Forest Harvest! Must change on patch?

[Bakunine]

For what i've seen so far it seems a lot of people are abusing of forest harvest to deal with cities that are dominated with curruption.

I think this must be patched ASAP.

My suggestion would be:

You only receive shields for florests that you start with and harvest and not the ones you plant and harvest.

Or a less drastic change: You can harvest and receive shields for florests planted but shields only are collected from 10 to 10 turns and only from a single forest tile.

Anyone agree? Anyone thinks im foolish ?

[yin26]

Well, I see your point, though I personally hate all that micromanagement. It seems that the trees grow back too fast. Maybe they can make the trees only grow back after a much longer time? Or grow back such that a quick harvest gets you almost no shields but waiting longer yields more? That would make sense.

[nato]

I vote for just getting rid of forest shields all togther. I think it was just a little throw-away extra idea they put in, not a style of play. Some people seem to be basing strategy around it ... seems silly to me.

If people are going to go to such extremes, they should just lower corruption in the first place. (I myself am fine with corruption as is, and I don't lumber.)

If they keep it they should automate it, so those poor souls doing it intensively can play more Civ between harvesting and planting trees.

[Bakunine]

If they keep it they should automate it, so those poor souls doing it intensively can play more Civ between harvesting and planting trees.

Yeah! Let's give some life quality to those poor slaver lumberjacks.

[Asharak]

I'm not sure I agree, Bakunine... actually, I'm sure I don't agree, but it's a figure of speech, you know.

It's not a strategy I use myself, but I have no problem with it. After all, isn't that we do today? Plant forests, cut them down, sell them, plant new ones, and then repeat the process? Certainly agruments for the pace of forest regneration can be made, but I have no problem with the general idea.

Honestly, I'd rather see Firaxis patch the corruption issue itself... deal with the disease, not the symptom, IMHO. My biggest gripe with Civ3 is the high corruption, though, so I'm a little biased. I can understand why people who like the corruption as is would want a different solution.

[Monoriu]

I agree its a cheap exploit. But then corruption is too harsh and there are no effective ways to deal with it. Both should be fixed.

[Bakunine]

Well i can deal with curruption althought i think it should be lowered. What i think is wrong with forest harvesting is that AI probably don't use that at all (at least i doubt they plant forests to harvest, and if they were programmed that way then to keep along with them by late game one would be 10 minutes per turn planting and harvesting).

On the other hand curruption must be even more rampant on the AI because they build tons of tundra, desert, two tiles cities. So using harvest forest massive while the AI not is very unbalacing...

But since it can all be edit there's no real problem in leaving it, althought when MP games come probably it will be turn of in the games i play .
Don't wanna to wait 5 extra minutes for a lumberjack moving his workers!

[Venger]

Paul Bunyon

Originally posted by Bakunine
For what i've seen so far it seems a lot of people are abusing of forest harvest to deal with cities that are dominated with curruption.

I think this must be patched ASAP.

Talk about a band aid, lets say we fix the corruption that's the source of the problem?

I like the harvest bonus, it's a nice treat for alot of worker work, it makes a little sense, and can be helpful early in the early game.

Let's be honest, by the time about 1600 rolls around, I'm trolling in about 28 shields a turn in my capital, having a square deforested every 5 turns adds a whopping two shield per turn during that time - I'll get that and more after 5 turns of having the forest stay put.

I like the rule for early game bonuses, it's irrelevant in the late game except as a strategy to fix the broken corruption system.

Venger

[Bakunine]

Re: Paul Bunyon

Originally posted by Venger


Talk about a band aid, lets say we fix the corruption that's the source of the problem?

I like the harvest bonus, it's a nice treat for alot of worker work, it makes a little sense, and can be helpful early in the early game.

Let's be honest, by the time about 1600 rolls around, I'm trolling in about 28 shields a turn in my capital, having a square deforested every 5 turns adds a whopping two shield per turn during that time - I'll get that and more after 5 turns of having the forest stay put.

I like the rule for early game bonuses, it's irrelevant in the late game except as a strategy to fix the broken corruption system.

Venger

Corruption is not broken. It's just rampant.

[Monoriu]

Re: Re: Paul Bunyon

Originally posted by Bakunine


Corruption is not broken. It's just rampant.

I agree cuppruption is not broken. I can live with rampant corruption, IF there are effective tools to deal with it. Specialists, science, culture, city improvement, special unit, tile improvement, whatever. As it is, courthouses are too weak and forbidden palaces are inadequate and too difficult to build where it is most needed. There should be a way to build lots of cities and still have reasonable corruption levels (at a certain cost, of course).

[Pyrodrew]

I wouldn't mind just having effective tools to deal with corruption either. The problem with doing that instead of reducing corruption as a whole is the AI isn't smart enough to fight corruption when & where it's needed. We can rush build courthouses, shop down trees for shields, use leaders & other techniques to fight it. The AI can't... it keeps thinking "must build another settler! 1 shield a turn? So what! MUST BUILD ANOTHER SETTLER!". So I wouldn't mind seeing corruption overall lowered simply because it would help the AI more than it would us.

So a combination of the 2 (slightly less corruption & a tad more ways to deal with it) may be best.

[Zurai001]

I object to the forests giving shields mostly because, outside of the ancient and to a lesser extent medieval eras, nothing is made out of wood. Cutting down forests shouldn't speed up production of a modern tank or a spaceship part.

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Zurai001
I object to the forests giving shields mostly because, outside of the ancient and to a lesser extent medieval eras, nothing is made out of wood. Cutting down forests shouldn't speed up production of a modern tank or a spaceship part.

Where do you think they get the paper to write all the reports and design details on??

Note: This was on a tiny map.
Seriously though, i used lumberjacking extensively in my first game. I had four cities, and not too much corruption, so no lumberjacking then. But after i took over the Russian cities (right next to mine, on the same continent, the new cities were producing 1 shield per turn. Moscow was producing more, so there i built the Forbidden Palace.
My other cities would have taken forever to even build a temple, so lumberjacking was the only way to go. Once the FP was built, i was getting a decent shield output in the cities, so i didnt need to lumberjack anymore.

[Auk]

Paper? Furniture?

[Tolls]

"Paper? Furniture?"

...and housing...