Forest Energy

[Yxklyx]

In the manual it says that forests produce 0 energy but I've always seen them produce 1 energy. Is this a bug in the manual or in the game? If they produced only 0 then mines sure would look more interesting than they currently do.

[bondetamp]

I haven't read the manual in ages, but forest tiles do produce one nutrient, two minerals and one energy before any improvements.

[Enigma]

The AI is also programmed to think that forests produce 0 energy, this is why you see them produce so few forests, they will frequently build farms and solars/mines on flat squares.

The entire Farm+Mine combo is the worst terraforming combo that you can get in the game we play- but the AI builds it a lot due to the fact that it underestimates forests.

[Yxklyx]

I had a feeling that was the case. What really are the use of mines anyway? They seem a very poor terraforming choice (was this covered in another thread). Shortly after you can get all 4 minerals from the mine you can build boreholes anyway right? Unless all you have is rocky squares I don't see much point in them. The only possible exception I see is when you have a mineral bonus on rocky so you can get 4 minerals HOWEVER for 4 extra turns you can level that rocky terrain and plant a forest which will give you 4 minerals PLUS 1 food and 1 energy. Does anyone ever build mines?

[aaglo]

Boreholes cannot be built anywhere you want
I tend to mine+road rocky squares and crawl for the minerals - it is the cheapest production boost.

[Flubber]

I do mine some rocky squares since it takes less time than boreholes and I often plan to use crawlers in any event

. . . and yxklyx -- a mineral bonus on a rocky square is a dream and I would never clear and forest it. A mine and road will yield 7 minerals IIRC making it a perfect square to crawler OR you could always borehole it. I DO tend to forest non-rocky mineral specials for the quick surge in production.

Mines make sense on rocky squares when you plan to use crawlers and are pursuing a mineral strategy for quick builds. Only a limited number of squares can be boreholes in any event and nothing else (absent specials) gets to 4 mins in a square. I know a forest with the HF facility is superior production overall but that requires an available worker and the time to build .


Don't get me wrong-- I like forests (and the TF /HF combo)and use them a lot for MOST of my bases but sometimes I plunk a base down in a rocky area and know that the plan for it is a couple of boreholes and a bunch of crawlered mines. I just plant some bases with the idea that they won't grow-- and in fact, I don't really want them to grow too much since the idea is to have a crawler/unit producing base that requires little in the way of drone control

Just some ideas . . .

[wheathin]

Mine-Road-Mineral Bonus tiles give you 7 mins. That's the best you can do without a Borehole, and better than a Borehole without a Min bonus. And, you can do it in the early game even if you don't get the Weather Paradigm, and you can do it on slopes and hills.

I agree that Mines should be more attractive, but minerals are too important in the early game to be easily acquired. Mines are like Echelon Mirrors in that regard: nice idea, but the game dynamics prevent them from being truly effective.

As a change, you could try decreasing the build time for mines - at least then there would be a tradeoff relative to forests. Or you could increase the build time for forests. For a tile improvement that is so powerful in the early game, and self-replicating to boot, 4 turns seems like WAAAY too fast.

[Fitz]

I end many games having only mines & forests & boreholes (where possible), with the very occasional condensor on a nutrient special.

My upland areas with 10+ rocky squares always look a little bit like the Welsh coal mining district.

[Yxklyx]

Isn't the max for a mine 6?

1 (rocky) + 2 (mine) + 1 (road) + 2 bonus = 6

What am I missing?

[MariOne]

Just one detail, misguidingly documented in the datalinks.
A road on a mine has TWO bonus effects (cumulative):
It gives +1min on rock
It gives +1min on a Mineral Special

Let's look at it from the PoV of what you can find on the map and what you can do on it to increase Minerals with a mine.

Flat tile: Mine(+1) from 0 to 1 (road ineffective)
Rolling: Mine(+1) from 1 to 2 (road ineffective)
Rocky: Mine(+2) from 1 to 3, add road(+1) to get to 4

With a Mineral Special Resource on the tile:
Flat tile: Mine(+1) from 2 to 3, add road(+1) to get to 4
Rolling: Mine(+1) from 3 to 4, add road(+1) to get to 5
Rocky: Mine(+2) from 3 to 5, add road(+1+1) to get to 7

Of course adding the road ona a tile before the mine gives no increase, you get it all in one when you complete the mine.
So when you compare the terraforming times you should not forget the formerturns needed to road the tile (3 for a rocky tile, +1 if also rivered...) in order to obtain the maximum yield.
As you should count the 8 formerturns to level the tile if you want to apply a productive terraforming other than Mine or BH.

