i hate mining grasslands!!!!

[Bella Hella]

it just looks so.... AI. for some reason i just can't stand to mine a lovely grassland, or plains for that matter. i just can't do it. i have to forest them instead, and have an inefficient empire. who's with me???

seriously, does anyone else feel this way, or is it just me? i admit, i'll mine them in the beginning, but later on in the game, i always forest or irrigate over them. to me, mines are strictly for hills and mountains. everything looks so much better that way. in my mind it makes no sense to stick a mine in the middle of a nice grassy meadow.

anyone have any ideas for me? should i just bite the bullet and build the mines to increase my shield production? or is it possible to have good shield production with forest ONLY?

[Solver]

Eh, just think of them as some sort of suburbs. Surely, in Civ 2 I mostly went irrigating most land, with Mines in hills, but here, since you don't even often get the chance to make an irrigation early on, mining is the way to go.

[Bella Hella]

oh definitely. even though i hate it, i realize it's necessary to mine the grasslands in the early game. i just can't stand to leave them there later on!

[Solver]

If you don't leave them there later, you will result with less production capacity. To hell with this... do what you need to have the game better. However, never spoil your joy, either.

[Insigna]

Yes I can't Stand Mines in grasslands too. I thought i was the only one. Mines just makes your empire look so dirty.

[Slax]

Someone should turn the mine icon into a little village.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Insigna
Mines just makes your empire look so dirty.

Pollution just makes my empire look so dirty.

[Jawa Jocky]

This was one of the hardest adjustments for me to make coming from CivII. I still don't like it, however it is necessary. I just automate workers and let them do the dirty work for me (I've washed my hands of it).

I'm so lazy about workers now I just automate them all right from the start. Actually I don't automate the 1st one, and I control a few for road making. Can I do a better job than the AI? Sure. Would I rather cut hours off my game time? Hell yes!

[Bella Hella]

*whew* ok, i'm not crazy. cool. i've tried a couple of solutions for the ugly mine-in-a-grassland thing that looked kinda cool:

- do a straight railroad track and put mines along it
- make the grassland mines next to hill or mountain mines to make it look like you have a little mining district that overflowed from the mountains
- arrange them around your city and try to make them look like little houses (the "suburbs" idea - lol)

but none of those really cut it. oh well.

i think i'm pretty anal about my terrain enhancements. i don't like putting farms next to mines, either (won't the food taste bad?). i like a city surrounded by farms, then maybe some forests and then the hills/mountains. although it would be ok to have the farms on the outskirts, too.

i always try to plant forests next to the mountains so it "grows" into the mountain (if you know what i'm talking about). and i build fortresses in random locations outside city limits if it just looks like there should be a fortress there. and don't even get me started on railroads! ugh, every time i see an AI's empire that has every square covered with railroads it makes me sick to my stomach.

oh man, i totally can't automate the workers. no WAY. i used to do it in SMAC, but i can't with civ3. everything must be built according to my specifications. if i gain a city through culture or conquest, i immediately rip up everything the AI did and start over.

any anal land improving stuff you guys do, or AI stuff that bothers you?

[Grrr]

You are about as perfectionistic about terrain enhancement as me .

[Random Passerby]

I've lived in the rural Midwest all my life, and yes, plains do get mined. There's a cement plant in my hometown (population far less than a size 1 city) that does extensive quarrying around the area, side by side with all the cornfields.

From a gameplay aspect... it's not just the early game, it's all the time. Irrigation in my eyes is merely a way you can pick up surplus food production to make up for poorer food tiles; if a city has exclusively grassland in its radius, it's going to be able to get to huge sizes anyways, but the only way it'll ever get useful production is if the majority of those spaces are mined.

[dunk]

I like the little mine icons.

[MosesPresley]

I just think of the grassland mines as local industry. As some kind of factory. I mean, the game's concepts and the execution of them are so abstract anyway.

[Jethro83]

Mines do look horrible on grasslands/plains.

So what do you do about it? Simple... Replace the graphics with something more pleasant.

But then again, it would make mined hills and mountains look odd (a village icon up in a mountain?).

[Frugal_Gourmet]

Dude,

I am totally with you on this. I will -- if possible -- try to win the game without ever mining a plain or grassland. Forests are much more aesthetically pleasing.

But you know what would really help this game? Maybe one or two other possible improvements. Pretty soon, all the terrain looks exactly the same.... dull.

[Jethro83]

Yeah. A mine, being made into a Mine Complex, or Refinery by workers. Irrigation can be worked into Farmland. Road to railroad isn't enough. Just because the cities look modern doesn't mean I don't want the countryside around it to look modern too.

