Regular Grassland: Irrigate or Mine?

[cgannon64]

I've been having a personal mental debate about this. I always wonder what to do with those regular grassland squares. If you irrigate, they produce 3 food. IF you mine, they produce 2 food 1 shield. THe problem with mining them is that they only make 2 food, each pop point needs 2 food, so without food bonuses (cattle, etc.) your city can stagnate. The problem with irrigating when no hills are around is that your city can have very low shield production with a high population.

I need to know what you guys think. Is there a definite answer to this, an aspect I'm overlooking? Or is it always one or the other, high pop and low prodcution, or low pop and high production? This has been bugging me alot lately, because I always feel I'm doing something wrong.

 

[nullspace]

I think the only "wrong" thing to do would be to decide that all grassland should be one thing or the other. The right thing is to mine or irrigate it depending on what the city needs. Under Despotism, mine it because the irrigation will be wasted. If the city is entirely on grassland, mine most of them to help production. If there are hills nearby, irrigate the grassland, and mine the hills. That can get you more production: one worker on irrigated grassland and one on a mined hill gets a total of 4 food and 3 sheilds, whereas two workers on mined grassland make 4 food and 2 sheilds. It's fine to change between mines and irrigation depending on if you want growth or production.

Read Cracker's new Opening Play guide: http://www.civfanatics.com/doc/civ3/cracker/civ3_starts/
It talks about this sort of thing, but in lots more depth.

 

[cgannon64]

I tried to read Cracker's guide, but I got lost and bored. All that in depth stuff is not for me---I prefer to play a game, not analyze it.

Oh, and thanks for the reply. That's what I've been doing lately, irrigating and mining about half and half, but I was just wondering if there is any "clearcut" answer.

 

[Panzar75]

What do you do with the shielded grassland? Don't you have the same problem with those?

 

[bbaws]

It's a by the city question really. Once you have railroad it doesn't matter which you do on any given square. As far as the stagnation goes sometimes stagnation is exactly what you want. Their isn't a great deal of point letting them breed just to entertain each other unless you have a luxury that you plan to seize. You'll also want them stagnated most games when you are waiting to get sanitation. I probably change any given grassland or plains square in my capital's radius ten times through the course of a game depending what I have cooking at the time. Not because I get it wrong often but the requirements change, I try to get the forest shield bonus out of every available square and so on.

 

[cracker]

Originally posted by cgannon64
I tried to read Cracker's guide, but I got lost and bored. All that in depth stuff is not for me---I prefer to play a game, not analyze it ... just wondering if there is any "clearcut" answer.

Unfortunately there is really no clear cut answer to the question you pose that will let you switch your brain off and just play by repetition. Thought processes like mine 2 and irrigate 1 etc., are almost always the wrong aproach and lead you be the victim of the game instead of its owner.

The article is meant to give you the tools to make these decisions somewhat of an easy task for you.

The question of whether your should mine or irrigate the regular grasslands is answered in the article by asking you grasp the basic skill of understanding what your most powerful squares will be. What you will find is that the most powerfull squares will USUALLY NOT BE the regular grassland squares and as a result they become a secondary consideration.

It is rarely of any value for you to build any improvements on grassland squares that will not be used by citizens. Once you see that the three or four most powerful squares in your start position will dominate all other decisions, then your life gets alot easier.

Give the article another try, but take it one piece at a time and try to work through some of the start positions to compare to the examples. I guarantee you would never have posted this question thread if you would have gone the extra step to download the Iroquois grassland example and work through the example. It is very eye opening and even a bit of fun to just play 50 turns of a game and realize that you area already the winner if your do it right ... or in your current case, you could be dead if you play without this key game skill.

 

[Portuguese]

Mine!
You don't want big and unproductive cities!

(Unless killing pop is your hurry method!)

 

[andrewgprv]

I irrigate enough to have 24 food per turn so i can have a size 12 city then mine the rest, then once i hit industial age and get hospitals I irrigate all I can (removing mines), I like big cities!

 

[bbaws]

I always aim for one worker per tile and no specialists until after I get manufacturing plants. Then the macdonalds are opened and cattle wagons full of pop are brought in to be force fed.

 

[EdwardTking]

I play as English on huge worlds.

My strategy changes during the game. There are three main stages. The details vary according to terrain and limits on city size e.g not by river and no aqueduct.

(1) Under Despotism; I mine Grassland with Resource to get two resource; I will only mine Grassland without Resources if there are no more grassland with resources for my citizens to work; or if it has a three food despotism wheat.

