Jungles: Keep or mow?
- Thread starter RomanHoliday
- Start date
I've warmed to environmentalism - it comes at a good stage in the game when I normally have lots of unhealthiness from large cities and factories and coal plants - so it helps with keeping the cities growing and leaving spare capacity for specialists. The extra happiness can also be handy for dealing with war weariness. I read that the high difficulty levels have alot more unhealthiness & unhappiness so I can see it being more useful then.
I never have jungles in my city radius because they are rubbish tiles that hobble your city growth and I don't think the happy bonus is enough - it would be nice if they had tile improvements too e.g. safari (gives money bonus) / medical research centre (turns -1 health into +1health) / camp (extra food). As it is players have no incentive to keep jungle tiles apart from city defense.
I never have jungles in my city radius because they are rubbish tiles that hobble your city growth and I don't think the happy bonus is enough - it would be nice if they had tile improvements too e.g. safari (gives money bonus) / medical research centre (turns -1 health into +1health) / camp (extra food). As it is players have no incentive to keep jungle tiles apart from city defense.
Junglecutter
Honorable Delegate
name says it all
Danicela said:
AAGH! I think I'm having a heart attack!
No seriously, forests are great to chop. Sure, they provide health and you can build lumbermills on them later (I'll save a few), but I need that production to get my buildings up and my troops moving. I'm a Prince/Monarch player, if that makes any difference.
But, back to the purpose of this thread, I typically run State Property at the ends of my games because I have a tendency to go for domination and conquest victories more often than any other type, and thus the state property bonus is immense. Even if I'm going for another kind of victory, such as space race, I typically conquer a neighbor or two in the meantime, so state property still gives me a great boost.
As for the health bonus, you can build granaries, harbors, aqueducts, grocers, supermarkets, and hospitals to boost health. Along with the resources, I typically don't need any more help. Also, if you use slavery profusely, you won't have much of a problem with unhealthiness because your cities will stay small.
EDIT: I forgot to mention this, although it was probably pretty obvious from my title and above postings. I bulldoze jungles. Lots of them. All of them in the fat cross, for sure, and sometimes a few more if my workers are bored.
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
Or to give +1 hammer per turn and then with the +1 upgrade.
No ... because when you cut them, they are lost for the whole game, and when you take them, you gain +1 per turn and +2 with the upgrade, when you chop you gain 12 or something, this is really crappy.
For the tiny difference, I prefer take them for +1 per turn for infinite.
But unproductive?
Eh they are defense points.
Charles 22
King
nameless_one
Chieftain
keep it simple - mow
PedalPower
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2006
- Messages
- 27
Lord Olleus said:
Unfortunately, it appears that this is the best strategy. If I can stay competitive in ancient times without chopping, then I will dominate the middle ages onward at prince level. I'm reluctant to go to monarch because I have a feeling that chop/pop rushing will start to become mandatory, and that is a style of play that really doesn't appeal to me. So I'm working on a custom difficulty level which will give me a fighting chance in ancient times and the AI a fighting chance later on.
As for the original question, mow like there is no tomorrow. Jungle squares have about as much value as desert or peaks, but unlike them when you clear a jungle you get ultra-valuable grassland squares for farms and cottages. If you need a little production help, build a workshop or two. I consider large jungle areas to be prime real estate, because I know the cities built there will be some of the best I have.
wiseguy101
Warlord
I like to chop them down, and I play on Noble difficulty, but then again I might not be the best player out there!
wiseguy101 said:I like to chop them down, and I play on Noble difficulty, but then again I might not be the best player out there!
Fellow Nobleman here - I always chop. Not just cos I think jungles look messy on the world map (as I said earlier) but because I just don't think they're all that much use, to be honest. Not nearly as bad as they were in civ 3 though, where they took longer to chop and had less uses.
I always chop absolutely everything except tundra-forest. You've got to be pretty desperate to use enviromentalism for happiness. It's main use is the health bonus, so it seems counter intuitive to keep tiles that make the city more unhealthy.
Blast! Lord Olleus beat me to it!
