New Beta Version - January 3rd (1/3)

[Deadstarre]

But this would make forests kinda weak, till you have reached lumbermill technology.

it only makes them weak after you have enough spare workers to build triangle farms. Forest was still the superior choice until then, so now you'd have a tilting balance of power farm versus forest as opposed to what exist now which is forest being superior always early on.

AND if you really still think they are weak (you decided triangle farms was the way for you), then go ahead and chop them! thats the real beauty in it. Because of trading posts and terrain limitations I dont think anything beyond a triangle farm needs real consideration

 

[BiteInTheMark]

it only makes them weak after you have enough spare workers to build triangle farms. Forest was still the superior choice until then, so now you'd have a tilting balance of power farm versus forest as opposed to what exist now which is forest being superior always early on.

AND if you really still think they are weak (you decided triangle farms was the way for you), then go ahead and chop them! thats the real beauty in it. Because of trading posts and terrain limitations I dont think anything beyond a triangle farm needs real consideration

ok, weak is the wrong word. They are fine as they are. But how long do you need for one farm? 7 turns? Makes 21 turns to create a farm triangle.
I think, the early balance is fine as it is.

 

[Deadstarre]

I think, the early balance is fine as it is.

Crabhelmet definitely disagrees, we still need others to weigh in on that though I agree. As my final thought, herbalists could continue to boost jungle the way they do now since jungle is missing so many of the advantages forest have, and are generally rarer.

 

[pineappledan]

Only one solution. Science to forest and jungle from herbalist. Then there can be no comparison between it and triangle farms.

 

[Blue Ghost]

I would personally like to see the balance of chopping vs. keeping shifted more toward chopping. In real life, clear-cutting forests for farmland is a very common practice with obvious benefits, but right now in Civ there’s little incentive to do so, as forests are equal to or better than farms at almost every stage of the game.

 

[CrabHelmet]

IMO Forests should start off less good than Grassland. Bronze Age societies in Europe didn't induce mass deforestation for fun, they did because you cannot feed anywhere near the same population density as agricultural lands. But Forests produce 2 Food and 1 Production, meaning they can sustain a whole Citizen and the ability for that Citizen to work. Should be 1 Food and 1 Production. That way Herbalists allow certain starts to avoid chopping a little longer, rather than allowing certain starts to favour Forests until end-game.

 

[pineappledan]

Maybe chopping bonus production should scale with era?

 

[BiteInTheMark]

I would personally like to see the balance of chopping vs. keeping shifted more toward chopping. In real life, clear-cutting forests for farmland is a very common practice with obvious benefits, but right now in Civ there’s little incentive to do so, as forests are equal to or better than farms at almost every stage of the game.

If you argue this way, you have to integrate the ability, to plant forests, like it is possible in real life. Needs long time, like 15-20 turns, and is a special forest, giving no hammer, if cut down.

IMO Forests should start off less good than Grassland. Bronze Age societies in Europe didn't induce mass deforestation for fun, they did because you cannot feed anywhere near the same population density as agricultural lands. But Forests produce 2 Food and 1 Production, meaning they can sustain a whole Citizen and the ability for that Citizen to work. Should be 1 Food and 1 Production. That way Herbalists allow certain starts to avoid chopping a little longer, rather than allowing certain starts to favour Forests until end-game.

For real? How do you get anything from a flat grasland? There is nearly nothing except some bushes with berries, herbals or rabbits. If you want food, you need to go into forest to hunt animals or get fruits by apple trees ore something like this. The production is also justified, you get wood for tools, fire and buildings. If you want to talk about reality, grasland would get only one food.

 

[pineappledan]

I always play with the reforestation modmod.AI can’t use it though

 

[Ziad]

I definitely think there's a discrepancy in the amount of buffs farms get with respect to forest/jungle.

Removing the +1 food to Forest/Jungle is a possible fix. I don't think Forests would be hurt all that much as they would still be valuable non-improved tiles (which makes sense thematically).

Frankly, I've had a few times where I got "feelsbadman" thoughts when I cut down Herbalist buffed Forests to create Plantations in some situations.

