@Wodan:
No, I am talking about earlier in the game. I stated this when I mentioned "ancient era" and "classical era" and sometimes into "medieval era" right?
I develop quite normally, of course. For example, I also stated that I wind up being forced to choose a wonder to build once or twice due to already having completed all zero maintenance builds (e.g., gold and defense buildings). This is typical, not considering exceptional cases where things work out perfectly or nearly so.
Keep in mind that it's rather pointless to waste production making caravans or cargo ships until you can protect them from being sacked by barbs, except for trading with very near CSes. I seldom trade with AI civs as they are on the list to be eliminated anyway. Other play styles differ, of course. For example, some people may prefer "risky" play styles while I prefer conservative (I don't like my units to get hurt or destroyed).
Also, I try to avoid exploits such as selling 1 horse for 2 gold, particularly since Russia gains double strategics.
I'm pretty sure we are saying the same thing as him, the problem is that he for some reason is overstating the fact that a building costs low single digit gold for maintenance, and a single trade route can cover nearly all the expenses of an entire city. He sees this as a massive cost that must be dealt with, we see it as the price of doing business and not a big deal.
Too be fair, I usually run a heavy gold surplus as well. But it's not intentional, it's because gold quite literally isn't that important and comes as a consequence of everything else. You're not going to have cash laying around to rush buy 4 research labs. If you do, I dare say you're playing inefficiently sitting on that much cash for so long. It's not like you get interest on your stockpile, so gold isn't useful at all unless you're spending it.
I have won many domination games running a GPT deficit, and guess what? I do just fine off the spoils of war. I have however never won a game with a science deficit, as it turns out. And like I said, puppeted cities do absolutely nothing but focus on gold, and they suck at it. They're complete wastes of cities that do basically nothing for you and sometimes cost more than they earn. If gold were really the most important thing in the game, people would be playing with vast puppet empires, ringed by trading posts, but that's not the case because they're terrible cities and it's a terrible strategy.
It's really ridiculous to say that you can't do anything without gold, even if you have a tech lead, when the costs of anything you'd be doing can be covered by an 8gpt lux sale. One extra lux sold away pays for almost 3 research labs. And you expect me to take your position seriously that gold is some precious commodity that must be maximized at all times? I'd love to see what your cities look like.
(sigh)
No, Chum, you just contradicted yourself by claiming that selling a lux to get GPT fixes things (or any other method to get gold, for that matter). You have just confirmed what I have stated but you continue arguing against: gold is paramount, not science, because you cannot do anything with science unless you have good gold supply. As another person stated, one lux sold does NOT pay for one research lab, let alone multiple labs, but this is unimportant anyway as I clearly explained in a prior post (i.e., you win long before labs are even a factor if you have a strong economy so why even bring them up as you keep doing?). Also, you do not get 8 GPT lux sales, anyway, not in BNW. Even with DoF, you get 7 GPT plus perhaps 5-8 gold, not 8 GPT. For me, I usually get 7 GPT or less because I don't do DoF (no point when you're planning to eliminate the AI and it only uses DoF to harass you with city settlement in your area or spying, anyway).
No, a city's maintenance cost are far, far more than a single trade route, especially in the early to mid game when trade routes (a) do not bring in more than a few gold and (b) are in danger of being sacked by barbs without protection if they go very far away. You may play with very small cities, I suppose, and have almost no maintenance, but I and many others do not.
No, you do not normally have a large gold surplus until late game, at least in most cases. I stated quite clearly (and other people reiterated this point) that we are not talking about late game, but rather the simple fact that it is very possible to win long before late game is even a factor. However, it requires focusing on economy and not worrying about late game stuff like research labs, or even public universities, while planning to finish off the game (domination, or using domination to reach diplo or culture VCs) prior to these being much of a factor, if at all.
And Chum, many people play with large puppet empires with puppets ringed by trading posts. It is a standard strategy that has been discussed and recommended on many, many posts here and elsewhere. Feel free to search for threads. Evidently, you do not play that way, but it is one of the best strategies and has been stated as such by many advanced players. Of course, with certain SPs gained, puppets wind up producing science as well as gold due to TPs and other elements such as jungles plus universities. Based on your posts, I'd say that you do not manage your puppets properly. That's hardly the fault of the game and it doesn't make your claims true.
FYI, I just won a game (Emperor, Continents) where I trailed in science until the very end, and the reason I eventually outpaced the AI and led in science at he end was simply attrition after taking their cities and territory, not because I focused on it. It's quite easy to do, assuming you focus on gold and economics while dominating. Since you expressed an interest in seeing a game, see attached save file. Note that I am sure you'd approach with a different strategy and I really couldn't care less, nor does that fact have anything to do with the thread, nor does it invalidate what I have posted in my replies. Actually, the attached save game was a rather odd map IMO and I adjusted play styles/VC goals once or twice once I knew the map and had better info. It still illustrates some important points, though (e.g., when I took Rationalism it didn't increase my science much but when I took the Patronage SP it boosted science by something like 200, gold supply on this type of map is extremely important because the land masses are large and need roads for decent movement plus supporting the puppet empire, units to defend a large empire as well as attack including attacking the other continents, etc.).
I never said "maximized" but gold must be a focus, yes, or problems will be experienced. That's the basic game mechanic, nothing I am doing. Gold funds everything, that's all, including science, either directly or indirectly.
Also FYI, your style must not focus on city state alliances, but mine does. You will not have a large gold supply until very late in the game when you are spending 500-1000 gold per city state alliance. Not on standard maps, anyway. Smaller maps with fewer city states may be feasible, but I stated standard settings.
Yes, I have put a couple of thousand hours into the game, so yes, I do know something about what I am saying. What I have explained (repeatedly) is most certainly as valid as claims made on the forum that "science is king" (no, it relies on gold, so gold is king if anything is, at least in general and barring exceptions). The OP asked a question and I offered an answer including some level of detail. There is no reason for you or anyone else to argue against what I've stated when it is clearly confirmed by actual experiences of myself and many others. Yes, you can play your way, but that was never the point at all. The point is that it is inaccurate to claim that "science is king" when it clearly is not. Saying that is like claiming "culture is king" or "faith is king." All of them rely on gold, as does most everything except world wonders and zero maintenance buildings. You are discounting how everything relies on gold which only leads to problems when economies cannot support what the player is attempting to do. Of course, if you focus on late game victory, your approach may be better, but that is a very specific choice and other options are more efficient (i.e., lead to faster victory/victory in earlier eras). You may be ignoring the fact that gold is fundamental and drives everything else, including science, because by late game players will usually run a large gold surplus (or be unable to win, anyway, of course). Ignoring the basic game mechanics by focusing only on late game victory doesn't make a statement like "science is king" true, though.
I think I may be done with this. I answered the OP question as have others. Everyone can play as they like. Gold is fundamental and required for everything, so any strategy has to take that into account or run into serious problems, especially with the AI getting bigger and bigger cheats. As a final point, this is exactly why G&K strategies relied a lot on exploiting the AI's gold supply and get it into the player's hands. Trying to win without it was difficult to impossible on higher difficulties because gold was/is so critical to the game mechanics. BNW nerfed that somewhat in various ways but did not change the basic mechanics of gold funding anything you do.
is not much benefit to them. And, that same 