[wheathin]

As far as the original question goes, forest energy is crucial to most human player strategies in the early game. Forests give balanced resources and still allow energy. But, and this is crucial, the computer has a well-documented inability to plant forests and use tree-farms - most likely related to thinking forests only produce 1 nut, 2 min.

Would you change your strategies if forests didn't provide energy before tree farms? Maybe this tweak would make the AI substantially more competitve... It would certainly favor conquest factions over techies and builders.

Related question: if forests were set to 1 nut, 2 mins in alpha.txt, what effect would tree farms have? Would tree farm-forests still be 2,2,2 or just 2,2,1?

Additional notes about energy-less 2,1,0 forests:

Terrain    Base  Mine-Rd  Forest  Farm-SE  Best FoP
Arid  Flat  0,0   0,1,0   1,2,0   1,0,1     3: For
Arid  Roll  0,1   0,2,0   1,2,0   1,1,1     3: For, FSE
Arid  Rock  0,1   0,3,0   *       *         3: any
Moist Flat  1,0   0,1,0   1,2,0   2,0,1     3: For, FSE
Moist Roll  1,1   0,2,0   1,2,0   2,1,1     4: FSE
Moist Rock  1,1   0,3,0   *       *         4: FSE
Rainy Flat  2,0   1,1,0   1,2,0   3,0,1     4: FSE**
Rainy Roll  2,1   1,2,0   1,2,0   3,1,1     5: FSE**
Rainy Rock  2,1   1,3,0   *       *         5: FSE**

*Must be leveled
** Capped at 1,2,0;  2,0,1; or 2,1,1  under restrictions
All terrain at 1-1000m altitude

Several things emerge:
1. Mines are competive again. Rocky mines always produce as many FoP as forests. The trade-off of nut-min is likely to be resolved in favor of mins in the early game, especially if there are nut bonuses or rainy tiles nearby.
2. Farm-Solar beats or ties forests in almost all circumstances.
3. Only one terrain type presents a sure bet for forests: low-altitiude arid flat.
4. Will people use forests at all if there is no energy in them? Only after tree farms, where 2,2,2 becomes very attractive again.
5. The minor advantages of forests are quickly lost at any higher altitude where solar out-produces.
6. Sea and coastal bases are very attractive to tech-oriented players because of the energy they can supply.
7. This game would be a LOT slower - less money, less tech. Efficiency and upkeep costs would be far more important.

Wheathin

[Yxklyx]

Right now Forests are like a no-brainer - removing the energy output would make them more interesting. Do you go for minerals OR energy?

On the other hand, the AI doesn't seem to like building solar collectors anyway. I just captured Lal's headquarters with Pop 7 and there were plenty of rolling rainy squares that had no solar collectors!

[Fitz]

A few edits:
1: Included Farm/Mine and SE only column.
2: Mines on Rocky reduce the nutrients to 0 and cannot build farm, but a road adds one mineral.
3: Mine on non-rocky subtracts 1 nut to a minimum of 1 (unless arid) without the presence of a farm. With the presence of a farm, this balances for terrain normal. I assumed zero nuts on arid, but it could be 1.
4: SE is altitude under 1000. Each * after represents one additional point of altitude, and therefore an additional point of energy above the base 1.

You may want to rethink your assertions based on this corrected table.

Terrain		Base	Farm-Mine	Mine-Rd	Forest	Farm-SE	SE	Best FoP
Arid  Flat	0,0	0,1,0		0,1,0	1,2,0	1,0,1-4	0,0,1-4	3: For (4+: FSE**+)
Arid  Roll	0,1	0,2,0		0,2,0	1,2,0	1,1,1-4	0,1,1-4	3: For, FSE (4+: FSE*+)
Arid  Rock	0,1	NA		0,4,0	NA	NA	0,1,1-4	4: MR, FSE** (5: FSE***)
Moist Flat	1,0	1,1,0		1,1,0	1,2,0	2,0,1-4	1,0,1-4	3: For, FSE (4+: FSE*+)
Moist Roll	1,1	1,2,0		1,2,0	1,2,0	2,1,1-4	1,1,1-4	4+: FSE+
Moist Rock	1,1	NA		0,4,0	NA	NA	0,1,1-4	4: MR, FSE** (5: FSE***)
Rainy Flat	2,0	2,1,0		1,1,0	1,2,0	3,0,1-4	2,0,1-4	4+: FSE+
Rainy Roll	2,1	2,2,0		1,2,0	1,2,0	3,1,1-4	2,1,1-4	5+: FSE+
Rainy Rock	2,1	NA		0,4,0	NA	NA	0,1,1-4	4: MR, FSE** (5: FSE***)

P.S. - can someone test the actually output of Farm/Mine on Arid-Flat and Arid-Rolling for me?

