I have an idea for civ 4: When a unit popped a goody hut, the gold woudn't just be added to your money total, but instead, it woud be displayed in the right click drop down menu, and woud first be added to your total, when (or if) the unit woud reach one of it's own cities. Maybe it could even be made so, that gold you have in one of your cities couldn't be used in another of your cities, unless they were connected by road or port/airport. A technology in the modern ages called something like "electronic money" woud disable the "city transferring problem", as there woud exist no "real" money, but only "electronic" money.

You mean the currency (and also resources) should be localised, instead of globally available for the empire?

Sounds good for resources, but not for gold imo.

I mean that the gold that appears from goody huts and captured or razed cities would belong to a unit. The unit can then add the gold to a city, and that gold (and the gold that is produced in the city) can then be traded betweeen any cities that are connected to that city.

Sure, it might be realistic, but I'm afraid it would make things more complicated without adding much to the game in terms of fun.

i've been thinking of a similar system for maps, but since the human player sees the entire map as it's explored, it wouldn't make much sense. i half-hearditly suport your idea, but for the sake of realsim....WAIT i just realized something! this means we could take money in battle! each unit has a certain monetary value assigned to it (based on the shield cost of the unit) and a victorious unit in battle could take that money, and if he keeps winninge, he'll have a large amount of gold on him and be a larger target for enemy attacks. this could be interesting, however, if not implemented correctly can virtually (no pun intended) destroy the game

Good idea :)

Kinda like the treasures in colonization..

I also don't like it. The money you get has not a big role, and therefore it might be too complicated for doing not much.

It would simply take too long every turn to have to move gold around the map. In the age of discovery campaign it was already annyoing to have to spend your entire military and navy for the purpose of moving treasure around the map.

ahhh so it's kinda like the Princess in the game "Three Sisters" and you must return it to a city connected to your captial?

BRILLIANT!

No offense, but it's pointless. It doesn't really add much to the theme and playability of the game. It goes along well with colonization but that was a different game.

Too complicated and not of much value IMHO.

I like it

Originally posted by ybbor
each unit has a certain monetary value assigned to it (based on the shield cost of the unit) and a victorious unit in battle could take that money, and if he keeps winninge, he'll have a large amount of gold on him and be a larger target for enemy attacks.

This would turn the game into Monty Haul.

it's just like in magesty, ever play that game?

it requires too much micromanagement while it doesnt add strategy thinking to the game

Originally posted by judgement
without adding much to the game in terms of fun.

I disagree..
If this were to be implemented, the payout should be a lot bigger though - not only 25 as it is today. Perhaps 150 or something - or even more!

I can't believe you say it wont be fun - imagine trying to protect your scouts to avoid them getting ambushed! And also try to go after the enemy scouts, and if you manage to kill them, your unit get the gold isntead :D
Kind of similar to the Barbarian Leader in Civ2 (or was it Civ1?), where if you hunted him down you got some extra gold.

Would add some more depth to the game, I think it's an awesome suggestion :)

Too complicated for something that don't last for long.

I have an idea for civ 4: When a unit popped a goody hut, the gold woudn't just be added to your money total, but instead, it woud be displayed in the right click drop down menu, and woud first be added to your total, when (or if) the unit woud reach one of it's own cities. Maybe it could even be made so, that gold you have in one of your cities couldn't be used in another of your cities, unless they were connected by road or port/airport. A technology in the modern ages called something like "electronic money" woud disable the "city transferring problem", as there woud exist no "real" money, but only "electronic" money.

This presumes that unit movement are realistic as well - but they arn't. I know the Roman Legions weren't all that speedy (12-15 miles per day), but it took me about 40 years to move one legion from Carthage to Alexandra in the Rise of Rome scenario! The movement rates arn't realistic at all - the game is played on a huge macro level, but moving units is micromanagement. Perhaps when war is declared, you set targets for your built units to achive and you are notified whether they are achived in 2-3 turns time, given your army/navy size and deployed positions. There could be an alternative option to switch to a 'micromanagement' level that would allow you to move the units in a way similar to that of 'classic' civ but in a much smaller time frame - and in this framework your rule would make sense. This is possibly a new thread though I'd love to hear peoples comments on a 'micromanagement/macromanagement war' system.