Essentially, what he said is quite good. I don't bother keeping jungles around, ever, because they have unhealthiness attached, and can be replaced by cottages and farms, which only fuels my slave labor economy until I hit the Rennaissance and Industrial eras (then, I get all hippy-liberal, and grant Emancipation, Free Speech, and Free Religion! Yay!).
I won't chop all my forests for the reasons you mentioned above: health and future good squares with lumbermills on them. In a given city radius, I might keep 2. Will I keep 4? (I only consider even numbers because you don't get the health bonus rounded up for odds) Rarely but maybe...any more than that? Never--chop them down for production! If I can, I'll keep 2 per city, and rarely any more because those trees can really help build a civilization.
And Danicela, say I have a size 3 city where every citizen is working a food resource and the city has a granary. If it grows to size 5 in less than 10 turns and I whip it for 90 hammers on epic speed, that's pretty productive for it's size. Slavery can produce some small but incredibly productive cities if you have the right terrain for it. The difference is quite noticeable as well...why would you say it was tiny? Beating my populace into submission and chopping hundreds of trees is the greatest thing for building an empire!
I'm confused as to why you said 12 or something. I can get 30-40 hammers per chop easily...I know I play on epic, so speed probably has something to do with it.
EDIT: Thanks for mentioning the common sense factor, jimbob. I forgot to bring that up, but I definitely thought it.
Essentially, what he said is quite good. I don't bother keeping jungles around, ever, because they have unhealthiness attached, and can be replaced by cottages and farms, which only fuels my slave labor economy until I hit the Rennaissance and Industrial eras (then, I get all hippy-liberal, and grant Emancipation, Free Speech, and Free Religion! Yay!).
I won't chop all my forests for the reasons you mentioned above: health and future good squares with lumbermills on them. In a given city radius, I might keep 2. Will I keep 4? (I only consider even numbers because you don't get the health bonus rounded up for odds) Rarely but maybe...any more than that? Never--chop them down for production! If I can, I'll keep 2 per city, and rarely any more because those trees can really help build a civilization.
And Danicela, say I have a size 3 city where every citizen is working a food resource and the city has a granary. If it grows to size 5 in less than 10 turns and I whip it for 90 hammers on epic speed, that's pretty productive for it's size. Slavery can produce some small but incredibly productive cities if you have the right terrain for it. The difference is quite noticeable as well...why would you say it was tiny? Beating my populace into submission and chopping hundreds of trees is the greatest thing for building an empire!
I'm confused as to why you said 12 or something. I can get 30-40 hammers per chop easily...I know I play on epic, so speed probably has something to do with it.
EDIT: Thanks for mentioning the common sense factor, jimbob. I forgot to bring that up, but I definitely thought it.
Aye, I mean, if leaving forests is your thing then I can see how people can incorporate them into a good strategy. Eventually forests make good tiles, and before then the chances are you'll have other good tiles to work. Good tile produce, plus extra health and extra happiness if you want to run enviromentalism.
I think enviromentalism is a good civic, its just it doesn't usually fit with a lot of people's game styles.
Most of the game happiness is the biggest limit, but later it can switch so health is the bigger limiter. Strategys involving a small number of large cities are the most affected by health. At that point you can have more happiness than you'll ever need with a combination of civics, resources, religions and buildings, but there is a more finite limit on ways you can gain health. If you leave jungles you're essentially trading health for happiness, and in the type of games you're likely to be running enviromentalism, it just doesn't make sence.
Personally, I think running enviormentalism should cause jungles to produce health, instead of taking it. That would be a worthy enough incentive to keep them. It kinda makes sence too. Enviromentalists like jungles, so they'd go in there and discover plants and stuff to make medicine from.
I think enviromentalism is a good civic, its just it doesn't usually fit with a lot of people's game styles.
Most of the game happiness is the biggest limit, but later it can switch so health is the bigger limiter. Strategys involving a small number of large cities are the most affected by health. At that point you can have more happiness than you'll ever need with a combination of civics, resources, religions and buildings, but there is a more finite limit on ways you can gain health. If you leave jungles you're essentially trading health for happiness, and in the type of games you're likely to be running enviromentalism, it just doesn't make sence.