[wheathin]

Thanks for the corrections on the Mines Fitz - that's what I get for posting at work.

Your results show the same thing as mine though:
Forests are a dominant strategy only on arid flat/roll territory at lower altitudes. Forests are an option on moist flat, and moist-rolling if mins are scarce, but only at low altitude.

In short, eliminating the forest energy looks to make terraforming decisions SUBSTANTIALLY different. Players will have to find a new source of energy to replace the forests. That means more solar, which means they can plant more farms (might as well put something with the farms). But it also means that players will get fewer mins, and so will have to build more mines. Prior to TreeFarms, lumberjacking will NOT be a successful strategy.

[Fitz]

Well, lets see what it would look like the way things are (sorry about the width of these posts). Also corrected rocky to be Solar only.

Terrain		Base	Farm-Mine	Mine-Rd	Forest	Farm-S	Solar	Best FoP
Arid  Flat	0,0	0,1,0		0,1,0	1,2,1	1,0,1-4	0,0,1-4	4: For, FS** (5: FS***)
Arid  Roll	0,1	0,2,0		0,2,0	1,2,1	1,1,1-4	0,1,1-4	4: For, FS* (5+: FS**+)
Arid  Rock	0,1	NA		0,4,0	NA	NA	0,1,1-4	4: MR, S** (5: S***)
Moist Flat	1,0	1,1,0		1,1,0	1,2,1	2,0,1-4	1,0,1-4	4: For, FS* (5+: FS**+)
Moist Roll	1,1	1,2,0		1,2,0	1,2,1	2,1,1-4	1,1,1-4	4: For, FS (5+: FS*+)
Moist Rock	1,1	NA		0,4,0	NA	NA	0,1,1-4	4: MR, S** (5: S***)
Rainy Flat	2,0	2,1,0		1,1,0	1,2,1	3,0,1-4	2,0,1-4	4: For, FS (5+: FS*+)
Rainy Roll	2,1	2,2,0		1,2,0	1,2,1	3,1,1-4	2,1,1-4	5+: FS+
Rainy Rock	2,1	NA		0,4,0	NA	NA	0,1,1-4	4: MR, S** (5: S***)

With Tree farms:

Terrain		Base	Farm-Mine	Mine-Rd	Forest	Farm-S	Solar	Best FoP
Arid  Flat	0,0	0,1,0		0,1,0	2,2,1	1,0,1-4	0,0,1-4	5: For, FS***
Arid  Roll	0,1	0,2,0		0,2,0	2,2,1	1,1,1-4	0,1,1-4	5: For, FS** (6: FS***)
Arid  Rock	0,1	NA		0,4,0	NA	NA	0,1,1-4	4: MR, S** (5: S***)
Moist Flat	1,0	1,1,0		1,1,0	2,2,1	2,0,1-4	1,0,1-4	5: For, FS** (6: FS***)
Moist Roll	1,1	1,2,0		1,2,0	2,2,1	2,1,1-4	1,1,1-4	5: For, FS* (6+: FS**+)
Moist Rock	1,1	NA		0,4,0	NA	NA	0,1,1-4	4: MR, S** (5: S***)
Rainy Flat	2,0	2,1,0		1,1,0	2,2,1	3,0,1-4	2,0,1-4	5: For, FS* (6+: FS**+)
Rainy Roll	2,1	2,2,0		1,2,0	2,2,1	3,1,1-4	2,1,1-4	5: For, FS (6+: FS*+)
Rainy Rock	2,1	NA		0,4,0	NA	NA	0,1,1-4	4: MR, S** (5: S***)

With a Hybrid forest:

