Yes, we have no banana's

J Fred Muggs

Warlord
Joined
Nov 9, 2001
Messages
108
Location
North Central Penna.
Not sure how many games I've played wading through the jungles, kinda fun. I've been playing the French, pretty good workers. However it really throws you behind the other civs trying to hack out your towns. Now I could be wrong here but seems to me nothing shows in the way of food resources in jungle tiles. Food being very plentiful else where. Would seem to me that something extra special should be added as an incentive, for all the hard work.
 
Agreed. Although you DO already get a bonus grassland tile (2 food 1 shield) when the jungle clears. Not too shabby, no?
 
I liked the bananas in Civ II, they were my favorite special tile besidees the gems from jungles. I wish they would come back in the patch because they were nice but I don't know if it should be a luxury or SR, maybe a luxury because in the old days trading fruits was a big business.

I wish that Civ III didn't treat Jungles like people can't live in them. They are essentially forests of a tropical area, and should be treated as such. The only exception is they may cause disease like flood plains, but jungles too have wood and food (1 food is realistic, but it needs 2 production too like forest) but it pains me to see it promote hack n' slashing of rainforests because we have that problem today.

Besides, Jungles/Rain Forests soil is poor, the trees suck it up and when they slash and burn to make irrigation, in real life the soil is so poor the crops dont do no good at all. They they continue destroying rainforests because the soil to begin with is poor! Had they known how to manage their existing soil and farmland properly, as well as live with nature better and get food from those jungles efficiently, they wouldn't have had to keep burning rain forests.
BTW todays modern european/american farms aren't that good because they use chemicals and stuff and don't successfully integrate a good diverse farming ecology like some other farms did when they were primitive like China maybe.

There may be tons of types of medicine in the rain forests but people keep slashing and burning it, which you know the soil is poor for any irrigation and the rainforest only slowly expands and repairs itself you know.

I'm sorry, it just doesn't agree with me for a game to promote destroying the rain forest when the soil you get from deforesting jungles is nearly useless for any agriculture.
 
Great post there, Kiki. And while I agree with your points, I don't think Firaxis is condoning the destruction of rainforests. The jungles in Civ 3 not only produce rubber, one of the most sought-after resources, but they also produce 4 different luxury resources, tied with forests for the most amount in a given terrain.

In my games I usually don't destroy forests or jungles unless I absolutely have to (e.g. digging a route for irrigation), as I could potentially be destroying a strategic resource once they come around.
 
In the real world the lose of the rain forests isn't a good thing for many many reasons. However.....:rolleyes:

Cut em down, cut em all down. You will still get any resources you would have if they were left alone. Yeah they do produce stratigic and luxury goods, that is a good thing. But the problem as I see it is the lack of a food resource. We all know how nice this is when tucked next to a hill or mountain. It would also be a big help in getting a faster population start in other wise very difficult areas, because where there is one jungle tile you can be sure there are a bunch more.

It wouldn't have to be bananas, monkey or sloth meat will do just fine, BAHAHAHA
 
Originally posted by Protaxis

In my games I usually don't destroy forests or jungles unless I absolutely have to (e.g. digging a route for irrigation), as I could potentially be destroying a strategic resource once they come around.

You won't destroy the stategic resource by chopping down the forest/jungle. The locations of SRs are set at map creation, and they will appear no matter what you do to the square. This even applies to respawning resources. There's no reason to keep jungles around at all, and the only reason to keep forests is for extra production during early/middle times(during modern times, factories/power plants more than make up for the loss of production from chopping the forest down).
 
Wow, didn't know that. Doesn't really make realistic sense, but interesting anyway. I mean, if a certain resource only appears in a certain environment, you'd think it'd go bye-bye once the environment makes a drastic change. ;p

What about luxury resources? Can I bulldoze a jungle full of dyes and still have them end up on the grassland square that's left over? I nearly killed one of my workers when I caught him attempting to chop down some forests that had furs in them while he was in automation mode. I'll have to apologize to him for the many berating comments I made about his intelligence if I find out he was OK in doing so. ;)
 
Originally posted by Protaxis
Wow, didn't know that. Doesn't really make realistic sense, but interesting anyway. I mean, if a certain resource only appears in a certain environment, you'd think it'd go bye-bye once the environment makes a drastic change. ;p

What about luxury resources? Can I bulldoze a jungle full of dyes and still have them end up on the grassland square that's left over? I nearly killed one of my workers when I caught him attempting to chop down some forests that had furs in them while he was in automation mode. I'll have to apologize to him for the many berating comments I made about his intelligence if I find out he was OK in doing so. ;)

YES - the resource stays no matter what you do to the land.:)
 
Good to know.
I´ve also kept a large area of Jungle untouched just in cause there would be strategic Ressources like Rubber (of course the rubber appeared everywhere but not in this area ;) :D ).
Doesnt seem very realistic to me. Does it mean, that your Workers chop everything down to grassland, except of some lone Rubber Trees? (Hey, of course these trees are useless, Karl, but keep em untouched, cos they look great and have this sticky Liquid pouring out of them if you cut thier bark. ;) )
 
I guess it doesn't make complete sense really but I would rather it be this way than having to keep every jungle square the way it is until rubber comes along.
 
