The worth of Tundra Forests - discussion

[ModernKnight]

Hi folks,

I like playing the Earth custom scenario. This map has some fairly large areas of tundra forests (Siberia, Canada).

I'm wondering if I'm missing something, to think these are pretty worthless. I'm talking about areas that are nearly pure tundra forest, with little or no Specials, rivers, or the like. (This is particularly the case in western Canada, but can also happen in Siberia.) Should one even try to build if all one has is tundra forest? I'm thinking, No. At least, not for "a city for the sake of a city". You might want one for strategic reasons, to block a pass or access a resource you're starving for. But just for the sake of "yet another healthy city"? I think not. There's no food, with only 1 Food per tile!

Has this topic been discussed before?

Thanks! - MK

P.S. I'm playing Civ4 again after being away 9 months!

 

[Shawnosaurus]

I have yet to try the earth maps, but speaking just to tundra - Once you have lumbermills they at least get an okay amount of production. Combined with railroads that's even more.

Early game though, just tundra would be pretty worthless.

.

 

[potatokiosk]

Little food or even commerce to support the existance of that city, so the production is worthless.

 

[Lord Parkin]

Rivers and lakes make tundra useful, especially with a few forests around and once Biology, Replaceable Parts, and Railroad have been researched. Without a source of fresh water (or coast) though, and no specials or strategic value, you should generally avoid these kind of tundra cities like the plague.

 

[ModernKnight]

It looks like we're in agreement? They're a no-starter.

For a city with absolutely nothing but tundra forest, they can only ever reach size 3 anyway. (Barring a super specialist that adds food - but why waste an SS on such a loser city?) And all that, with zero commerce.

There's one thing they might possibly do - keep visualization, so barbarians don't appear. However, some cheap unit standing guard forever would work just as well.

Is there a date when barbarians stop appearing in fog-of-war squares?

 

[Lord Parkin]

For a city with absolutely nothing but tundra forest, they can only ever reach size 3 anyway.

Size 2 would be the limit in this case, actually.

Is there a date when barbarians stop appearing in fog-of-war squares?

No, barbarians can always appear in a tile in fog in neutral territory. Additionally, they become better as the game progresses (going from simple Archers and Warriors to more powerful Horse Archers, Axemen, and Longbowmen, and eventually Riflemen and Cavalry).

 

[KMadCandy]

You might want one for strategic reasons, to block a pass or access a resource you're starving for.

or at the very end of the game to nab some land tiles to get closer to domination.

 

[druidravi]

Well if it is all forests maybe you can build a city there very early to chop some crucial wonders or military , only if the rest of area is forest poor. But the city will be poor through game and a dead weight once the forests are cleared. You could try coastal cities though if you can rush a granary,lighthouse they make nice commerce cities with trade routes, and commerce from coastal tiles. Even those coastal cities are better of only in industrial age when you can use Universal suffranage to rush basic buildings.

I really want the city abandon feature just for this. You can build a city there chop all forests for military and once forests are clear disband it.

 

[Leifmk]

Yeah, the only times I bother building all-Arctic cities is if they are very lucky in terms of special resources. If they have multiple seafood and/or deer tiles they can grow to useful size. Also, sometimes one has to live with one poorly-situated city to secure access to important strategic resources.

 

[cabert]

I was thinking of the chopping option too.

If you have enough workers, you could chop an army out this crappy city

 

[sylvanllewelyn]

Not sure about the Earth scenario, but once I went to the absolute extreme and build a city on total complete ice (forgot the exact terrain that allowed me to even do that) just to work an oil tile. But it was oil, which allowed me to build tanks!!

 

[50_dollar_bag]

I wouldn't build a crappy tundra city just to chop an army out of it, that would cost you quite a lot in maintenance depending on the civics and distance to your palace. That is unless you could chop some units then gift it away...

 

[svv]

I've just been playing the earth 1000 scenario as Russia. I found the tundra in Siberia to be pretty much habitable, at least in the modern era after biology. A LOT of those tundra squares are next to rivers, meaning that you can farm or cottage them.

I haven't studied the ones in Canada.

 

[Abegweit]

There is no such thing as a tundra forest. A contradiction in terms. I would have thought that Firaxis would have known better. Apparently not.

 

[sylvanllewelyn]

Incense on desert, oil in desert or ice, silver and fur on tundra far away from rivers. You keep tundra cities, but obviously you don't build empires around them.

 

[cabert]

I wouldn't build a crappy tundra city just to chop an army out of it, that would cost you quite a lot in maintenance depending on the civics and distance to your palace. That is unless you could chop some units then gift it away...

if the maintenance is that high, you can chop a courthouse
Or better, leave the city to barbs.

 

[Lone Wolf]

There is no such thing as a tundra forest.

Good you noticed that. I guess Firaxis meant taiga or something like that...

 

[Janus0]

If you can get 1 sea food and deer or place it along a river or lake after biology they can be useful as secondary production cities making your missionaries (and pay maintence back that way), cheap interior defensive units (especially the with hareditary rule), naval units (I never want to build transports when I could be building tanks, but that might just be me), bombers (they can be instantly rebased, so completion time is less of an issue), and other low-production items. They're also useful for building anything you need a certain number of before building something else such as temples for cathedrals or one more theater so you can squeeze shakespear's theater somewhere.

The biggest reason of all though: If you don't build a city there, the AI eventually will, and murphy's law preaty much guarentees that the civ that does will be creative, one tile away from your cultural boarders, and someone you can't declare on.

 

[Abegweit]

@Lone Wolf.

In their defence, the game mechanics do make this difficult. In civ, a forest is an overlay on a tile while in real life tundra and taiga are two completely different things. I'm not sure how I would have handled it either.

 

[50_dollar_bag]

if the maintenance is that high, you can chop a courthouse

Or better, leave the city to barbs.[/QUOTE]

If the city was a keeper because it had long term potential or it claimed a resource or two then I'd consider chopping a courthouse, but if it was purely to chop an army out then i'd rather have a mace, but then you'd want chop a barracks, unless you want MP units then i wouldn't bother

Or better, leave the city to barbs.

good idea, unless you have the great wall. Although I'd like the idea of giving the city away to a distant civ, let them pay the maintenance.