(2) When I have Monarchy or Republic or (expect to acquire it soon); I start irrigating. I will first irrigate any Grasslands with resource that I have not already mined earlier; secondly any unmined grasslands without resource; thirdly mined grassland with no resource; but most likely not change mined grasslands with resource.

(3) When I have Engineering; I will convert unimproved grasslands with no resource to forest. I will often build a road as it is quicker to build road on grassland than on forest. First I won't convert Grassland with resource to forest as loss of two food rarely worth one shield.

 

[TheNiceOne]

Commenting EdwardTking's strategies:

1) Sounds good, with the exception that a wheat tile may often (but not always) smart to irrigate even under despotism. It will make the city grow faster, which is very important in the early game when you need settlers ASAP. You should avoid the irrigation and instead mine it only if the settler production is restricted by shield and noot food production.

2) This will of course depend on the other terrain around the city: If it has many hills, then by all means, irrigate those grasslands. As nullspace pointed out: It's better to work on one mined hill and one irrigated grassland than on two mined grasslands. But if the city radius is mostly grasslands, then most of those should be mined as well. It's not very useful to have the city grow fast and almost no production for the defenders, cathedrals and libraries that is needed for this bigger city.

After the initial settler sprawl, I'm usually content with two or three food added to growth each turn.

3) This one is really dubious: Ok, if you have grassland only and (almost) no plains, hills or mountains, then forests may be useful. Except for this quite rare situation, leave forests for the tundra.

 

[Allemand]

On (3), it is not so rare on a huge map. I often have at least one city like that, so forests are the quick way to get things going. Not saying I like it, though.

 

[jshelr]

Cracker's right on about the focus on what happens first. Since the game is won/lost most often in the early going, when your city is pop 3 or less, focus on the best squares only. If you have a city with no shielded grasslands, then I guess you have to mine the grassland's you've got. But do the shielded grasslands first, don't improve tiles you won't use for a couple of millenia, and remember the importance of rivers!!

 

[cracker]

jshelr,

I would add to your comments that before you even waste one second of thought thinking about mining a common grassland square, you should look at the proximity of rivers and make sure you have all plains squares irrigated.

An irrigated plains square has the exact same value as a mined grassland square but costs you only 8 standard worker turns to improve instead of 10.

Some of this discussion also has to do with the timing of Golden Age (and/or Wartime Mobilization) production bonuses. If you have not yet had your golden age, you want to make sure that every possible square during the golden age is producing at least one shield and at least one gold unit. When the GA kicks in you will get one extra shield plus one extra gold from all these squares. If you do too much of the "irrigate grassland stuff" your will forfeit at least one bonus shield for every one of these squares.

The locations adjacent to rivers should definately be the tie breaker to decide what squares you improve first.

 

[XOVER]

Subject to clarification on cracker's early game strategy thread, I just generally mine and roadbuild, and only irrigate with reluctance, such as, for example, a plains grid.

I use forests in the early game for the 1 food / 2 shield production benefit, and generally don't mess with forest cutting even after engineering until deeper into the game. When I do cut forest, I like to 'gang-cut' them with an efficient number workers so as to get the job done more quickly without waste (for example, if it takes 4 workers to fell the forest, use 1, 2, or 4 workers, but not 3).

I try to balance the number of workers I build versus the estimated growth rate of my cities so as to not over-invest in workers. Those guys cost money, sheilds, and time (unless they're foreign workers, which you always buy or conquer since they cost you nothing). And it makes no sense to develop a grid that won't have a citizen working it until in fact there is a citizen to work it. I will generally assign one (or two) flood plain cities to worker production through the middle ages before seriously building up that flood plain city.

At the time it does become necessary to irrigate grasslands, I generally irrigate regular grassland before enchanced grassland. I notice, however, that the AI's strategy is polemetrically opposite: the AI will mine regular grassland and irrigate enhanced grassland. This seems wrong to me, and ass-backwards. So my question is: Does it make any difference?

 

[Bamspeedy]

At the time it does become necessary to irrigate grasslands, I generally irrigate regular grassland before enchanced grassland. I notice, however, that the AI's strategy is polemetrically opposite: the AI will mine regular grassland and irrigate enhanced grassland. This seems wrong to me, and ass-backwards. So my question is: Does it make any difference?

The AI operates the same way that your automated workers work, so if you want to see close-up how bad they are, just auto-mate your workers. They irrigate grassland while in despot which is a total waste.

To further explain what Cracker was saying about Golden Ages:

If you have 2 grassland tiles, one of them with a bonus shield and one without, I guess if you are not in a golden age, I guess it would not make a difference. Golden age adds 1 shield to any tile that is already producing at least 1.

