one year from now but at the moment i feel its not so good with 3 religions because it costs you so incredible much to invest into. And i feel those resources could be used elsewhere, for example if you have to missionare 10 cities for 3 religions that is 1200 hammers for missionaries... That will net you 30gold per turn. Im pretty sure i could get a powerfull army for 1200 hammers. Im also pretty sure i could pillage for way more than 30 gold per turn with a big army. (also you usually net like 100 gold for taking a city)

On the other hand if you can convince me with arguments that investing into 3 religions and using lots of hammers on missionaries is the way to go then that would just enrich my game so I would be happy for your advice! Im allways looking to improve my game. My goal is to make the perfect civ4 game sometime in the future

 

[Aeson]

But i must again say one thing and im sure this is the case in most games. Chopping early for hammers can if used right net you more hammers in the long run than not chopping hammers early. Its simple logical that getting a second, third etc city faster will make those cities earn hammers and in the long run you are gaining more hammers than you would with a later chop.

It will depend on the situation. It definitely is not simple logic at work because faster cities are not always better and Production cannot stand alone. Long term it is definitely not simple, regardless of what answer you come up with. Here are some of the many thousands of considerations that may be (but won't always be) conflicting with BW first and Chopping ASAP. All of them can impact production either directly and/or indirectly.

- Researching BW and then not being able to research through Code of Laws fast enough to take Civil Service with the Oracle can cost you 30+ turns of +50% Production, +50% Commerce in your capitol.

- Researching BW, outside the beeline, and then being slower to unit X which misses or narrows it's window of opportunity and so gives less value from it's production cost and/or aquires less upfront and/or potential Production.

- Researching BW and then being slower to Alphabet and missing out on potential tech trades. Countless ways this can affect production both short term and long term.

- Researching BW, outside the beeline, and then being slower to tech which allows Wonder X and losing the Wonder race because of it. This can even happen on lower difficulty levels. The AI does use Great Engineers towards Wonders too. The only way to beat them in that case is to have the Wonder finished before they get the tech.

- Researching BW and then being slower to a tech which founds a Religion. Can affect so much... Shrines (Commerce), Diplomacy, FOW, Happiness, Civics (XP, GP, and/or build rates).

- Researching BW and then being slower to Music, missing out of the free Great Artist. These guys can be especially nasty early in the game. I've flipped 3 cities with just one, won wars that otherwise would be unfightable without them. Don't discount them. Same type of consideration can apply for getting to Code of Laws or Drama ASAP.

- Building Workers/Settlers right off instead of explorers/harrassers/invasion early on and missing out on Huts (which then go to neighbors), map intelligence, and/or early captures/conquests.

- Chopping a Forest that Health-wise costs you a productive pop point that could have been an Engineer geting you an extra (or earlier) Great Engineer may cost you a Wonder (race). (A similar type of example for every use of GP or tile working. 1x-3x as up to 3 cities can share the health benefit of a single Forest without Working it.)

- Chopping a Forest ASAP towards a goal which is a set distance in the future either way can cost you in numerous ways. Say you have Ivory and are going for Construction to stomp some neighbors. If you chop the Barracks (or anything else that wouldn't affect production post-Construction), you are being wasteful as you can't upgrade to either War Elephants or Catapults, but can normally build the Barracks first. Once you start construction on the actual units, you will take more time to get out any given number of units as you have less Forest (and potentially Growth) to chop to hurry them along.

- Chopping a Forest that would have spawed Forest growth limits overall production from Chopping and/or could miss a Health plateau if just chopping down to them. The extremes are of course growth that would have occured within the same build as the first chop, which is a total loss, and growth that would never have occured, which is a non-factor. So even within any given build determined to be chopped, all else equal, it's always best to chop on the last turn(s) possible to still get the build out on turn X.

- Chopping a Forest for a building before being in Organized Religion passes up +25% Production.

- Chopping a Forest for a unit before being in Police State passes up +25% Production. (Mainly a consideration with the Pyramids or later era starts.)

- Chopping a Forest towards a building that isn't your trait's reduced cost building(s) passes up +100% Production.

- Chopping a Forest for a unit to go with stack X costs more potential support to chop as the first unit into the stack's composition as it will as the last unit into the stack's composition and limits flexibility if the situation were to suddenly change.

