When to keep forest tiles, and when to improve them?

[The Apple]

This is something I'm having a lot of trouble with in Civ4. It seems like for most of the game, it's best to just leave forest tiles alone. I mean, if I cut down a forest to build a farm, I gain food but at the expense of production. And if I cut down a forest to build a workshop, I gain production but at the expense of food. In the end, two forest tiles net me the same food and production as a pair of tiles with a farm and workshop - except the forest is there from the beginning. In addition, forest tiles provide a health bonus!

Now I know later in the game techs increase farm and workshop output, but likewise there are techs which increase forest output (lumbermill), so the point seems mute. In fact, the only situation in which I can see removing forests would be beneficial, is if a town has an over-abundence of hills/minerals or floodplains/fish/livestock and you need to balance the food/production out. But having a town in that kind of situation is the exception and not the rule, and most towns provide enough forest tiles to give you that balance from the get go.

 

[Akaoz]

There is also the bonus hammers from chopping it down...

 

[shortguy]

Forest tiles produce no commerce, so you'll probably want to cut a few down to put cottages on.

 

[The Apple]

There is also the bonus hammers from chopping it down...

...which you'd then have to spend on building an aquaduct/hostpital/etc in order to make up for the health bonus you lost by chopping down the forest.

 

[Shillen]

I'll only chop forests down if a city is completely surrounded by them without enough food. Otherwise there's usually enough grass/plains tiles that I can work with those instead of chopping the forests down.

 

[snepp]

A bit of info I read elsewhere, haven't tested in-game.

Each forest provides 0.4 health, rounding down.

2 x 0.4 = 0.8 (0 health)
3 x 0.4 = 1.2 (1 health)
4 x 0.4 = 1.6 (1 health)
5 x 0.4 = 2.0 (2 health)

 

[Mr. Blonde]

Depends on your health situation I would say. If you have plenty of food resources by yourself I would only keep 2-3 per city (the lumbermill comes sort of late, 1 happy face per tile in ecology can be worth it in modern age).

Imo, some chops in the beginning can be rather crucial (for early settlers for instance).

 

[Dairuka]

I dislike Forests. This is coming from a person who uses the Enviromentalism Civic the moment he gets it.

Forests are not worth it. Neither are Mines. I always beeline for food production and gold production. Large Cities provide more specialists, which means more production in the long run. {Engineers/Priests provide production afterall, not to mention a huge boost in great people growth.} Just remember to click the Avoid Growth problem the moment Unhappiness sets in. {Unhealthiness can be ignored if you have more food than the penalty. Unhappiness however lowers your production.}

I'd put farms on every fresh water tile, and cottages on every tile without fresh water. Mine the hills as soon as possible {For the chance of a resource discovery}, then replace them with Windmills the moment you get Machinery.

More towns also means more money at the end game. This means that when you get Universal Sufferage, you can simply buy all your production. In fact; lots of gold is a great way to rush all of the end game wonders, especially after you get The Kremlin which halves the production rush cost.

 

[The Apple]

A bit of info I read elsewhere, haven't tested in-game.

Each forest provides 0.4 health, rounding down.

2 x 0.4 = 0.8 (0 health)
3 x 0.4 = 1.2 (1 health)
4 x 0.4 = 1.6 (1 health)
5 x 0.4 = 2.0 (2 health)

Do you have to work forest tiles to get the boost (i.e. if you're working three forest tiles, you'll get a 1.2 health bonus), or is it simply based on how many forest tiles are in your city's radius (and it doesn't matter whether they're being worked or not)?