 

[Txurce]

I definitely think there's a discrepancy in the amount of buffs farms get with respect to forest/jungle.

Removing the +1 food to Forest/Jungle from Herbalist could be a good incentive to cut them down if you need more food.

Why do you need more incentive? You either need the food, or you don't. It sounds like you'd like an easier choice... or am I missing something?

 

[Ziad]

Why do you need more incentive? You either need the food, or you don't. It sounds like you'd like an easier choice... or am I missing something?

You typically avoid cutting Forests as they are much more beneficial than Farms in most situations when buffed with Herbalist. Herbalist Forests provide base + 2 yields passively while farms give base + 1 yield after you invest a worker for a few turns. Unless you build triangle farms, you're worse off.

If you need more food, then you want to be incentivized to cut down the Forests to create farms in order to get more Food. If you don't need more food, you can keep them for the long-term production benefits. That's the trade-off that doesn't exist right now.

It also makes thematic sense.

 

[Txurce]

You typically avoid cutting Forests as they are much more beneficial than Farms in most situations when buffed with Herbalist. Herbalist Forests provide base + 2 yields passively while farms give base + 1 yield. Unless you build triangle farms, you're worse off. Even then you only end up in the exact same situation had you not cut down the forests.

If you need more food, then you want to be incentivized to cut down the Forests to create farms in order to get more Food. If you don't need more food, you can keep them for the production benefits. That's the trade-off that doesn't exist right now.

This makes thematic sense, and would be functionally more balanced.

I agree with the broader point that keeping just about every forest for the entirety of the game is thematically and historically off. But if I need the food, I would cut down the forests regardless. The incentive is the need. If you deprive yourself of needed food because you can't bear to lose a forest... I sympathize, but no more.

 

[Ziad]

I agree with the broader point that keeping just about every forest for the entirety of the game is thematically and historically off. But if I need the food, I would cut down the forests regardless. The incentive is the need. If you deprive yourself of needed food because you can't bear to lose a forest... I sympathize, but no more.

I just pointed out that whether or not you need Food, you currently have no benefit from chopping Forests until at least Civil Service and that's only on fresh water access. It would take up to Fertilizer to even consistently compete with Herbalist Forests on Food and Food alone. as forests are already buffed with a slew of other yields at University/Workshops/Lumber Mills at that point.

There is never a need to chop down Forests until the super late game. That's the problem that needs to be amended, as it's both thematically weird and functionally ... imbalanced.

 

[Txurce]

There is never a need to chop down Forests. That's the problem that needs to be amended.

This is the key, actionable point, and I completely agree.

 

[Ziad]

Well it's actually slightly wrong. You sometimes chop Forests for the short-term production boost, usually for Wonders if you are worried you are behind.

A pretty niche situation if you ask me.

 

[Infixo]

Forest doesn’t provide any food. It gives only +1 Production. Other yields come from Terrain that the forest grows on. There’s not much to nerf.

Edit. And my two coins for balance discussion.
Lumber mill should remove 1 food from forest (i.e. -1 food). If you cut the trees, you dont get food. Give that 1 food to farms in Medieval. Then 3 options arise: leave it be, raw nature, herbalist, tourism, etc.; turn it into production-oriented tile; chop it to make space for a farm with much better food output.
Also probably Herbalists shoudnt improve forest if there’s lumber mill.

 

[CrabHelmet]

Like, historically, an enormous amount of deforestation occurred during the Bronze Age. In VP, nobody chops Forests until, at the very least Civil Service, unless they're clearing room for a Lux. That's a bit out of whack, IMO.

 

[Txurce]

Forest doesn’t provide any food. It gives only +1 Production. Other yields come from Terrain that the forest grows on. There’s not much to nerf.

I think that was implicit. But in terms of nerfing, it would be some of the boosts that make most players these days reluctant to cut down any forests at all.

 

[Infixo]

I think that was implicit. But in terms of nerfing, it would be some of the boosts that make most players these days reluctant to cut down any forests at all.

Implicit? There were few posts proposing to remove 1 food from forest. Well... how?