- Chopping a Forest for a unit before switching to Vassalage and/or Theocracy creates a unit with less XP out of the gates.

- Chopping a Forest for a Wonder before connecting it's corresponding resource passes up +100% Production.

- Not having Forests later to chop in emergency situations. Chopping out a unit or two when a sneak attack comes can be a lifesaver.

... I'm getting tired here. That will have to do it for now. Each of those things can work several ways. Chopping may be able to be worked in fine at some point to help out, sometimes going right for it is best, but simply going ASAP for BW, Worker, clearcut will often result in sub-optimal outcomes. (And it would be approaching always sub-optimal to take that sort of inflexible and blind approach to the game in general.)

But in any game with potential for more growth getting stronger faster is allways the way to go. (And that is what worker chop does in most cases.)

"Stronger faster" is not always the way to go. You are using the term "stronger" simply as in number of cities and overall production. If you were using "stronger" as in a nebulous "overall stronger", you'd be correct, but that would not be supporting your assertion because overall strength can actually be limited by overemphasis on production or number of cities, and in no case is limited to those things.

On the other hand if you can convince me with arguments that investing into 3 religions and using lots of hammers on missionaries is the way to go then that would just enrich my game so I would be happy for your advice! Im allways looking to improve my game. My goal is to make the perfect civ4 game sometime in the future

I think that you discount religion is very telling. Religion is a huge part of gameplay, and ignoring the vast amount of value there will definitely skew perspective in regards to the importance of other factors.

I've had Shrines at 50+ base gold per turn, with +250% modifiers (Bureaucracy, Market, Grocer, Bank, Wall Street) on it. That's nothing to scoff at. It didn't take many Missionaries either, I built maybe 10 at most for that religion. You give an AI a religion in one city, and they can spread it for you. But only if you can get it there early enough to make it their state religion. Passive spread also occurs, but only in cities which don't already have a religion and/or are in a different State Religion and Theocracy. Both of those things happen far more often for the first 3 religions. Especially if you have all 3.

Shrines are also heavily map dependant. The more cities possible and the less natural commerce available, the more useful Shrines become. On a Huge Highland map for instance, it's going to be approaching a no-brainer to get at least a few Shrines. On a Tiny Archipelago, it's not going to be worth it to try for more than one religion in a lot of cases, and a Shrine may not even be worth it at all. Having at least one Religion you found is generally a good idea though. Smaller land map rushes excluded, though even they can benefit.

Cultural victory date is highly dependant on how many Religions, thus Cathedrals and their +50% culture each, you have. And you may very well want to be chopping the Cathedrals in that case (Copper bonus), not the Settlers/Workers. Either that or towards tech speed boosting projects to get to the Cathedrals/Religions faster.

I've also have been able to stave off elimination or massive damage in several instances because Religion allowed me to see invasions coming. I used to argue for the Expansionist trait as a viable trait in Civ III, in large part due to this issue. Being able to see what is coming is so vital to being able to run a maxed out economy safely. (Assuming a no reload environment...) Because you can focus on economy more with the knowlege that you can respond to threats as they arise due to having a stronger economy to react with and more warning time. Being in the dark, you have to prepare for what could be coming, or you won't be prepared for it if it does.

It's a bit of a self perpetuating cycle in this regard. The further you can see, the more you can invest in seeing further, and the more cash you get from it. Or the more you can directly invest into your economy. The stronger your economy, the less of your economy has to go into defending your economy, so the more can go into advancing your economy or sight. And it works in reverse too. Having to support/build more units for defense means not having as strong an economy, which means being less safe from a tech standpoint, less able to pump out units in response to a threat, and not seeing the threats as early to start the response too. Which means to be safe you need to invest even more into supporting/building units for defense.

 

[Quantum7]

Lost this thread for awhile; will reply to the *LONG* reply later .

I quite disagree with this. Have you played at higher levels (at least Emperor)? You're often running many cities at the health limit. In other words, an extra health point is worth an extra food per turn per city, which is quite a bit.

Yes (Emperor). At which I had a few cities (temporarily) running at -2 or even -3 food. Which is naturally annoying as it forces you to build i.e. aquaducts which don't seem to be essential on i.e. noble difficulty level.

