Forest Energy

[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]

Re: Forest Energy

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...