Resources in jungle

Flanker · April 15, 2003, 12:25

Maybe this has been discussed before, in that case please tell me where to find that thread.

I was just thinking that it´s pretty strange that jungles doesn´t produce more resources. All you get is one food. In jungles there are a lot of timber to chop down, and there are tremendeous of species known to be good ingredients in pharmaceptics and chemicals. Indians and other tribes living in jungles have a huge know-how about how to use these resources, and if we others weren´t so eager to chop the jungles down, we could also get to know a lot of these knowledge.

Anyway, my point is - wouldn´t it be good and more realistic to raise the resource output of jungles to maybe 1 food and 1 or 2 shields? Or maybe 1 trade as well? Of course this can be modded, but I´m asking what would be a good way to do it.

If not, at least I would really like some bananas there...

epics · April 15, 2003, 12:50

As you said, 1 food are those bananas

I think the jungle in Civ is where there are many bushes etc., not trees capable for being cut down for logs.
And those resources... how many of those little bugs and other species would you need to feed 100000 town??

Spiffor · April 15, 2003, 12:53

We demand a bananas resource in the jungle since the dawn of times

More seriously, I too think it would be good to have 1 shield from the Jungle. In the current situation, it is always better to clear a jungle than to keep it. That would be good if a jungle had some small advantage in keeping it.

Thirgaral · April 15, 2003, 13:06

It does add some realism with all that jungle being chopped down.

And those tribes have never been able to use the jungle to support an entire civilization....

Flanker · April 15, 2003, 13:15

Quote:

It does add some realism with all that jungle being chopped down.

True, but you doesn´t get a single shield for doing it! At least you should get that forest-bonus to a nearby city when chopping down a jungle. And, as already said, many of todays more exclusive wood, as teak and ebony, comes from the jungles. There are also lots of plantages in and around the jungles (with i.e. bananas). Maybe a simulation of the burn-plant-destroy-method would come in handy?

Blaupanzer · April 15, 2003, 14:40

The current game very much reflects the "slash and burn" mindset. "The only good jungle is a chopped down jungle!" I also think that the player should get some forest-like benefit for clearing jungle. Maybe five shields rather than 10.

CerberusIV · April 15, 2003, 15:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Thirgaral
It does add some realism with all that jungle being chopped down.

And those tribes have never been able to use the jungle to support an entire civilization....

Evidence is emerging that there was a fairly advanced civilisatio in the Amazon basin with millions of people which collapsed after contact with the Spanish introduced new diseases - and they did it without massive jungle clearance.

Chemical Ollie · April 15, 2003, 16:11

Yes, I can agree with that a shield on each jungle tile would be a good idea. But the food should stay at 1. It really takes an effort to get food from the jungle IRL.

Krayzeenbk · April 15, 2003, 16:46

Jungles aren't nearly as easy to log as a forest, and they are much more difficult to sustain for logging. Therefore I think that jungles shouldn't produce any shields. Not many civilizations were capable of extracting large amounts of wood from a jungle for 6,000 years.

They should however provide a one-time forest bonus, in my opinion.

Quote:

In the current situation, it is always better to clear a jungle than to keep it.

If the jungle is along the border and not near any cities, it's best to keep it and (optional) build a railroad through it. Then incoming enemy MAs and cavs have to waste a whole turn in the jungle under withering artillery fire

Azeem · April 15, 2003, 20:57

Well, there were several jungle civilizations that did prosper such as the Maya in the Yucutan and the Khmer in what is now Cambodia. The Olmecs and the Toltecs in Mexico were quite strong as well.

Cruddy · April 15, 2003, 23:42

I'd go for either an extra shield or commerce, but not both - that's what roads are for...

What I want to know is, why does it take less effort to nuke a jungle and de-pollute it, rather than clear it?

Seems the workers are using blunt machetes...

pedrojedi · April 15, 2003, 23:53

Have you ever gone to a jungle and tried to walk through it? Man, just passing by is big problem, imagine tearing it down! We're talking just about trees, but there are bugs, animals, rain, oh, so much rain, and sand water and so so so... Depolute is "faster", at least normal pollution.

dannubis · April 16, 2003, 03:20

the civilisation you are talking about was situated on the western outskirts of the amazon rain forest ... SO they had the possibility of extensive agriculture without having to chop down large patches of rain forest

Thirgaral · April 16, 2003, 11:34

Quote:

the civilisation you are talking about was situated on the western outskirts of the amazon rain forest ... SO they had the possibility of extensive agriculture without having to chop down large patches of rain forest

which is what they did...
BTW, why is everyone associating jungle with south America?? There are jungles in Africa and Asia too...

Azeem: There were no jungles in Mexico, right?

And I agree with everyone about the one-time forest bonus

pedrojedi · April 16, 2003, 12:52

There were... a lot.

Flanker · April 16, 2003, 13:07

Quote:

BTW, why is everyone associating jungle with south America?? There are jungles in Africa and Asia too...

