Whats up with forests?

MattPilot · December 29, 2003, 20:09

This is pre-conquest. Version 1.27f (not upgrading cause i'm in the middle of the game and i'm just waiting for Conquest to arrive in the mail).

Are forests useless? It seems like it. Only land tile they are useful is on arctic.

Doesn't it look odd that on plain grassland tiles you got lots of mines? Shouldn't a Forest be more appropriate?

This is how its now:

Mines on grassland = 2 food 2 shields & 2 commerce

Forests on grassland = 1 food (!!) 2 shields & 2 commerce

It seems even though planting forests is a better tech, mines are better for everything. Now in the hills, mines are better (+1 shield), which is good, but on level terrain?

I usually have half my workers on auto, and the other half i control myself. But i always notice that auto workers hack down forests and plot mines. If even the AI thinks forests are useless, shouldn't that signal something?

Please tell me this has changed in conquest ??

Thanks

vmxa1 · December 29, 2003, 20:32

Well as you can imagine, it is not wise to let your workers be automated. Now forrest are very poerful in the early part of the game. You do not have the workers to chop and mined so you get the 1/2/2 from a forrest. This is really great for camps.

Later, yes chop them down and mine or irrigate, depending on when you do it and what you need in that city.

AFAIK this is the same all along. The only change I can recall is they nuked the endless forrestry exploit. Now it is one chop per tile.

MattPilot · December 29, 2003, 22:57

thx for responding

I always thought forest was useless at the beginning, since plain grassland gives you one extra food, which means faster growth. But since 'planting forests' can be researched AFTER mines, i'd figure forests should have some use in the later part of the game. BUt i guess it just doesn't work out.

Anyway, when modding the game using the editor, is it possible to make units on forest squares invisible, unless the square is entered upon by another enemy unit? (like the 'fungus' on alpha centauri). This would give the forest more tactical use.

If yes, you don't need to explain how, just a simple answer is enough - i'll figure it out

Kuciwalker · December 29, 2003, 23:20

Quote:

Mines on grassland = 2 food 2 shields & 2 commerce

Only with RR's or a bonus grassland. Normally they're 2-1-2 (and isn't that only under Republic or Democracy?)

Cerbykins · December 30, 2003, 00:27

Forests are basically mini-hills you can control. The issue is not if you should chop them, but -when-. Oh, and yes - arctic should get forests

Nothing not already said, really

Oh, and even if you don't think you can handle your workers better then the AI, take control anyway. It has the annoying habits of sending them all over the place to do single tiles and dring the railroad era, to bounce on and off the railroad, wasting your precious worker efforts.

It does seem like an intelligent AI at first...it's only later when you find out what's it's up to

steven8r · December 30, 2003, 15:51

Forrests are basically just a 10-shield boost waiting to happen. When you chop it, it will give you 10 shields, but you have to be careful because you can't get the shield boost if you're building a Wonder.

On Tundra, they are almost imperrative. They give 1 food and 2 shields, whereas if you mine Tundra, you'll get the 1 shields, still only 1 food, but your production will ingrease.

One other (totally superflous) use for Forrests is to just plant them to break-up a dreary landscape. Sometimes (only if my Workers have absolutely NOTHING else to do that turn) I'll just plant Forrest for their asthetic quality. However, I usually make sure that there are enough Workers on that spot to do it in 1 turn.

Steven

MattPilot · December 30, 2003, 16:38

thx for everyones input!

I put my forests to good use against the AI

As someone mentioned, forests work as hills - they reduce movement points. AI was creeping up on me with some cavalary. Thank god for that forest cause my city was virtually undefended and it gave me enough time to resupply

Theseus · December 30, 2003, 17:24

Ah... yes, they also provide a defensive bonus. I have, on occasion, planted forests on a forted chokepoint just for that little extra oomph.

vmxa1 · December 30, 2003, 17:57

Yes you do not want to overlook having them on border tiles to stop traffic in the event of an attack. I will leave them in place as long as I can on frontier towns. May give you an extra turn t deal with incoming troops.

Cerbykins · December 30, 2003, 22:06

Inventive! I like it

Still...pity it's only a 25% defence bonus :/

steven8r · December 31, 2003, 11:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Cerbykins
Inventive! I like it

Still...pity it's only a 25% defence bonus :/

Build a Fort, then Barricade. That should up the Forrest's defense bonus nicely. Just watch-out, if the enemy gets inside your Fort/Barricade, it works just as well for them as for you.

Steven

Arrian · December 31, 2003, 12:02

I tend to forest my fortress/barricade tiles too. Why not, for that extra 25% bonus, right?

Two infantry, fortified, on forest, with barricade, with 2 artillery pieces (standard defense for vulnerable luxury tiles). COME GIT SUM!

-Arrian

Sarxis · December 31, 2003, 13:32

I am disappointed with the utility of forests. They are pretty straightforward, and there's not much to do with them. SMAC had some city improvements which allowed for enhanced harvesting of forest resources, while the existance of forests within at city's radius helped reduce pollution.

:\

MattPilot · December 31, 2003, 14:30

hmm ....

new city improvment: Logging camp - Gives every forest square worked on an extra shield and commerce (to make up for the lost food/growth)

Any other ideas?