Terrain		Base	Farm-Mine	Mine-Rd	Forest	Farm-S	Solar	Best FoP
Arid  Flat	0,0	0,1,0		0,1,0	3,2,2	1,0,1-4	0,0,1-4	7: For
Arid  Roll	0,1	0,2,0		0,2,0	3,2,2	1,1,1-4	0,1,1-4	7: For
Arid  Rock	0,1	NA		0,4,0	NA	NA	0,1,1-4	4: MR, S** (5: S***)
Moist Flat	1,0	1,1,0		1,1,0	3,2,2	2,0,1-4	1,0,1-4	7: For
Moist Roll	1,1	1,2,0		1,2,0	3,2,2	2,1,1-4	1,1,1-4	7: For, FS***
Moist Rock	1,1	NA		0,4,0	NA	NA	0,1,1-4	4: MR, S** (5: S***)
Rainy Flat	2,0	2,1,0		1,1,0	3,2,2	3,0,1-4	2,0,1-4	7: For, FS***
Rainy Roll	2,1	2,2,0		1,2,0	3,2,2	3,1,1-4	2,1,1-4	7: For, FS** (8: FS***)
Rainy Rock	2,1	NA		0,4,0	NA	NA	0,1,1-4	4: MR, S** (5: S***)

Which is why I have contended that you should forest every thing except 3000+ altitude Rainy/Rolling (Farm/Solar), and any rocky (Mines) before Soil Enrichers.

You can add one to all FSE with the advent of soil enrichers, and I generally want the nuts more than the mins (if there is at least one min), so my personal practice (usually from MY2100) is as follows:
Borehole or mine/road all rocky squares (need some minerals somewhere).
Farm/Solar (later Soil Enricher) the following: Moist/Rolling (altitude 2000+); Rainy/Rolling (altitude 1000+).
Condensor/Farm (later soil enricher) all nutrient specials, then crawl them.
Forest everything else.

One point less energy would make me do the following:
Borehole or mine/road all rocky squares (need some minerals somewhere).
Farm/Solar (later Soil Enricher) the following: Arid/Rolling (altitude 2000+), Moist/Rolling (altitude 1000+); Rainy/Rolling (all altitudes).
Condensor/Farm (later soil enricher) all nutrient specials, then crawl them.
Forest everything else.

[johndmuller]

Making forests worth 1-2-0 could make the game more competitive with the AI if indeed their strategies are oriented around that assumption - as if all the play testing were done under that setting and then at the last minute, they went with 1-2-1. Whether that is historically accurate is another question.

I think that TFs and HFs would just add their usual amounts to the 1-2-0 base giving 2-2-0 and 3-2-1, based on the way the help language is phrased. In the Aldebaron Mod, the base value of forests was adjusted up, so I imagine that Smack/Avenoct or another Aldebaron designer could say more surely about that question.

The matter of rivers seems to have been neglected so far. I find that I really look to rivers as an important source of energy in the early game, especially if I am Yang (also Morgan, but out of greed instead of desperation). In the reduced forest scenario, the forest-river combo would be worth the same as a unadorned forests in the normal game. Of course, the +1 energy from rivers would apply to the other terrains/improvements as well, but I would submit that the difference between zero and one is more significant than between 1 and 2, 2 and 3, etc.

In the very early game (before crawlers and nut restrictions are lifted), without nut specials, you can't afford to produce more than one forest tile per base anyway (unless you don't think pop stagnation is one of the 8 deadly sins), so it wouldn't change that strategly much until later. There is a period when crawling the mins from forests is worthwhile - the effect of this change could be to maintain that mode of operation longer (while developing more farm/solar tiles as you all seem to have concluded).

Putting forests on specials would likely still be sensible in the beginning (especially energy specials) because of the speed of making a forest, although farm/solariing a min special might be a better idea, especially with altitude. The solar terraform takes so long though (it just brings me back to rivers again).

[Sikander]

One thing that seems to have been neglected is condensors, which not only allow great nutrient production in their own square when co-located with a farm, but raise the raininess of all adjacent squares. Just a few of them placed on flat squares in and just outside your base radius can make every radius square rainy, even if every square was arid previously. Though they aren't available normally in the very early game, you can build them if you have the WP. This can have a major impact on both a farm / solar strategy as well as the obvious specialist potential to replace raw energy outright.

Ridding forests of energy would no doubt slow my game down a bit, but only for a while, as I tend to build boreholes and condensor farms and use specialists as soon as possible. The early game might tend to benefit solar power more, but if anything the mid game and beyond would benefit the borehole and condensor / farm forming strategy even more than it already does.

[Nakar Gabab]

I personally prefer forests not only for their production, but for their defensive capability... base under attack? Critical SP that can't be lost? Sever the roads or magtubes to the city, and those attack rovers have to plod up to the base, submitting themselves to probe-theft or counter-assault. It's also less of a pain if they get blown up, since the odds are they'll just expand into the space they used to be in a turn or two...

