It's a really neat idea, though my first glance is : is it more worker efficient to use woodchips, since woodchips can be grown on lots of fertile land, and the main use of workers is in the farms to make the saplings.
No, the productivity of wood on an area equivalent to 5–6 greenhouses will be small — I can’t even imagine how small. I previously tried playing relying on it to save coal, but I always had problems with wood. But the agro output is quite huge, so I even stopped using nuclear power because it became unnecessary. The point is that we don’t use grain directly, but convert it into a higher-value product, which we then trade for raw materials. This process creates added value in the economy.
Is there a problem with the workers? They don’t eat much but produce a lot.
Edited 1 year ago
Wood production is low-yield, though it requires fewer workers, making it useful in the early game. Starting already in midgame, agriculture becomes highly productive, making it more reasonable to allocate land to farming instead. Moreover, agricultural products can be converted into fuel, gold, uranium, copper ore, and energy, whereas wood lacks such versatility in application.
Edited 1 year ago
A simple example from economics: you have a worker you pay 1 dollar, and they earn you 5. Then there's another worker you pay 3 dollars and give good tools — and they earn you 20. This is the principle of investment efficiency — don't choose what's cheaper, choose what gives the best return on your invested resources (money, energy, labor, etc.)
Edited 1 year ago
4
Showing
1–5 of
5