However, re-reading that sentence it probably should have read "Even at higher difficulty levels the extra health really isn't very important."
(meaning naturally that health itself IS important)

Example:
I'd rather have 5-6 cities with -1/-2 food due to health problems than 2-3 cities with no health problems. Also note:
- More cities / terrain --> Most likely more health resources.
- More settlers (and workers) --> Slightly less city growth, so slightly later chance of health problems.

This is not an accurate characterization of the Civ4 economic model. By the early middle game, all of your citizens will already be working fully improved tiles. You can't get an extra food just by building an extra farm.

Agreed. In practice I had to build one extra farm instead of probably a cottage. Meaning ofcourse you loose some money (although the city will grow faster / sustain more specialists once the health is present).

 

[DaviddesJ]

Not to brag, as I already had more than a year's worth of experience with the game when it was released and no doubt in a year many players on these boards will understand the game as well or better than I do, but I'm getting sick of people trying to pull "high" difficulty rank in arguments against me.

I didn't do anything of the kind. I made a comment, and I described the situations where it applies. It's no wonder that you feel people are trying to "pull rank" on you, if every time that anyone puts their comments in the context of the difficulty level you take it as some kind of personal insult.

I agree of course that fast territorial expansion is not so important on island maps, but I view those as a rather odd variant, not a usual game.

I think, in general, the playtesters are more likely to have blind spots regarding certain aspects of the game than people new to the game. Because, by definition, if there are any significant imbalances in the game, they would have to be things that the playtesters didn't fully realize. Because the things that did get realized in playtesting would have been fixed or changed.

The fact that you can win at Deity doesn't imply that you're using the best strategy or that there couldn't be some aspects of the game that you don't fully appreciate. The analogy to RCP in Civ3 is a good one---plenty of people could win at Deity without using RCP, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't a good strategy.

But, since I'm mostly on your side, I'm a bit surprised that you're choosing my comments to complain about.

 

[jar2574]

I really like chopping early if my civ starts with mining. I like to chop one or two within the city area and one or two outside the fat cross.

I go for space victories usually and so religions are less important than for cultural victories, making chopping more attractive.

I never have a problem with health if I expand quickly enough to grab health resources. Chopping results in quicker expansion. For this style of play I think chopping is the way to go. If I do have health problems I don't hesitate to use slavery as to rush production.

 

[Aeson]

I didn't do anything of the kind. I made a comment, and I described the situations where it applies. It's no wonder that you feel people are trying to "pull rank" on you, if every time that anyone puts their comments in the context of the difficulty level you take it as some kind of personal insult.

If you didn't mean it that way, then no worries. I read it that way, but you know best of course.

I didn't call it an insult though, did I? If I felt it was an insult, I would have said so. I think that bringing up difficulty level to support a statement or argument that doesn't apply tends to just be showing off, "pulling rank" as I put it. While it doesn't offend me, it does annoy me. Which is what I stated.

I agree of course that fast territorial expansion is not so important on island maps, but I view those as a rather odd variant, not a usual game.

So what is your point? It's still a consideration for those who play on them. Could I dismiss Praetorians in a UU discussion simply because I don't ever play with Rome in games?

I think, in general, the playtesters are more likely to have blind spots regarding certain aspects of the game than people new to the game. Because, by definition, if there are any significant imbalances in the game, they would have to be things that the playtesters didn't fully realize. Because the things that did get realized in playtesting would have been fixed or changed.

I'm making no statements about what happened in playtesting, but I can speak about life in general though... (I actually agree with your theory in some ways, but it's not supported too well IMO.)

It would be nice if the world worked the way you seem to think it does, but it doesn't. Sometimes agreeing about what the problem is is tough enough. That should be a principle made abundantly clear in this thread already. Then a fix isn't always easy to come by either. Fixes even might not be figured out, may have to wait their turn, and can even break other things.

Otherwise there would be no problems in life.

The fact that you can win at Deity doesn't imply that you're using the best strategy or that there couldn't be some aspects of the game that you don't fully appreciate.