If you mine the non-bonus grassland you get 1 shield, and irrigate the other you get 1 shield for 2 total shields (3 shields, 1 extra food with railroads). Golden age would add 1 to both of these for 4 shields. If you also have Railroads would add to the mined grassland, so you would get 5 shields, but also add 1 food to the irrigated grassland.

If you mine the bonus grassland and irrigate the other, you still get 2 shields (and with railroads you still get 3 shields and 1 extra food, the same as above). Golden age brings this to 3 shields. If you also have Railroads would get you 4 shields, and 1 extra food.

If you mine both you get 3 shields normally, 5 with golden age and 7 if you also have railroads (but no extra food).

I guess only in the golden age (or mobilization) it would make a difference. And this is figuring that you wouldn't need to irrigate some of them to access other terrain that are low on food, but adds more shields (mountains, hills, desert, etc.).

 

[cracker]

Xover,

I think you have the grassland priorities just backwards because the Golden Age benefit will swing the pendulum in favor of makind sure each square produces at least one shield when there are no other offsetting concerns. Bamspeedy's summary of the key issues is right on track with the reasons I tend to think you have the choices just backwards from where they need to be.

Step back a bit and throw all this raw memorization stuff out the window in favor of developing a better feel for making sure that every improvement does the most that it can to increase the power of your empire AND to reinforce your strategy.

I think you should wait to read the Forestry article when we get that finished uploading in the next couple of days (sorry the downtime on Friday and Saturday delayed things a tad). You will definitely benefit for a better review of the power or forestry operations.

 

[XOVER]

Well dangit, cracker, I've tried twice to read the forestry article today! Guess I can wait, though.

Actually, what you and bamspeedy are talking about is apparently a little over my head.

I understand that GA's increase production, etc., but you two are giving me the impression there are certain parameters by which you can control, or at least influence, when a GA happens, and that somehow building mines is part of the equation.

I do notice that I generally get a GA (at least when playing Greek and Persian) when I'm still in despotism, and that's kind of annoying -- because of the great waste associated with despotism.

Let me reread your posts . . . .

******

Ok, yea. I think I see it now.

You need shields for increased production (obviously), but you also need irrigation for enhanced growth. So by irrigating the enhanced grassland you still get 1 shield. And by mining the unenhanced grassland you get 2 shields instead of 0 shields.

With a GA (or during mobilization?), you get 2 shields with the above strategy (the AI's strategy), while you only get 1 if you mine enhanced and irrigate unenhanced. Yea, ok.

And you still only get 2 if you use my strategy and mine both grassland types, while you lose the irrigation growth benefit (assuming you have a gov).

And this applies with mobilization also? So mobilization is a type of GA except you're limited to military units until you make peace after 20 turns? Is this analogy correct?

But mine-building itself has no connection to triggering a GA, does it? Why would it? Other than avoiding war (which is most often inevitable in the early going -- hell, I usually attack the first Civ I find), how can you postpone a GA until you get a gov when you're playing ancient Civs, like Greeks or Persians? The GA waste in despotism is, for all practical purposes, inevitable, isn't it?

 

[Bamspeedy]

Playing a civ that has a UU in the ancient era is kind of tricky. You want to use them since they are powerful in the early game, but they also trigger your golden age (if they win), which isn't all that good in despot. Some players do not use these units (avoid war, or use other units when fighting) until later in the game when they are better set up for the golden age (out of despot). You can do this by just saving some of your UU and bring them along with your attacking armies later to pick off some weak injured enemy unit. Of course, sometimes you can't control this if the AI attacks you, especially with your Greek hoplite defenders.

Wonders also trigger golden ages. Once you own wonders that match BOTH of your civs attributes, you get a golden age. Look in the civlopedia and see what wonders match your civ's attributes.

Once you know a golden age will happen (you are planning on a war, or you know a certain wonder will be complete in X turns), you can adjust your terrain to take full advantage of the golden age when it comes. And/or you can try and make sure you get to a different form of government (republic/monarchy).

 

[XOVER]

Fascinating bamspeedy. Thanks.

What I think I'm reading is that there are 2 ways in which a GA can be triggered. First, if your UU unit is victorious. Second, if you complete at least 2 wonders -- each one of which matches your Civ's 2 attributes. For example, for a scientific Civ, the Great Library would be a wonder that matched the scientific attribute.

But . . . . If you can afford to keep your UU out of the action (difficult to doubtful, given the investment to build same), or if you can get to a gov before the requisite victory or completion of the correct 2 wonders, you can forestall a GA.

Nothing to do with mines, though. Except to the extent you want your land correctly improved with mines so as to most completely take advantage of the GA.

That's what I think I'm reading. Is this close?