[Cyclotron]

I like the ideas utilized in old Civ2 scenarios like 2194 dars of war... each "mine" is instead an industrial complex, that takes a lot of time to build but provides major shield production. Perhaps it could replace a mine in the industrial age, providing twice as many shields, but put out a bit of pollution.

[Dominae]

I agree with the "mines on grasslands" thing; I think it looks horrible too.

However, after I threw aesthetic appeal out the window and started doing it, I started winning games more often. There's no way around it, it's just sound strategy; your pop maxes out way too soon at size 12 if you irrigate (Hospitals are so far away). Heck, they max out really fast even if you don't irrigate anywhere, once you've started building.

What is really dumb is that you'd never place mines everywhere in real life. To me, mines are places where lie especially rich deposits of . Early civilizations were much more likely to irrigate than anything else; having mines everywhere seems to me to be a sign of Industrialization (for lack of a better explanation). That's why I don't mind putting Railroads everywhere because I want everything to look industrialised.

In SMAC, you would only put Mines on Rocky tiles, and either Forests or Farms on other tiles. This made a lot more sense to me, and looked a lot better.


Dominae

[Inverse Icarus]

you people think too much

i maximize production in every city. i irrigate enough squares to get the city to size 21 and then i mine the rest of the map.

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by UberKruX
you people think too much

Thinking is an important part of developing a strong, smart, healthy mind. The brain is like a muscle. Won't become smarter unless it gets used frequently.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by UberKruX
you people think too much

i maximize production in every city. i irrigate enough squares to get the city to size 21 and then i mine the rest of the map.

Exactly! What use are any people after size 21? VERRRYYY little. Maximize production!

[exeter0]

No mining on grasslands????

... and the greenies and conservationsists have come to IV!

Civ is getting more realistic all the time

[Bella Hella]

YES! more people on my side!

i'm trying to get over my anti-mine way of thinking. last night i *gasp* replaced a few forests with mines. but ONLY if they were near mountains, or if i could arrange them to make it look like a little village. i know maximizing production is very important (well, duh), but to me it's important that everything looks nice too. i often destroy all of my early terraforming for aesthetic reasons. i implemented another thought on making my empire look nice - farms and (ugh) mines go close to the city, like on the squares right next to it. that way you can build your railroad in those squares, thus increasing production and surround the whole town, making it look like a busy little metropolis. forests go on the outskirts of town, and spaces that are being unused get forested as well. everything blends in so nicely that way.

i would never throw aesthetic appeal completely out the window, but i don't really like sacrificing production, either. i'll continue to try to find compromises.

[klesh]

Originally posted by Slax
Someone should turn the mine icon into a little village.

Werd.

-FMK.

[danimal]

Who cares...I bet you go to the other beach?

This game is about winning...not pretty maps....It is about whipping butt. Production is King....produce more..build more...earn more...spend more.

"You don't like the mines on your grasslands because they look bad"....I am roflmfao. Maybe you should invite your friends over and dance to YMCA by the Village People..don't forget your Crisco.

Flakes are everywhere

[Bella Hella]

dude, the game is "about" whatever you want it to be about! and note the word "game." just because i like my empire to look pretty doesn't mean i can't win a war or build a space shuttle. it's an empire building game, and that can mean whatever you want it to mean. some people play it to conquer the world, some play the tech game, some just want to survive, and some happen to enjoy improving the land in a specific way. you can play on many different levels, and that's what makes it fun and interesting. i know that in some peoples' *cough* boring *cough* mathematical minds, the only thing that matters is prduction. but to me, things like expanding the palace and prettying up your empire really MAKE the game. you have your opinion and i have mine. don't call me a flake just because i don't play your way. go rush build your military or something.

[SirSebastian]

Mines on grasslands/plains are HORRIBLE. I played my first few games not even realizing you _could_ ... i still only do so as minimally as possible because it looks STUPID and feels all wrong. Please, someone come out with a cool replacement mine icon!!! =) Fight the power!

[centrifuge]

Mines on Grassland are fine, but in general I tend not to do it, I'll mine plains, hills, and Mountains, and save the grassland for irrigation.

[Jamski]

Kill the mines, and all the forests too. I always chop down all the forests and jungles even when they are well outside the city radius. Same reason, I just like the way it looks, all flat and irrigated and completly covered in railroads.

-Jam

[Jethro83]

Squares inside a city's radius, all mined, irrigated and railroaded.

Outside of that, on the grasslands/plains, I plant forests. Apart from that, I leave it all alone afterward. If there's still jungle left in those squares, I leave it alone too.

That's what I think looks the nicest, while remaining developed.