Forests obsolete with railroads?

[SuperSlinky]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to my calculations it is always beneficial to chop down forests and mine or irrigate the base terrain as soon as you get railroads. A forest will always be 1 food, 2 shields and railroads do nothing for it. But if you chop down the forest then mine and railroad the base terrain, you will get 1 food, 3 shields for plains, and 2 food, 2 (or 3) shields for grasslands. You could also irrigate instead of mine and trade 2 food for 2 shields.

Consequently, you end up with a very ugly map with those mines covering everything.

[Jaybe]

You are quite correct, with the following qualifications:
1. You don't WANT more food. Specially applicable if you have already chopped the forest and found that it is not a shielded grassland.

2. You want the forest there for its additional defensive benefits.

3. (Dirty Trick Department): It is NEUTRAL territory, and you want to impede the growth of another civ's town that is going to appear.
Or even worse, it's by a city of YOURS that you are about to lose!

[Datajack Franit]

I leave forests on the ground as.. I like the way the map looks

[Colonel Kraken]

Originally posted by Datajack Franit
I leave forests on the ground as.. I like the way the map looks

This is exactly what I do. In fact, I'll add forests sometimes for that reason. There is usually enough different types of terrain around my cities to not make it necessary to fully utilize every piece of terrain.

[Ben Williams]

Actually, forests on turndra with railroad give as much as mineing. It does have a slight defense bonus, and it looks a lot nicer.

[Purple]

I cut down everything for the 10-shield bonuses, then reforest selectively, especially on tundra, as Ben says.

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by Ben Williams
Actually, forests on turndra with railroad give as much as mineing. It does have a slight defense bonus, and it looks a lot nicer.

Forests w/ tunra is the one example where it is beneficial to have them as opposed to worked tiles. I do like to keep some greenspace around, and usually plant some forests in the gaps between the city borders' or if my population is too high in a particular city (above 25)

[alva]

Originally posted by Mad Bomber


Forests w/ tunra is the one example where it is beneficial to have them as opposed to worked tiles. I do like to keep some greenspace around, and usually plant some forests in the gaps between the city borders' or if my population is too high in a particular city (above 25)

Wouldn't it be easier to turn them into specialists?

[SuperSlinky]

I think what I will do is make it so forests can be mined for 1 shield. Then they will go from useless to very valuable, and railroads will make them more valuable. I am also toying with the idea of removing the ability to mine grasslands and plains, but I'm afraid this would slow down the already too slow ancient era. BTW, I always play my own mod.

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by alva


Wouldn't it be easier to turn them into specialists?

Certainly it would be easier, it just wouldn't suit my purpose, which is to reduce the citizens of my metros (or at least limit them) to control pollution and Global Warming. I usually start this between the time Hospitals appear and the time I start building Mass Transits.

[Emma]

i just build loads of workers. they can clean up the pollution, and i'm not too bothered about global warming anyway. i like those huge cities.
normally my cities produce a worker in 1 turn, so that's one way of getting the pop down and cleaning up ever more pollution. otherwise i just burn other peoples cities down and enslave the population.

[Mad Bomber]

emma:

GW is not usually a major problem, unless you start throwing nukes around...It's not something that I like doing, but planting greenspace and limiting the size of metros is a great way of trying to cope with a "limited" nuklear war, and the sooner you start planning for it the better. Of course if you have a full blown Nuke War, planting greenspace and limiting population will not be effective.

[Emma]

ahhh... that's why. i don't usually let it come to a nuclear war. (i'm only playing at monarch level right now, and as i'm comfortably winning i think i will play a harder game next).
i try to get rid of annoying civs really early and then deal with others when they attack me in the middle ages (i'm rubbish at middle ages gameplay and never get any middle age wonders).
i struggle a bit then, but soon catch up and win space race. have any of you won by domination on a huge map with nearly all civs? i just can't seem to do it. there are always civs that have all the luck and have weak neighbours and so have a huge empire. i would be destroying meself if i attacked. and then a third civ would take over. but i make sure i have a huge tec lead and the stupid ai has just learned to build nukes when i have nearly completed my space ship.

[Mad Bomber]

Emma:

I play Regent, but on Huge maps, 16 CIV's and only with Conquest as a victory Condition. I will always be fighting a modern war with Nuclear powers, so preparation is a must, even though I always hope that they won't be used.

[Azeem]

What would you suggest? Give 1 point in "mining" for forests in the editor or will that unbalance the game?

BTW, I accidentally set the move rate for roads to 1 while altering some of the values in the editor and that SERIOUSLY unbalanced the game. Although I was handicapped by it, the AI was even worse.