Jungles: Keep or mow?

[RomanHoliday]

I used to mow all my jungles in previous Civs, as they are mostly useless. But they take too long to chop down and I feel good about keeping them when I get Environmentalism (that's another question: does anyone but me like Environmentalism?).

I know this is kinda moot for the harder difficulties, but what do you do with your Jungles (please note your difficulty level)?

 

[CorruptAssassin]

I do what they're doing to the Amazon; Mow

 

[acidsatyr]

i will sometimes leave junges on hills because i use slavery to get production there and dont really need to cut them down. Lots of happiness once you use Environmentalism.
forests on the other hand usually are chopped

 

[Enigma256]

i chop them all down, at least in the fat cross.

environmentalism isn't all that useful, there are enough other resources for happiness at that stage.

 

[RomanHoliday]

Enigma, you are totally right. I kinda knew the answer for myself already. Environ is too far off down the tech tree to be worth holding onto useless jungle squares.

In my most recent game, I continued to play long after victory. I noticed that my poeple were TOO happy. The extra happys from National Parks (the nature squares under Environmentalism) were completely unnecessary.

I guess I'm too much of an environmentalist myself. I want my people to be Environmental too, but it's not the most advantageous civic (I was fooled, it being last on the list, one would think it was more advanced). I even feel bad for building Coal Plants (but thery aren't as bad as their real life counterparts).

 

[Mango]

In Civ 3 it was wise not to chop jungles because they cost an insane amount of turns compared to forests.

In Civ 4 chopping a jungle takes the same number of turns as a forest. No hammer bonus, but it's worth the time if you need plots to work. And it always provides a grass tile, which is good stuff. Granted in Civ 3 you would always under grass and sometimes even a grass/shield tile, but jungle chopping is a better strategy in Civ 4 IMO.

Plus jungle tiles contain lots of good resources. Bananas and gems are outstanding bonus resources.

 

[Danicela]

4 turns is not "many" turns...
You can keep as forts => 50% defense is better than the fort 25% (absurd..)
I cut all in the city area but after, if the Jungle doesn't annoy me, I can keep it as a fort but cut it if an enemy uses it for a defense point ...

 

[FeelGood]

Mow every jungle tiles in the city because of the unhealthiness and low yield. The rest can stay wherever they are.

 

[Lord Kid]

I chop em inside the fat cross, and if my workers have nothing better to do then they chop them out of my borders.

 

[Ceritoglu]

I make sure I have no jungles or forests directly next to my cities. One of the first things I learnt in cIV was that beseiging a city from a jungle helps provide cover - I make sure the AI doesn't have this advantage over me. I'll leave the odd patch of jungle and forest around the place usually if that tile is of no worth to me (city-wise and military-wise).

 

[automator]

chop those babies. Why you'd ever leave a tile that only gives 1 food through the entire game just for a happiness bonus in the last few years of a game is beyone comprehension.

 

[acidsatyr]

because you might be playing SE, farming those grassland tiles, and using bannanas and sugar as high food resources and using slavery for production. In other words you dont need to use hills so why chop jungles on them?Environmentalism is more usefull than some people think, yes it does come late but it is quite nice to able to get 2,3 happyness at that stage of a game withouth the need to switch represenation to police state or heredity rule if your involved in along war.

 

[Wlauzon]

i chop them all down, at least in the fat cross.

environmentalism isn't all that useful, there are enough other resources for happiness at that stage.

That is pretty much what I have found also. One advantage to the Indians is that the fast workers can cut down jungles a lot faster than other civs, which can give you a slight edge, esp on tropical.

 

[.Shane.]

Environmentalism comes too late.

Regardless, always mow any that are directly next to a city to remove the defensive bonus of a potential attacker. Mow them in the FC as needed, after that.

 

[neferator]

Mow 'em! They look messy...

 

[The Navy Seal]

Danicela It only takes 4 turns if your playin on quick it takes a lot longer if your playing epic or marathon. I always mow the jungles 1 because they stun your cities growth and 2 because it causes sickness. I never chop my forests down I normally build my city near forest on purpose for the hammers. And I never have Enviormentalism on it is a waste in anarchy.

 

[RomanHoliday]

Seal, my thoughts exactly.

 

[Danicela]

Danicela It only takes 4 turns if your playin on quick it takes a lot longer if your playing epic or marathon. I always mow the jungles 1 because they stun your cities growth and 2 because it causes sickness. I never chop my forests down I normally build my city near forest on purpose for the hammers. And I never have Enviormentalism on it is a waste in anarchy.

4 turns in Normal...
It takes more turns on epic and marathon ? But it takes even more turns for everything (mines, farms..) ... so it becomes the same.
I never chop forests too.

 

[Mischief]

And I never have Enviormentalism on it is a waste in anarchy.

I agree, I don`t see why you would choose Environmentalism over free speech (or state property, if you have a large civilisation)
In my opinion environmentalism is pretty useless, esp. since it comes so late

 

[netbjarne]

If there is a forest next to the jungle, and the jungle is cut down, a new forest may grow where the jungle was, which can be cut for production