It would simply take too long every turn to have to move gold around the map. In the age of discovery campaign it was already annyoing to have to spend your entire military and navy for the purpose of moving treasure around the map.

But that is what the Spanish had to do - moving the gold back from the mines was a huge yearly task that required all of Spain's huge naval power, to avoid the English or the Dutch (or someone else) nicking the loot!

Ah, but remember, each turn takes fifty years at the beginning, and the scale never drops below two years per turn. This is realistic for many game function, especially technology, but not for military purposes. You are left to assume that your Warriors send you a messanger occasionally to tell you about the terrain. Presumably, said messanger also brings any barbarian plunder you get.

This seems like it complicates things without giving us much to enjoy in return.

It's bad enough that Units and City Improvements take hundreds or thousands of years to be built, or move across a continent. The money system of Civ 3 made way more sense than the one used in Civ 1 and 2, why would anyone want to see the system regress in sensibility?

It would be kind of annoying to have to bring money back to your cities every time you killed a unit. I think the current version is great the way it is. Good thought, though.

Unit movement doesn't just represent a division (or whatever) marching a few hundred miles. It's over the sort of timescale that represents a change in the unit's base of operations, with supply coming and going all the time. In the ancient era it clearly takes a while for your warrior party to scout a tile accurately whilst still remaining in touch with you.
So I voted no.

Even though this thread is old it still applies to Civ4.
It would make the game too complicated. They should make it so you get treasures when you visit a goody hut or capture an enemie's capital. You would then have to have a unit pick up the treasure and return it to your capital to a huge sum of money. Once you get your forbidden palace then you could also move the treasure there for money. If there were colonies then colonies could provide treasure every so ofter too. This would add the colonization aspect to the game. Nations then could go from poor to rich pretty quickly.

Hey! Like "Capture the Princess" mode and "Age of Discovery" scenario from C3C!

Hey! Like "Capture the Princess" mode and "Age of Discovery" scenario from C3C!
These were so much more better then the norm civ 3

I have an idea for civ 4: When a unit popped a goody hut, the gold woudn't just be added to your money total, but instead, it woud be displayed in the right click drop down menu, and woud first be added to your total, when (or if) the unit woud reach one of it's own cities. Maybe it could even be made so, that gold you have in one of your cities couldn't be used in another of your cities, unless they were connected by road or port/airport. A technology in the modern ages called something like "electronic money" woud disable the "city transferring problem", as there woud exist no "real" money, but only "electronic" money.

Actually carrying gold back to town is a little annoying. Transfering gold to the nearest city or a unit's "home" is realistic enough.

However, I like the idea of per-city gold storage for its historical accuracy -- the great empires tended to keep their wealth spread out at the provinces. It wasn't as if the whole Roman treasury was kept at Rome. That isn't to say they didn't extract tribute, but only a portion of the income transferred to the imperial city. If a nation wants to transfer wealth to another city or the capital, it should lose some percentage to the cost of transporation, risk of banditry, etc.

If cities had their own stockpiles, it would also make sense that barbarians (not to mention gold-starved rival civs) might attack the wealthiest cities -- players would need to be able to see or estimate a city's treasury, though. Thus, wealthy cities (for example, your capital) would require additional defenses.

As for the tech requirement -- I think banking would be sufficient. Banking would allow a Central Bank small wonder, the creation of which (in addition to a commerce boost for its home city) would allow you to transfer funds (not the actual gold, note, just a numeric representation) at no penalty. Electronic banking is just an enhanced version of the same basic concept.

Realistically (that is to say -- it might not actually translate to good gameplay), it would also allow you to fool around with monetary policy, like interest rates, bank insurance, gold standard, inflation/deflation, etc. Since Civ isn't a macroeconomic sim, that's probably not desirable or feasible.

Random, derived idea: "Wealth". Functioning somewhat like "Culture", wealth represents all the proceeds of commerce not redirected to taxes, luxuries, research, culture, etc. It's sort of a generic form of economic infrastructure (as opposed to the specific kinds represented by city enhancements and wonders). Once it reaches certain plateaus, the city gets some bonus to production and happiness. Any combat that can destroy buildings also reduces a city's wealth, which can drop it back to low levels. A city's owner could also grab some of its wealth for instant cast, though there are diminishing returns and it would cause unrest.