**edit Btw.. there would also have to be an improvement or something that would give a forest more food, or a city with forest squares will never grow very big, but perhaps, thats the trade-off for having a productive city? The question is, would it be worthwhile to have one forest square(with logging camp), as compared to a regular grassland tile with a mine?

annoyed · January 2, 2004, 13:19

"while the existance of forests within at city's radius helped reduce pollution."

Are not forests supposed to help with pollutuion in Civ3 or am I confused.

MattPilot · January 2, 2004, 15:53

ah that would be very useful. Never heard of that. Anybody got any insight?

vmxa1 · January 2, 2004, 17:54

I can only guess that is in reference to global warming. In that case it can be a buffer to the tile going tundra, if it has a forrest.
So GW may take the forrest from the tile and not down grade the tile. If it had no forrest the tile would be down graded.

MattPilot · January 2, 2004, 18:13

well i just did a test, and pollution is not affected. A huge city was producting 6 pollution (after mass transit, but no recyclying). I build 2 forest squares. No effect after 2 turns.

Though GW may be in the right direction. Though the tiles that are affected by GW in my games are mostly distant tiles not worked on by my cities - and they do usually go from forest to nothing. Never seen a tile without a forest downgrade though

Switch · January 2, 2004, 19:02

Quote:

Originally posted by MattPilot
well i just did a test, and pollution is not affected. A huge city was producting 6 pollution (after mass transit, but no recyclying). I build 2 forest squares. No effect after 2 turns.

Well, perhaps it's similar to SMAC...it's not enough just to have the forest in a city's perimeter, but also they tiles need to be worked. Try a city with all forest and see how much pollution is produced (what I'm thinking is that a worked forest tile will produce less pollution than a worked mine or irrigation).

Kuciwalker · January 2, 2004, 19:08

Doesn't work. They may affect global warming (I think I've heard something to this effect) but they do not affect pollution output.

smellymummy · January 3, 2004, 17:18

i find forests very valuable in the ancient and middle ages, mainly because at those times my workers still haven't worked each tile.. so a forest is like a free shield producing tile. of course i also use them for that 10 shield boost, especially when theres lots of forest that can be cut. When theres a forest on a river, that's a nice bonus, and I usually avoid chopping those down.

once railroads come into play though, forest only become a cosmethic thing, where i keep a few workers to deforest and reforest the unworked parts of my territory. this also helps at seeing where i could put down a mini city or two.

as far as polution goes, like vmxa1 posted, the global warming affects the forest first instead of the tile. So if you have lots of plain tiles with forests, they would become plains first, before becoming desert. To have a real significant statistical impact though, I think you'd have to be able to forest the entire map. Foresting a part of your own territory certainly must help, just at a lower %

Kuciwalker · January 3, 2004, 18:13

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
I can only guess that is in reference to global warming. In that case it can be a buffer to the tile going tundra, if it has a forrest.
So GW may take the forrest from the tile and not down grade the tile. If it had no forrest the tile would be down graded.

I think it actually modifies the little global warming counter.

Admiral PJ · January 5, 2004, 21:44

Forests are great for defending your units, and slowing down enemy cavalry. move 2 and 25% defence is useful.
In conquests your forests will give you about 10 production each time chopped.. which is about 10+20production every 15 or so turns, more if industrious better not to cut the trees down too quick maybe .. or if you use a few workers to chop the trees down. So they are nearly as good as mined hills, and they also give a defensive bonus.. or can easily be converted to grassland later. Forests are great as can be chopped down and converted to food giving land, or grown on again when u want more production.(i calculated the production as 10 every cutdown forest, +20 for 2production*10 for the forest production being used while the trees are grown(before replanting).
Not all terrain has to be useful, jungle and forest are there to allow terrorforming.. changing the planet to suite cities needs, its a fun challenge, and makes it more interesting choosing city locations.

Mountains are less useful than forests, they should allow observatories or solar panels.

justjake73 · January 6, 2004, 09:30

Quote:

terrorforming

"Terraforming".

"Terrorforming" is what Steven King does.

vmxa1 · January 6, 2004, 12:58

I thought they got rid of the IFC a long time ago?

Spaced Cowboy · January 6, 2004, 13:44

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
I thought they got rid of the IFC a long time ago?

They did, and it is not back...trust me I've tried.

Also forrests are good for GW. The more forests you have. the less chance that GW will take out a grassland tile. I forrest all tundra and anytiles that I cannot work due to city placement. As soon as GW takes out a forrest tile, I reforrest it.

MrWhereItsAt · January 7, 2004, 03:55

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
I thought they got rid of the IFC a long time ago?

Ah, but if you were playing original civ3 (v1.16f IIRC), then you could IFE to your heart's content.

For those who don;t know IFE, it stands for Infinite Forest Exploit, where you could clear a forest for the 10 shields and replant it, reclear etc forever. From v1.17f of Civ3 Firaxis nipped this one in the bud by allowing only one reforestation per tile.

And forests ARE very good for areas you need the resources and can't yet spare the time for mining hills or grasslands. That 10 shields bonus from clearing can be essential for building Granaries etc early one. But when you get to RRs there is no need, as even a mined non-bonus grassland can do better, as the RR increases the shield production there to the same as forests, which higher food production. And RRs do nothing for forests except for the movement effect.