[GS] Production of Lumber Mills on Hills

[Pure24]

Noticed something after the June 2019 Patch.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the idea of lumber mills was to make them equal in production to mines.
To that end, both lumber mills and mines give a maximum of 4 production (removing other factors such as Civ-specific bonuses and Wonders e.g. Ruhr Valley).

Now hills give +1 production. So putting either a mine or lumber mill gives the extra production.
The issue here is that woods also give +1 production! So if you build lumber mills on woods, you get the extra production.

This makes lumber mills built on woods on flat tiles equal to mines on hills, but lumber mills on woods hills are objectively better than mines.

This means there is really no reason to go for mines over lumber mills (outside of chopping, maybe). Is that right?

 

[acluewithout]

Seems legit.

 

[pkaem]

Jea but if you count in the amount of production you get from a fudalism magnus chop, you always want the mine.

 

[Pure24]

Jea but if you count in the amount of production you get from a fudalism magnus chop, you always want the mine.

Agreed. And then at Conservation you remove the mines to plant second-growth for lumber mills. Great when you having nothing to do/extra builders

 

[SaiH]

Did this change with the new patch?
Building a mine doesn't seem to remove (rain)forest from the tile.

 

[Minou]

Sounds right although because this is such a chop based game it seems it yields more production overall to chop and then mine unless the game will go very long (eg 5 production for 80 turns is less than 4 production for 80 turns plus 100 instant from chop). I wish it wasn’t so because planning mines and mills is more fun than wildly chopping everything in sight.

Potentially a mine could be better on straight production (not counting chops) it boosts one of those (sadly still weak) Industrial Zobes and the zone is doubled by a card, though that’s pretty niche.

 

[pkaem]

Agreed. And then at Conservation you remove the mines to plant second-growth for lumber mills. Great when you having nothing to do/extra builders

That's reasonable but will be rare to do since without harvest I really want my money spent efficent to buy builders and a space port later. I didn't play a science game yet in the patch but I think getting research labs via build and not purchase might be an option now,so there might be room for more builders.

 

[Softly]

Did this change with the new patch?
Building a mine doesn't seem to remove (rain)forest from the tile.

This is only true for resources under forrest/jungle (i.e a Jungle Amber tile). If there is no resource then the Forrest/rain forest will need to be cleared before you can build a mine,

 

[Sostratus]

Now hills give +1 production. So putting either a mine or lumber mill gives the extra production.
The issue here is that woods also give +1 production! So if you build lumber mills on woods, you get the extra production.

I find it a bit funny that although they wanted to balance mines, mills and quarries, mines still get their production upgrades waaaay sooner than the others. Between industrialization and steel, for example, mines are still ahead of lumbermills, so those trees are just begging for the chop brigade.
I think Lumbermills are still coded to get +1 from cybernetics though. This means if you like messing around on your GDR warmonger spree, you can put +5 prod on tiles between the woods and the mill, while the mines are only +3.

This is only true for resources under forrest/jungle (i.e a Jungle Amber tile). If there is no resource then the Forrest/rain forest will need to be cleared before you can build a mine,

I always found this funny. I won't say no the extra yield, but imagining my eco friendly coal miners always gets a chuckle.