Has anyone considered what affect chopping down rain forests and forests have on the quality of the air your people will be breathing??? Having an entire planet with rails and cities with no forests is just a giant cest pool of smogg and polution.

I wonder how they could impliment a possitive aspect to keeping tree's/slowing down/reducing polution and global warming.

ironfang
 
To be honest.
I´d like to see the Ressources disappear, if you cut down Forests or Jungles.
It would give you and the Computer an incentive to found Cities in otherwise unproductive Terrain and don´t alter this Terrain in something more productive.
Makes the game a little more interesting ;)
 
I'd say it should depend upon the resource and whether you have found it yet or not. The luxuries are all available from the start, so those shouldn't go away, but I'd agree with rubber. Of course, once it is discovered, you could clear the square on the assumption that you do preserve the rubber in a renewable way. I'd like to see the resources more varied in their locations. Oil offshore as well as in the plains (Texas, Oklahoma).

I think with resources we are just scratching the surface and will have to wait till CIV4 or later to get a really good resource system. Taking into acount the amount of a resource would be nice. The US has oil, but not enough. Strategic reserves and using the oil as fuel would be interesting. Just thoughts for the CIV's of the future.:)
 
Good point ironfang. Does anyone know if forests/jungles or lack thereof have any effect on the onset of global warming and/or pollution? I always thought it was this way in Civ 2, but maybe I'm wrong.
 
You all sound like you are promoting SMAC and do not even know it. In SMAC you had environmental problems for any and everything you did to the planet. Certain things hurt worse than others and it was also tied to the production of your cities, but still it effected it.

On a down side, even when reverting things back to normal you hurt the economy. Replanting Fungus and such (if you have not played SMAC the this makes not sence) hurt you later in the game. This made it an incentive to try not to over teraform your land.

Does this make sense to anyone else?
 
I like the ideas that are coming up here about how the global ecology and stuff. I liked SMAC's way of how ecology was handled, and how to balance economy with ecology. I would like it if CIV III had something similar to SMAC's way and have social engineering and more city improvements to deal with enviornmental stuff. Ancient and Middle Ages era don't really need to deal with pollution/enviornmental degragation but starting with Industrial you will have to start planning out what to do.

In America, England the pollution while it seemed bad with smog is not much comapred to what it was now. At that time they didn't "overdevelop" the land and most was still wilderness. However, starting in the 1940s after WWII, America went into super capitalist mode and we get "suburban sprawl" which led to LOTS oh highways and roads (rails actually produce less, but are but ugly when the whole landscape covers them in CIV III
icon21.gif
and people starting moving away from the city. As a result, if people stayed centralized near cities rather than become suburbanized, their would have been alot less pollution and less overdevelopment because less people would use cars and we would have to cut down trees and develop into wildlife areas nearly as much. Also the city center loses vital economic income. Suburbanization also increases the cost of taxes because to develop new (ewww ugly) highways, pipelines, social services, etc over a greater area. But that is only one problem of ecological destruction that has claimed alot of wildlife land and maybe IS more of a big problem than factories today. The bad thing is we can't deconstuct housind developement or highways (America uses too many cars hence the oil problem in the Middle East).
The point of the above is, if people would have stayed centralized in the city, without developing so many housing projects and highways, we wouldn't have had nearly the ecological problems in America we have today.

One bad offset of having too much roads/irrigation/mines/RR should be 1) pollution (about 70% I believe of America's pollution is from car exhaustion, while about 30% is from factories) and 2) the possibility of people getting uphappy from pollution (I heard in America thousands die a year related to car pollution) amd 3) Pollution should HAMPER culture production in the city depending on how bad you pollute/overdevelop your enviornment.

In real life Jungles and stuff are important, besides there are many people who live with in the rain forest or close by and they aren't that bad. Those tribes or people who live by them somehow deal with things like malaria and stuff like that.

As for the luxuries/SR, that is a good idea that it should disappear. It should warn you first though if you decide to deforest it.
 
I want my fruit back! The Jungles, I agree, are very dumb. I also miss my swamps, perfect with peat and spices. Forests and Jungles should have a factor in pollution. Maybe Cities should have a higher pollution ratio when most forests are gone.
 
or just an overall "planatery" pollution that occurs when the original ratio of terrains is disturbed too much, say at 50% loss to any one terrain, or maybe just forests and jungles... then perhaps overall production could go down or something global could happen.


yucky yucky parking-lot planets win the game now.
 
Hey, one thought just crossed my mind.
I think, you do hurt your own Civilization, if you cut down all your Jungle.

As Magnus said, cutting down the Jungle has no effect on existing Ressources.

But we all know, that strategic Ressources get exhausted and reappear somewhere else on the map from time to time. It deems me pretty sure that for reappearing Ressources only valid Terrain (Jungle or Forests for Rubber) is taken into account.

Therefore cutting down all your Jungles and Forests may get you a chance of 0 to have any reappearing Rubber within the Borders of your Civilization.
Converting Jungles into Forests my work though, cos both Terraintypes support Rubber.
 
Back
Top Bottom