Restoring the wild, always the same amount of trees.

[shubla]

Trees should have chance to make more trees grow around them if the biome is good and there are not enough trees in the vicinity.

They already do that now, don't they?

List of eligble biomes might need a little buff...

Either that or someone is randomly planting perfectly Q10 trees randomly in the wild O.o

I have seen people planting trees and grass in previous worlds, so it is a possibility!

[qoonpooka]

-1 to this. I like ecological consequences. I think tree regrowth by natural causes should be both very slow, and lack for diversity.

[jorb]

I like ecological consequences.

Have to agree there.

[Granger]

I like ecological consequences.

Have to agree there.

While I tend to agree with this from a realism standpoint, it's no good idea in a multiplayer environment - should you ever want a world that has no lifetime limit.

I'm quite confident that, should it be possible to extinct a species, some of your users will set this as an active goal and optimize for it.

[Vigilance]

I like how in this thread we see that a good few people that post in C&I don't actually play the game any more. Wonder why?

Anyway, in response to OP, I think grasslands should have trees of their native type sprout up in them without a need for existing trees to parent them, so we can ruin intentionally barren grasslands and make them look natural.

[Potjeh]

New trees should be planted by birds and squirrels.

[Fostik]

New trees should be planted by birds and squirrels.

Not only them.
Some of them - by bugs, some by magpies.
Too difficult to realize.

Btw, treest must prefer empty areas to grow in - there are lot empty spaces in forests without trees.

[GamingRAM]

*readies Axe*

Nidhogg would like to have a word with you.