Well, when I´m thinking of jungles, or at least the Swedish word for it (djungel), Í mostly think of the tropical forests in India. Maybe it´s because of Kiplings "Djungle book"? In Africa and South America I would rather refer to it as "rain forests" or "tropical forests". Actually, there are tropical forests that are rather dry, so the word "rain forest" might not be apropriate in all cases.

Thirgaral · April 16, 2003, 13:12

ok...I surrender, there were jungle in Mexico

but even though that now is a fact in my brain, I still don´t believe that they were great civs living on the jungle...but you´ll convince me they were I guess...

Cruddy · April 16, 2003, 17:22

Quote:

Originally posted by pedrojedi
Have you ever gone to a jungle and tried to walk through it? Man, just passing by is big problem, imagine tearing it down! We're talking just about trees, but there are bugs, animals, rain, oh, so much rain, and sand water and so so so... Depolute is "faster", at least normal pollution.

I could be talking rubbish here, (I haven't been within 1000 miles of a jungle) but I seem to recall Ray Mears (Myers? English survival expert) refer to 2 types of jungle - primary and secondary.

Primary is the untouched stuff, with all the vegetation competing and the tallest trees winning out. I think "virgin rain forest" is another term for it...

Secondary is what you get a few years after bush fires or similar catastrophic cutback - the big trees are gone, and the bushes, briars and creepers win out, making it extremely difficult to walk through.

So how about 2 types, the primary giving an extra resource, and the secondary being the normal nightmare in Civ 3?

pedrojedi · April 16, 2003, 19:13

Too complex. Stick with the good stuff, the elementary "jungle".

I do not believe in secondary or primary jungles, since that, for movement, both of them are very bad terrain. Even so, there are bushes, creepers and briars in primary jungles, so walking through them is as hard with or without trees. The main problem are the animals, insetoes and arachnids... When you least expect it, a jibóia (ji-BOH-ia, may sometimes be called "anaconda", which is another snake, but with the same gigantic size) can fall over your head, a panther can jump on your neck, a big great black hand can "fly" to your face (a big spider 30cm wide!), and, if you do not die, there are always tropical diseases, like dengue, yellow fever, ebola, malária, cólera, etc etc etc...

Flanker · April 17, 2003, 06:27

Maybe they should have swamps back in the game, as in Civ II? They were exactly as annoying and bad as jungles, but the graphics looked a little bit different. Overall, I would be glad if they had some more different terrain. I recall there were "glaciers" for example. It would also be nice if the flood plains looked a little bit different than the regular desert. And I also miss the oasis. And, above all, where are the bananas???

Spiffor · April 17, 2003, 06:44

I agree, swamps would be good. There are swamps in tons of places in the world, from central Africa to Siberia, and it's very sad they aren't represented at all

Hurricane · April 17, 2003, 06:58

I think the best solution would have been to make resources disappear if you change the terrain. That is, silks would disappear if you chop down the jungle they are in. This way you would need to make more strategic choices, not the routinely chop-down-everything-in-sight stitch you do now.

Spiffor · April 17, 2003, 07:07

I would be ok with that, but resources should have a more positive impact on the tile's production then. Ivory (meaning elephants) would bring one mre food or one more shield for example, etc.

epics · April 17, 2003, 07:22

yeah, good idea, but say you chop down the jungle where there is rubber (but you don;t know it yet) and all other jungle with rubber would be choped down there would be no rubber on the map!

Hurricane · April 17, 2003, 09:01

Good point, epics. But the AI is so crappy about clearing those jungles that they'd probably have lots of jungle around even then.

epics · April 18, 2003, 04:25

Yes, the AI probably would have those jungles but the human player clears all jungles in his teritory.
this idea is good, but needs to be worked on. In real I think the jungles weren't cut down till the industrial age when we had the techs to do that. And when that happened we also knew that there is rubber in the jungle.
It would be quite risky idea but maybe not allow jungle cut till industrial age?

Spiffor · April 18, 2003, 07:03

That's a good idea epics, but Jungle civs need to become viable then. I think it could be done if a jungle produces at least one more shield (Jungle civs used it for wood extensively), and if there are bonuses there which produce significant extra food, like bananas.

epics · April 18, 2003, 08:39

I'm still for not adding any shields and extra food to the jungle, but sure, those civs in jugnls had to had some profit from it. maybe animals? I don;t know. Is here somebody who stiudied 'jungle civs' ??

Spiffor · April 18, 2003, 08:47

I didn't study "jungle Civs", but I know the Mayans used stone above all as a building raw material, and the Khmers favored wood. Indians elephants are found in the Jungle, and they were an important asset for various works there, notably in the woodworks. (they helped transporting logs). I think a significant chunk of the Mayan food came from the sea though.

epics · April 18, 2003, 12:11

So we need to figure out what resources can jungle give. The shield bonus from cutting jungle is obvious: 10shields would be enough.
But I think any additional food or shields would be unrealistic. Civ's that lived among jungle were very little societies so they could live with resources it gaved to them, but a city in jungle?! can't be done!!