Personally, I think running enviormentalism should cause jungles to produce health, instead of taking it. That would be a worthy enough incentive to keep them. It kinda makes sence too. Enviromentalists like jungles, so they'd go in there and discover plants and stuff to make medicine from.
marioflag
History Addict
Simply mow it! If forests at least give you an advantage not chopping them like building windmills or lumbermills and have an average production and food , jungles give you just 1 food you can't build anything on and when they can be useful it is too late and enviromentalism isn't also a good civic or at least compared to state property.
Xanikk999
History junkie
If your playing right, you should never need enviromentalism.
State property is ten times better for conquerors with big empires.
And if you have a big empire you will have lots of happiness resources. Not to mention jungle hurts city production and growth.
State property is ten times better for conquerors with big empires.
And if you have a big empire you will have lots of happiness resources. Not to mention jungle hurts city production and growth.
Agreed. I can see leaving some forests. But I can't see leaving jungles. Why wait for +1 happiness so incredibly late in the game when you can wipe that jungle out and build cottages that can give you up to 7 commerce (with printing press and free speech, of course).
Hell, I'd even run 10% culture for a happiness point or two and still come out on top with all those towns than by switching off State Property to Environmentalism.
And the health bonus? By the end of the game, I have more than enough health resources, and they are boosted by all those buildings I mentioned above.
Hell, I'd even run 10% culture for a happiness point or two and still come out on top with all those towns than by switching off State Property to Environmentalism.
And the health bonus? By the end of the game, I have more than enough health resources, and they are boosted by all those buildings I mentioned above.
In a typical game on a small map I will conquer 2-3 other civs and be buddies with the others so I end up with around 16 cities with the core cities being in their mid-late twenties.
In that scenario I find environmentalism is more useful than state property because the forbidden palace & versailes keep maintenance low and I'm raking in loads of gold anyway. I sometimes find that the large cities are covered in green smog around the early industrial period and I often switch to environmentalism to fix it because it cuts into the number of specialists a city can support.
The happiness bonus isnt great and it certainly isnt a good enough reason to keep jungles around cities but it does add to the happiness buffer for dealing with war weariness if you havnt built mount rushmore & jails or running police state.
I'm not sure if thats playing the game 'right' but it works well enough at prince and I havnt got round to playing on the higher settings yet - but as unhealthiness/unhappiness increase on harder settings I can see environmentalism being more useful in those circumstances
In that scenario I find environmentalism is more useful than state property because the forbidden palace & versailes keep maintenance low and I'm raking in loads of gold anyway. I sometimes find that the large cities are covered in green smog around the early industrial period and I often switch to environmentalism to fix it because it cuts into the number of specialists a city can support.
The happiness bonus isnt great and it certainly isnt a good enough reason to keep jungles around cities but it does add to the happiness buffer for dealing with war weariness if you havnt built mount rushmore & jails or running police state.
I'm not sure if thats playing the game 'right' but it works well enough at prince and I havnt got round to playing on the higher settings yet - but as unhealthiness/unhappiness increase on harder settings I can see environmentalism being more useful in those circumstances
I play emperor. I love wood.
I chop everything.
I love jungles for the grassland and I chop them when I can.
When I capture cities even late on I chop the forests - good for getting courthouses + other improvements fast.
I will often chop a forest that has a lumber mill! I like the quick hammers far too much.
I will chop all forest in my land, even that outside the fat crosses, as I still get hammers.
I would like to see something in a future patch which would make me think twice about chopping - eg degradation of grassland to plains through soil erosion or something?
I chop everything.
I love jungles for the grassland and I chop them when I can.
When I capture cities even late on I chop the forests - good for getting courthouses + other improvements fast.
I will often chop a forest that has a lumber mill! I like the quick hammers far too much.
I will chop all forest in my land, even that outside the fat crosses, as I still get hammers.
I would like to see something in a future patch which would make me think twice about chopping - eg degradation of grassland to plains through soil erosion or something?
