What if they nerfed the chop?

[Cort Haus]

AIs seem to deforest a lot, why is that? Do they know something we don't, or are they stupid in this regard too?

It's not so stupid to replace a 2/1/0 tile with a cottage that can be a 2/0/6 tile much sooner than a post Rep-Parts & RR 2/3/0.

Selective chopping is best, IMV. Sometimes there are no hills and you need those hammers, and working forest is unavoidable, but the fact is that forests are one of the worst tiles you can work, yield-wise.

[Aginor]

The problem with not chopping your Forests in favor of late-game hammers is that choosing this option slows down your early game development.

During the majority of the turns in the game, would you rather have:

2 Irrigated Grasslands supporting a 4 hammer, no food Mine

3 Forest tiles producing 2 food and 1 hammer each?

Add into the equation the fact that you can basically build a free Worker to improve those tiles (and many others) by blasting two Forests from the Grassland tiles, and it's not a hard call to make IMO. The time advantage of the chop is well worth it.

As for clearing the Forest for a grassland/plains cottage - this can make sense so long as you don't overdo it (ie: you've got enough food production to grow quickly.) I find that if I have cities with major floodplains, those cities become my commercial centers and I support these cities with cottages wherever else in my civ that I can...but I want to be sure that my cottage city has the flexibility to stop or reduce its commerce output and build improvements (Market, Library, Bank, University, etc.) as needed, and that it also can grow swiftly in order to bring additional cottages online.

This is not a call for clearcutting. It's usually worthwhile in a size 13 city to keep Forests on tiles you aren't working and are not pushed to chop. These can be Lumbermilled and railed later for extra hammers, and they help your health in the meantime (at least until trade and other tech factors make health largely a non-issue). However, in my experience pretty much every city founded outside of the jungle or the desert (where Forests are few and far between) is better off removing some of its Forests in order to improve those tiles and get a hammer boost shortly after it is founded. A simple chopped Granary can pay for itself in additional hammer production many times over during the growth cycle of a typical city.

As for AI clearcutting - at higher difficulty levels it starts with a Worker or Workers, and it has production bonuses when it comes to cranking out Workers besides (not to mention that it takes the AI cities much less time to grow than yours do, which *also* reduces the growth penalty for making Workers). It *has* to do something with all the Workers it spams out, or they are wasted. Thus, the AI plays an early-game centric game where it chops like mad. The assumption of the designers apparently is that since the AI isn't much of a military strategist, its best method of rectifying its limitations is to grow as large as possible as early as possible. This both denies YOU space and production and gets as much production and research online early in order to build an overwhelming advantage in both areas that you cannot possibly overcome.

As for distant Forests - there are two scenarios where you want to chop them:

1) It is or will eventually be in your cultural borders, but you have zero interest in founding a city that can work it (arctic areas, edge of desert, etc.)

2) You need high hammer production in a specific city and you want to get as much in that city as you can early on (Cultural strat where you are building Wonders like mad in 3 cities, for instance) before settling the area immediately adjacent to that Forest with a city that will now get any hammers you earn from future chops in that region. You may lose net hammers for your civ by doing this, but the hammers may in the long run be much more valuable to you in the distant city you put them in.

[Veritass]

I always send a worker down to clear out any forests that are in areas that my neighbor is going to expand into and hold. I may not get as many hammers, but at least he/she won't get them.

[Shaka II]

Originally posted by 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.

It's a bit like Age of Empires.

Originally posted by Kirghiz
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.

As much as I love forests, I go for the early chop in my first eight cities, which are often 3 or 4 of mine and 4 or 5 of the AI's. I chop in everything from libraries to axemen to the pyramids or other wonder, if I have a shot at it. It's critical to get the science machine going full speed and early cottages. Late game production and health comes from other civics and improvements. And, it helps to be expansionist like Romans.

[joncnunn]

Re: What if they nerfed the chop?

Personally, I think they need to reintroduce the no forest choping benifiting a city building a wonder rule from Civ III.
Maybe eliminate the shields from choping in netural territory as well.

Originally posted by 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!

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by 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.

So you have never considered the possibility of building a city there at a later time?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DrSpike
It's very slightly overpowered. 5 less shields would be spot on.

You can fix that in the XML, I believe.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Veritass
I always send a worker down to clear out any forests that are in areas that my neighbor is going to expand into and hold. I may not get as many hammers, but at least he/she won't get them.

This is an evil idea

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by 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.

Good to hear.

[cal_01]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


This is an evil idea

I already do this. Even better if the tile is on tundra.

[Shaka II]

Re: Re: What if they nerfed the chop?

Originally posted by joncnunn
Personally, I think they need to reintroduce the no forest choping benifiting a city building a wonder rule from Civ III.
Maybe eliminate the shields from choping in netural territory as well.

I kind of like it the way it is, though I was suprised that it was different from Civ3. It makes sense that a forest could be used to build a wonder.

I'm thinking we could even extend it a little. How about making workers able to cross cultural borders and chop your enemies forests down. Wouldn't that make for some excitement? Better bring an army with you.

Though the AI seems to cut most of their forests down. It would be primarily an early conquest ploy. Or, how about the worker cuts forest to produce catapult for your invading army? Requires construction of course. 1 forest = 1 catapult. To offset their cheaper build requirement, forest built catapults would only get a strength of 4 instead of 5, but can be upgraded to regular catapults. That might get some of those defenders out of from behind their city walls.

They did increase the health benefit from 0.25 to 0.5 health per forest, so that offers a better incentive to keep forests already. Also, we don't want to nerf combat any more than they have already. Forest chopping allows a great means for early conquest. I'm already upset that they've raised the cost of Praetorians from 40 to 45 hammers. I should've never said how strong the Romans were.

[Artuero]

I'd prefer that they weakened chopping, as someone said earlier it is too gimmicky. As it stands I have been playing at Noble so there is no requirement to chop, and I don't do it much unless I am otherwise clearing a tile for a purpose.

[Aginor]

Re: Re: Re: What if they nerfed the chop?

Originally posted by Shaka II
I'm already upset that they've raised the cost of Praetorians from 40 to 45 hammers. I should've never said how strong the Romans were.

Saw that they fixed the Jaguars, too. 35 instead of 40. Not that this makes them THAT much better.

[Hauptman]

Wood chops are situational... Different for me every game...

Current game, my cap was on a peninsula, completely covered in forests, with lots of food. Perfect GP pump. Hmmm peninsula = coastal cities, well i need the Great Lighthouse then, But GP heavy needs pyramids... wich should i build... OH! I know, Ill chop all those trees AND MAKE BOTH!~

[afrodius]

Chopping for hammers is something i have to take on a city by city basis. if a city has a decent number of hills i wont hesitate to chop down some trees, but if it is in the middle of a flat piece of terrain i know ill need those trees for lumbermills later.

It would be a grat idea to lower the number of hammers from a forest if we were allowed the ability to replant forests at some point (probably in the later game say around the time you get environmentalism). To keep cities from using the civ3 method of a stack of workers chopping and replanting a forest in one turn, have the forests gradually grow back the way cottages grow into towns. They could start out as seedlings with no hammer production, 10 turns later they grow into saplings, then another 10 turns to be forests again, and only then could you rebuild a lumbermill there. Just an idea cause i miss replanting forests in the late game.