Yes, you're right. We have 6 best choices. That is enough to have multiple-species forests.
Who needs multiple-species forests if choosing always the best tree is much more efficient?
The odds are weighted; the best-suited three gets planted significantly more often than the sixth-best one. The net difference in overall tree growth is not that huge.
Thanks for the information. That seems to be one of the top-secret laws which make the tree growth so complicated
It is quite easy to increase efficiency, in this sense. We could make all trees grow in zero time in any landscape. Would that increase the fun of playing?
- in zero time: That would be a big change and I don't think that it's necessary
- all trees in any landscape: Now we are the point where the correct trees become planted even if the efficiency would be increased a lot. So it's not necessary neither
But maybe a better tree growth would increase the fun of playing indeed, who knows? I'd have to test it.
I think that the foresters could favor spots where trees grow well, over less good ones within their area of work.