[jjgarcia]

I have a base which is close to a forest and at one time the Chief Planetologist reported that this base has harvested minerals from the forest which is just close not within the 2-square radius of the base. Does anybody know how this is possible?

[wheathin]

Fitz:
I agree that HF forests are still world-beaters. When you get that far (assuming you haven't sewn it up yet), then it makes a great deal of sense to tear up all the terraforming you've done and replant forests.

I was more concerned with pre-TF, pre-restriction forests. I tend to play "double blind", so the early stages of the game with restrictions still on and no TFs can last a long time - and you can do a lot of terraforming. But with the 1,2,1 forest, virtually all choices are no-brainers: plant more forest! If forests were 1,2,0, it would rehabilitate early-game terraforming.

jdm:
I agree with your evaluation of the help file language. TF 1,2,0 becomes 2,2,0. Add HF and it's 3,2,1.

I think the biggest effects will be:
1. AI will be more competitive. The AI's basic terrafgorming choices will make more sense in the game, and the human player won't be able to take advantage of the extra +1 energy from forests that the AI remains oblivious to.

2. Tech and cash accumulation will be slower. Every city gets -1 energy per forest square! That could make it very hard to race thru the tech tree, giving Momentum factions a better chance at beating the builders. Also, if the techs come slower, then TFs will come later still, further reducing the utility of early forest planting.

[T-hawk]

Originally posted by jjgarcia
I have a base which is close to a forest and at one time the Chief Planetologist reported that this base has harvested minerals from the forest which is just close not within the 2-square radius of the base. Does anybody know how this is possible?

Forest harvesting is done based on the home city of the former that harvested it (the former that performed the final turn of work to change the tile.) So it can happen anywhere on the planet.

[Fitz]

Originally posted by wheathin
I was more concerned with pre-TF, pre-restriction forests. I tend to play "double blind", so the early stages of the game with restrictions still on and no TFs can last a long time - and you can do a lot of terraforming. But with the 1,2,1 forest, virtually all choices are no-brainers: plant more forest! If forests were 1,2,0, it would rehabilitate early-game terraforming.

Given that you can just put the blind research on Build and go straight for Tree-farms, I'm not so sure about it making a huge difference. However, I have played many games only using the factions research priorities, and I concede the point. I too break my terraforming rules rather extensively, terraforming using only the current circumstances, and going back to change things around later in this case.

I think the biggest effects will be:
1. AI will be more competitive. The AI's basic terrafgorming choices will make more sense in the game, and the human player won't be able to take advantage of the extra +1 energy from forests that the AI remains oblivious to.

2. Tech and cash accumulation will be slower. Every city gets -1 energy per forest square! That could make it very hard to race thru the tech tree, giving Momentum factions a better chance at beating the builders. Also, if the techs come slower, then TFs will come later still, further reducing the utility of early forest planting.

Actually, I hate tech stag, since it just makes the difference between the AI and humans worse. Maybe I'll make the 1,2,0 change to forests in any SP games I play from now on, just to level the playing field a bit. Good job wheathin.

[Enigma]

My main problem with removing the extra energy that forests give you is that it TOTALLY screws over someone who has a bad landmass to start on. I just started a multiplayer game where I have a continent large enough for perhaps 8-12 ICS bases (standard size map). This is good. Yet there are approximatly 6 rolling moist squares on the entire island! The rest are arid/rolling or moist/flat... I couldn't imagine a worse landmass. This doesn't matter much because of forests- but if that forest energy were removed a player starting in a position like that would be TOAST.

As far as I am concerned all squares should produce approximatly the same stuff- with differences for bonus squares. I dislike random elements in gaming- other than the most basis (start positions).

[wheathin]

3 things, Enigma.

1. The AI isn't smart enough to BUILD forests in that circumstance. In that sense, forest energy is a "cheat" for the human players. Any AI facing similar conditions would be in even worse straights than you.

2. You have several options for terraforming in that circumstance. First, build WP. Then, drill rivers, raise terrain, and build condensors. Or, ICS. Your best squares are base squares, especially with Rec Tanks, so build lots of small cities close together and then to conquer nearby islands (and maybe move your headquarters), or conquer whoever has the WP. Non-ICS momentum campaign - probes and soldiers. If you plant lots of forest, you'll have just as much nuts and mins as normal, just no tech or cash, so go to war!

But you are correct in that a traditional builder appraoch will not work on marginal terrain.

