What if they nerfed the chop?

[Stageon]

Here's something to think about. What if in a future patch chopping got nerfed so that it either didn't work anymore or was severely diminished? Curious as to whether anyone would be in favor of this. I find chopping almost a necessity in competetive games in order to keep up, and sometimes I wonder what it would be like if this wasn't the case.

The second part is how your strategy(s) would change if chopping were to go away. Would you do things totally differently or pretty much as you do now but with a few changes? Would you go for different types of victories? Are there people out there who NEVER chop?

Discuss!

[chequita guevara]

I hardly chop at all anymore. I my forests.

[bonscott]

I only chop if I need to place a cottage on the tile. Forests rock, especially after lumbermills and then rail them. Totally rocks.

[Solomwi]

I'm with che and bonscott. With forests no longer costing you food, at least on grassland bases, Firaxis has changed the decision from when to best time each chop to whether to chop at all, and if so when to do it.

With that in mind, my response to the original question is that we'd all chop less and build more lumbermills.

[Kirghiz]

I think chopping was really quite gimmicky right after the game came out, but now that people see what forests are worth later on in the game they don't chop quite as much.

I used to be heavy into deforestation, but now I only chop if it is sitting on top of a hill that needs mining. Though I will still wait to work that tile until I am building a wonder.

[Urban Ranger]

You can fix that by giving forests +2 hammer

[trev]

Unless the forest is on tundra, or other useless squares, the forests in my games are progressively cleared in favour of cottages and mining usually, occasionally farmland in poor growth cities. The money from the towns that cottages develop into are essential to finance growth and rapid tech learning.

[Stageon]

One of the most helpful things I saw around here was that hammer-from-chopping radius chart. Er...the one with the colored rings going outward from the city. Now when I plunk down a new city I scan around to see not only what's gonna be in it's workable radius but how much forest is within that choppable radius. Nice to fell those outer forests if you're not gonna use them, regardless of whether you chop the close-by ones or not.

[Urban Ranger]

Why do you want to chop the faraway forest tiles when doing so doesn't give you much?

[ben_sphynx]

Because the far away forests dont give you anything at all if you dont chop them. That would make them prime chopping candidates in my book.

[DrSpike]

It's very slightly overpowered. 5 less shields would be spot on. You also shouldn't get credit for forests outside your borders.

[Caligula 37 AD]

Originally posted by DrSpike
You also shouldn't get credit for forests outside your borders.

And yet you do..
So does the AIs, so the rule applies to all.
BTW, the AIs seem to deforest a lot, why is that? Do they know something we don't, or are they stupid in this regard too?

This, I belive, is the thread your looking for Stageon.

- Cal

Edit: missspelling

[Stageon]

A-ha! Right you are, Caligula.

[Stageon]

Sorry for the double post.

Yeah, I guess I would like to see an option NOT to have chopping or something, but then again they can't very well have every single facet of the game configurable or it would be a mess.

I tend to chop forests just barely outside my borders, or on tiles know I'll improve later anyway, and get the shields - I mean, hammers - when I want them and not when I happen to build that improvement.

I'm not sure if chopping is overpowered or not, I mean it's the same for all players. I guess it adds another strategic option and that's always good.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Caligula 37 AD


And yet you do..
So does the AIs, so the rule applies to all.

Yes, but you shouldn't. I was making a statement about what should be, not questioning what the poster (correctly) said occurs in the game now.