Did I say that I was using the best strategy? I specifically said, "... and no doubt in a year many players on these boards will understand the game as well or better than I do." How is that supporting your insinuation that I am claiming to be using the best strategy? It is an explicit statement that I accept there is no doubt better understanding of the game than I have.

The analogy to RCP in Civ3 is a good one---plenty of people could win at Deity without using RCP, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't a good strategy.

This is a good analogy, but for an argument against your playtester theory. RCP took years to surface, and wasn't something spotted by someone freshly picking up the game and saying "Hey now... rings!" It could have happened that way, it just didn't, or if it did, they never brought it to Firaxis' attention to be fixed. The point being that problems may just jump out at someone. They may lie dormant until someone studies enough to dig them out years later. They may never be idenfied. Or they may just hide until someone bungles their way into it.

It doesn't apply to what I said as already noted, I wasn't saying I was using the best strategy.

But, since I'm mostly on your side, I'm a bit surprised that you're choosing my comments to complain about.

I don't believe in sides. I'm not even on my side since it doesn't exist. If you are referencing the "pull rank" comments, I had segregated that off from the rest of my post. I wasn't just addressing your comment, as specifically noted. "------------" is my way of implying a new post or subject. I didn't want to post 2 times in a row when one post sufficed fine. If that was unclear, I appologize.

 

[Aeson]

In practice I had to build one extra farm instead of probably a cottage. Meaning ofcourse you loose some money (although the city will grow faster / sustain more specialists once the health is present).

Terrain improvements can be changed on the tiles, other tiles used at various times, or even swapping tiles between cities. Use Farm while growing, other for output. You're stuck with using the Farm until the Health issues are taken care of somehow else. And then it's going to mean then the same decision at the new Health level until you're to max population with no Health deficiency.

 

[Islandia]

Semi off topic, but does this timing issue with the changing of to the settler during the middle of the turn to get the food have to do with the speed of your computer? On my fairly fast computer when I am playing single player, the chop finishes well before I can even think about jumping into the city to switch the build order. I can actually manage this in multiplayer because of the lag time between turns from network traffic.

 

[Memphus]

@Islandia

to answer your question yes and no. If you don't have an active unit somewhere on the map then yes if the game is lagging you can still do it.
However in the event that you have one active unit on the map, the game goes to that unit before you worker finishes the job. Note that if you move this unit/or do any action, then the worker will finish the chop. So there is a small window to change.

 

[DaviddesJ]

@Islandia

to answer your question yes and no. If you don't have an active unit somewhere on the map then yes if the game is lagging you can still do it.
However in the event that you have one active unit on the map, the game goes to that unit before you worker finishes the job.

As mentioned above, there's not really a timing issue. You can just cancel the pending worker order at the end of the last turn, after it completes its work for the that turn, and then you have as long as you want to schedule the worker for this turn (i.e., to change the production target).

 

[DaviddesJ]

So what is your point? It's still a consideration for those who play on them. Could I dismiss Praetorians in a UU discussion simply because I don't ever play with Rome in games?

My point was only to explain the context of my own thinking about the game (just as with the difficulty comment). View it as a qualification of my remarks. My thinking focuses on territorial expansion because I have been playing on standard maps, where that is important. You have more experience with the game and have played more different versions, and so those observations are useful, but different than mine.

This is a good analogy, but for an argument against your playtester theory. RCP took years to surface, and wasn't something spotted by someone freshly picking up the game and saying "Hey now... rings!"

You may know more than I do about many things, but you don't know more than I do about how I discovered RCP. It pretty much is just that: I picked up the game, I played a couple of times and followed the GOTM discussions; one day, I got interested in how corruption depended on distance, and the observation regarding cities at equal distance followed. And some longtime players were at first skeptical that it would be useful/significant, because it wasn't part of how they thought about the game. So I do think that it's more likely that people new to the game can have fresh insights about it, and think of different things that may be important.

Now, chopping down forests to build early settlers and workers (or, perhaps, rush military units) is a rather more obvious strategy than placing cities in rings, and it's hard to believe that the former wasn't thoroughly investigated by some Civ IV playtesters. It seems to me that there must have been some playtesters who thought it was a dominant strategy, just as there are some new players now who think so. But you haven't really said anything about that, so I'm only guessing.