3. You could just start over and get a better position.

The game is not so difficult that human players need extra advantages to win. Quite the contrary, in fact. Playing without forest energy gives the AI a better shot (and makes for a more challenging game).

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by Yxklyx
In the manual it says that forests produce 0 energy but I've always seen them produce 1 energy. Is this a bug in the manual or in the game? If they produced only 0 then mines sure would look more interesting than they currently do.

Originally posted by Yxklyx
I had a feeling that was the case. What really are the use of mines anyway? They seem a very poor terraforming choice (was this covered in another thread). Shortly after you can get all 4 minerals from the mine you can build boreholes anyway right? Unless all you have is rocky squares I don't see much point in them. The only possible exception I see is when you have a mineral bonus on rocky so you can get 4 minerals HOWEVER for 4 extra turns you can level that rocky terrain and plant a forest which will give you 4 minerals PLUS 1 food and 1 energy. Does anyone ever build mines?

Originally posted by wheatin
I agree that Mines should be more attractive, but minerals are too important in the early game to be easily acquired. Mines are like Echelon Mirrors in that regard: nice idea, but the game dynamics prevent them from being truly effective.

Originally posted by wheatin
1. Mines are competive again.

Originally posted by wheatin
But it also means that players will get fewer mins, and so will have to build more mines. Prior to TreeFarms, lumberjacking will NOT be a successful strategy.

I was unaware that lumberjacking was a successful strategy. The only real application I've heard of was for the One City Challenge. Other than that you're wasting your time when you could have built a mine and been done with it.

I think you should revisit the wonderful wonderful world of mines.

All we are saying is give mines a chance!

[wheathin]

WE, I like mines. Mines on mineral bonuses are great. Crawled mines on arid-rocky, after restrictions are lifted, are great. But early game mines without min bonuses are a waste of time - forests with energy are better and faster. Even 1,2,0 forests beat restricted mines.

You can't just "build a mine and be done with it" because, pre-restriction, that only gets you 2 mins. The forest (with energy) gets you 1,2,1 - a good balance that beats nearly any other possible restricted terraform combo on most terrains.

Pre-restriction-lifting, 7 times out of 9, a forest is your best bet (or tied) for non-bonus terrain, at all altitudes! The only options which get more than 4 FoPs are on rolling-rainy and rolling-rocky. It is possible to get 2,2,0 on a rainy-rocky farm-mine square, or 2,1,2 on rolling-rainy with farms-solar. No non-farm terraform choice allows 2 mins + energy (and thus tech!), unless you drill a borehole. I refer you to Fitz's charts to see how effective forests are in the early game.

All these benefits in the early game, plus forests plant VERY fast, and expand on their own, even pushing out fungus, while providing defensive bonuses and slowing attackers. Lumberjacking works, especially when supplemented by occasional farms or nut bonuses.

If forests are only 1,2,0, then they are an option in only 4 of 9 terrains at sea level (mostly arid), and are even less effective over 1000m, being a marginal choice in only 1 of 9 terrain types - the benefit of lumberjacking is severely compromised in the early game.

After restrictions are lifted, there is a very short window before tree-farms. In that pre-tree farm, unrestricted environment, forests (even with energy) are comparatively weak. But then, tree farms quickly revitalize forests, and the lumberjacking is viable again. At that point, TF forests with 5 FoP beat or tie all other terraform choices under 2000m except 1000m+ rolling-rainy, and boreholes. Even between 2000m and 3000m, forests are still as good or better than farm-solar or mines in 4 of 9 terrains.

With no forest energy, TFs produce 2,2,0. These forests are a wonderful complement to farm-solar options. They are superior choices in most sea-level terrains (best or tied in 7 of 9), and best or tied in 4 of 9 1000m-2000m terrains (mostly arid). Energy-less forests are still nice with tree-farms, but they are not game-breakers.

Energy-less forests mean that a mostly forest-and-forget strategy wis simply not viable - again, requiring increased early-game terraforming (especially at low altitude), and creating a comparatively stronger AI.

[big_canuk]

We have some confusion here over the definition of "Lumberjacking".

WhiteElephants is using the normal definition of planting a forest, and then harvesting it for the 5 minerals that go to the formers base.

I think wheathin is using the term lumberjacking just to refer to the stratagy of building lots of forests.

bc

[wheathin]

Yes - my mistake. I refer to a forest-and-forget strategy, and appologize for the confusion.

Oohh... I'm a lumberjack, and I'm O.K. I sleep all night and I work all day...