Specifics on Terrain Improvement

[kmad]

Concerning Mountains and Deserts,

do you guys bother upgrading this terrain at all? If it's an important area would you road it? If it's a defensive node (mountain) do you build a fortress + road? I know if there's a resource you'll probably do it, but outside of that, is there anyone who bothers with that?

[Colonel Rhombus]

Definitely. Even though they're not generally very productive, upgrading them is still preferrable to leaving them barren. Having said that, they're usually the last tiles I upgrade.

I was thinking of increasing the mining benefits of mountains. In fact I just might do this now. As for deserts, well. Aside from the strategic/luxury/bonus resources they might contain, they are pretty useless.

[Mountain Sage]

Absolutely,

A mountain get mined and roaded, usually after the surrounding hills are done. I switch then production from a hill to the mountain. The hill goes into production again once the city grows.

If it's a defensive node, yes, I could put a forteress if I feel the need.

As for deserts, I usually put a city there, just to occupy the land (+ the possibility of getting Oil later). If there is a river around (let's say within 15 tiles on a huge map), I build a road to it and 'carry' the irrigation along. As I mostly play the French, which are industrious, it will take me only 2 turns/tile. My city will then grow as all the others. In the meantime, this 'carrying' profits other towns along the road. This is probably the reason why I tend to over-irrigate my lands, at least till my cities hit size 12.

As a rule, every city churns out a Worker. A Worker improves 3-4 tiles (average 20 turns with roads)) then connects the city. Workers from my core cities then build roads to virgin land for Settlers and 'carry' irrigation along if necessary.
After 6-8 tiles improvements, I put the Workers on automatic until RR. When the inter-city connections are done, they go on automatic again. Finally, when RR is completed, I give them a medal and disband them, except for half a dozen for pollution cleanup.

[vulture]

Mountains certainly especially once railroads are around. For the same amount of food, would yuo rather have 2 mined grasslands (1 shield each, 2 total) or one irrigated grassland and 1 mined mountain (3 shields total, same gold and food. Bonus grassland ignored since it gives the same bonus to each case).

Mountains and deserts are especially useful if you have flood plains nearby, which can only be irrigated. The food from those enables you to mine both mountains (3 shields) and deserts (2 shields), to make up from the lack of production from the flood plain itself.

[kmad]

Obviously I irrigate floodplains.. would be stupid not to.


What about on tiny pangaea maps, for quick games? Do you mine anything other than grasslands? Would you bother clearcutting forests at all? Or do you just use the workers to improve the ready terrain, link to resources, and then rejoin the cities?

[MoonWolf]

My deserts and mountains get either mined when I turn my workers to auto (when I have railroad) or if I need some more production for a city. Otherwise, if there is a mountain on the border between me and my neighbour, I'll build a fortress there and fortify some def. units. When I build factories, I think it's important to have as much roads as possible to be able to clean pollution fast.

I don't play on tiny maps unless I'm going to test something.

[DeepO]

Originally posted by vulture
Mountains certainly especially once railroads are around. For the same amount of food, would yuo rather have 2 mined grasslands (1 shield each, 2 total) or one irrigated grassland and 1 mined mountain (3 shields total, same gold and food. Bonus grassland ignored since it gives the same bonus to each case).

Vulture, with railroads, a mined, unshielded grassland gives 2 shields, not 1. Which means I would definately like the grasslands better.

Actually, desert, mountains and tundra are the only tiles producing one less shield/food then the rest, no matter if you have railroads or not. That is not counting bonus things, like the shields in grasslands, though... So unless you need more production in a city, mountains, deserts and tundra are the last tiles to use, but you use them nevertheless.

The best use of them are when you use all tiles, by creating extra cities, or by building cities on top of them (if possible). Or, before railroads, by foresting tundra. If you aren't terribly bothered by corruption, all new cities give more tiles to use, and turn your territory just that bit more productive, even if it can only grow to size 3.

After sanitation, it's again obvious that you should use them where possible, certainly with railroads to make a desert tile into a 2 food tile. You don't loose anything when you do, if you don't augment corruption in other cities. And anything that doesn't make you lose something is a good thing.

Oh, BTW, in general, it is better to mine normal grassland, and irrigate shielded grassland, if you have the choice

DeepO

[Colonel Rhombus]

I've disabled the mining of grassland & plains. Maybe I'm being overly nostalgic, but it just doesn't seem right.

[DeepO]

Why not? In Belgium, there are very few hills, and certainly no mountains, but we have (or had) plenty of mines. Why would it be impossible to mine grassland?

I agree that irrigating hills would be silly, but as far as I heard they do it a lot in Asia... rice fields and such

DeepO

[Jon Shafer]

Even if it seems weird, it's good for game balance. One of the things I admire the most about the Civ 3 engine is the way they've done shields/food/commerce, and how it changes based upon improvements and government types. Quite clever to spice up gameplay, IMO. Besides, getting any production out of some cities often requires those mines.

[Colonel Rhombus]

Like I said, it's probably just the nostalgia talking. I've never mined grassland and plains before, why start now?

I've increased the mining bonus to mountains by 1, which makes them the top terrain for production. I'm also trying an idea where hills can be irrigated, but produce no shields until they are mined. This means they produce just 1 food by default, 2 with irrigation. With mining they produce 1 food and 3 shields. They also don't allow airfields.

I'm not sure what the outcome of this will be, but it's worth a look.

[Cruddy]

Yes - I use every tile.

Of course, for deserts and mountains this means I need an abundant food source (irrigated grasslands, or more likely plains with railroad).

The production after mining is just as good as hills, but here's the important point.

If a tile is being worked, there is a small chance that a new resource will be discovered on those tiles. So I could get Uranium, Aluminum, Coal or Oil just by working my mountain and desert tiles.

I've never found a new source of oil - but I've had all the others.

If the food production of the city can't maintain the mountain/desert use, fair enough. At least you can irrigate deserts so you can still work the tile.

In my opinion - you're missing out if you don't use them.

[vulture]

Vulture, with railroads, a mined, unshielded grassland gives 2 shields, not 1. Which means I would definately like the grasslands better.

And mountains give 4, giving the same overall, but mountains take longer to work. Okay, it was a bad example. But given the choice between mining the grassland, and having your city frozen at size X, of irrigating, mining the mountains and growing your city to size X+1, you get more shields, gold and score from the latter. It is often worth developing mountain tiles.

[Solomwi]

Vulture, there's the flaw in your example. Since no grasslands are going away, it's a choice between having two citizens working two mined grasslands (4 food, 4 shields total assuming RR and no bonus, which wouldn't matter anyway, since the bonus is present whether mined, irrigated or unimproved) or having three citizens working one mined grassland, one irrigated grassland and one mountain (6 food, 6 shields total under the same conditions). Not to mention the benefit of growing your population.

Obviously, before the Modern Age, your cities will be pop-restrained to the point that working mountains isn't a good way to go unless you're in the middle of a lot of floodplains and have the food to spare or have it hemmed in tightly with other cities.

[vulture]

Solomwi - that's pretty much what I meant in my last post (the first one was messed up, I admit). And there is quite often benefit to working mountains when you city maxes out at size 6 or 12 - and you can get away moving workers to hills or mountains to get moer production and lose the 'useless' food (or, produce more workers and keep the food).