Whats up with forests?

[MattPilot]

ah that would be very useful. Never heard of that. Anybody got any insight?

[vmxa1]

I can only guess that is in reference to global warming. In that case it can be a buffer to the tile going tundra, if it has a forrest.
So GW may take the forrest from the tile and not down grade the tile. If it had no forrest the tile would be down graded.

[MattPilot]

well i just did a test, and pollution is not affected. A huge city was producting 6 pollution (after mass transit, but no recyclying). I build 2 forest squares. No effect after 2 turns.

Though GW may be in the right direction. Though the tiles that are affected by GW in my games are mostly distant tiles not worked on by my cities - and they do usually go from forest to nothing. Never seen a tile without a forest downgrade though

[Switch]

Originally posted by MattPilot
well i just did a test, and pollution is not affected. A huge city was producting 6 pollution (after mass transit, but no recyclying). I build 2 forest squares. No effect after 2 turns.

Well, perhaps it's similar to SMAC...it's not enough just to have the forest in a city's perimeter, but also they tiles need to be worked. Try a city with all forest and see how much pollution is produced (what I'm thinking is that a worked forest tile will produce less pollution than a worked mine or irrigation).

[Kuciwalker]

Doesn't work. They may affect global warming (I think I've heard something to this effect) but they do not affect pollution output.

[smellymummy]

i find forests very valuable in the ancient and middle ages, mainly because at those times my workers still haven't worked each tile.. so a forest is like a free shield producing tile. of course i also use them for that 10 shield boost, especially when theres lots of forest that can be cut. When theres a forest on a river, that's a nice bonus, and I usually avoid chopping those down.

once railroads come into play though, forest only become a cosmethic thing, where i keep a few workers to deforest and reforest the unworked parts of my territory. this also helps at seeing where i could put down a mini city or two.

as far as polution goes, like vmxa1 posted, the global warming affects the forest first instead of the tile. So if you have lots of plain tiles with forests, they would become plains first, before becoming desert. To have a real significant statistical impact though, I think you'd have to be able to forest the entire map. Foresting a part of your own territory certainly must help, just at a lower %

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by vmxa1
I can only guess that is in reference to global warming. In that case it can be a buffer to the tile going tundra, if it has a forrest.
So GW may take the forrest from the tile and not down grade the tile. If it had no forrest the tile would be down graded.

I think it actually modifies the little global warming counter.

[Admiral PJ]

Forests are great for defending your units, and slowing down enemy cavalry. move 2 and 25% defence is useful.
In conquests your forests will give you about 10 production each time chopped.. which is about 10+20production every 15 or so turns, more if industrious better not to cut the trees down too quick maybe .. or if you use a few workers to chop the trees down. So they are nearly as good as mined hills, and they also give a defensive bonus.. or can easily be converted to grassland later. Forests are great as can be chopped down and converted to food giving land, or grown on again when u want more production.(i calculated the production as 10 every cutdown forest, +20 for 2production*10 for the forest production being used while the trees are grown(before replanting).
Not all terrain has to be useful, jungle and forest are there to allow terrorforming.. changing the planet to suite cities needs, its a fun challenge, and makes it more interesting choosing city locations.

Mountains are less useful than forests, they should allow observatories or solar panels.

[justjake73]

terrorforming

"Terraforming".

"Terrorforming" is what Steven King does.

[vmxa1]

I thought they got rid of the IFC a long time ago?

[Spaced Cowboy]

Originally posted by vmxa1
I thought they got rid of the IFC a long time ago?

They did, and it is not back...trust me I've tried.

Also forrests are good for GW. The more forests you have. the less chance that GW will take out a grassland tile. I forrest all tundra and anytiles that I cannot work due to city placement. As soon as GW takes out a forrest tile, I reforrest it.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Originally posted by vmxa1
I thought they got rid of the IFC a long time ago?

Ah, but if you were playing original civ3 (v1.16f IIRC), then you could IFE to your heart's content.

For those who don;t know IFE, it stands for Infinite Forest Exploit, where you could clear a forest for the 10 shields and replant it, reclear etc forever. From v1.17f of Civ3 Firaxis nipped this one in the bud by allowing only one reforestation per tile.

And forests ARE very good for areas you need the resources and can't yet spare the time for mining hills or grasslands. That 10 shields bonus from clearing can be essential for building Granaries etc early one. But when you get to RRs there is no need, as even a mined non-bonus grassland can do better, as the RR increases the shield production there to the same as forests, which higher food production. And RRs do nothing for forests except for the movement effect.