2% interest on gold reserves - doesn't seem worth it

[benn683]

So a few of the civs have the 2% interest on gold reserve ability, which to me seems useless and/or underpowered, especially in comparison to the civs that have +50% gold production.

I guess late game it's OK... but say even if you have 2K gold in the bank, that's only an extra 40 gold per turn, when an extra 50% production could be tons more than that.

Having this ability early in the game seems like the biggest waste - generate an extra 2-10 gold per turn at best? and that's if you maintain your reserves and don't like to rush stuff like I do..

meh.

 

[lucifer316]

you cannot compare 2% interest and +50% gold in a vacuum you have to compare all the benefits a civ gets as a whole

also people always forget the concept of compounding interest when they bring this up

if you hold a minimum amount of money in reserve at all times in the long run its a bit higher than 2%

not to mention you will likely need to set a city or two to gold production in order to benefit from the +50% however the 2% interest works off of what you already have

yes +50% is likely going to yield more gold if used properly and thus is 'better'

but then again auto heal is better than veteran warriors but that doesnt mean that veteran warriors isnt worth it

 

[Apolex]

I agree benn. meh. Compounding interest is nice, but at 2%? I'd rather rush marketplace/banks and get dough that way.

What kind of crappy investment/savings gives 2% interest anyway? Abe should look into a mutual fund.

 

[benn683]

you cannot compare 2% interest and +50% gold in a vacuum you have to compare all the benefits a civ gets as a whole

also people always forget the concept of compounding interest when they bring this up

if you hold a minimum amount of money in reserve at all times in the long run its a bit higher than 2%

not to mention you will likely need to set a city or two to gold production in order to benefit from the +50% however the 2% interest works off of what you already have

yes +50% is likely going to yield more gold if used properly and thus is 'better'

but then again auto heal is better than veteran warriors but that doesnt mean that veteran warriors isnt worth it

What I meant was that compared to all of the other attributes that the civs have (veteran warriors, auto heal, knowledge of religion/navigation etc etc) this one seems vastly underpowered.

Civrev is all about the "over the top aspects" and exagerated attributes. The 2% interest on gold seems more suited to a measured game like Civ IV.

Just seems like a waste of an "attribute spot" if you ask me.

 

[benn683]

What kind of crappy investment/savings gives 2% interest anyway? Abe should look into a mutual fund.

No kidding I mean give me a break even with the federal reserve rate set at 2% right now some banks are offering 3.5% APY.

Civrev should be offering at least 20% APY

 

[Chinese American]

compounded interest only works if you're not spending. and in CivRev, if you're not spending, then what's the point of hoarding the gold? 2% is really pathetic. even 10% wouldn't be that good until late game. even then, it would be at best comparable but not better than +50% gold production.

 

[lucifer316]

when you only need 20000 to build the world bank then 2% is more than adequate after all 100 gold gets you about 10% of that 20000 after about 150 turns

also when you get this as americans you get it from the get go so all of that money that you get in your exploration is earning money while you are waiting to spend it

at that point in the game its very difficult to justify turning one whole city over to gold production and stunting your research

not to mention if you hit a string of bad luck and get nothing but spies from barbarians then that 2% will help you get that free settler instead of waiting and waiting and waiting

another thing to keep in mind is that for the americans is that the interest on that gold can pay for some half priced units in one turn so depending on your account balance that 2% is actually one or possibly more free units every turn

one or two free units per turn doesnt really sound underpowered to me

 

[Raw Power]

I agree, the interest in the gold can be a game winner if you are unlucky with the discoveries, huts and villages. Getting that first settler, even a few turns earlier is awesome, and if you wish you can continue to go for the 250 gold reward without needing to specialize a city on gold.

 

[Chinese American]

even with 2% you need to wait at least 36 turns to go from 50 to 100 gold mark. ya , pretty useful. but you can't dedicate one city for gold production? simple math.
50 to 100 at 2% = 36 turns
50 to 100 with gold city at 4 gold a turn = 13 turns.

how about this, use the spy to steal gold. although there's not much to steal at the beginning. still, the spy can steal a great person or help in taking over a city. so it seems in the short and long term, even a single spy gives better return than 2%.

 

[Jimmy369]

I think that Benn is right that 2% interest is underpowered. However if you look at the Civs that get it (America, Arabia, and Germany,) they come at the right times for a decent use. America starts with the interest for the entire game, but they can rush their units for 1/2 price. The other 2 civs have strong starting bonuses and they get their bonus at the modern age when it is most useful to them.

 

[lucifer316]

even with 2% you need to wait at least 36 turns to go from 50 to 100 gold mark. ya , pretty useful. but you can't dedicate one city for gold production? simple math.
50 to 100 at 2% = 36 turns
50 to 100 with gold city at 4 gold a turn = 13 turns.

how about this, use the spy to steal gold. although there's not much to steal at the beginning. still, the spy can steal a great person or help in taking over a city. so it seems in the short and long term, even a single spy gives better return than 2%.

actually no you cant dedicate one city to gold you only have one city and need to research

maybe others are playing different but i have never ever built a settler prior to the free one there is just too much that needs to be built to make sure that exploration and an adequate defense is set up plus its not really feasible prior to having a pop of 4 which takes a bit of time

so no if you havent hit 100 yet you cannot set one of your cities to gold because even if you have managed to get a settler out its likely only one

of course its not as overpowered as some others however the civs are to be taken as a whole not by the individual powers

veteran warriors is an extremely limited bonus to get

however veteran warriors created with barracks that are now elite and all elite units get auto upgrades now all of a sudden veteran warriors means something

but by itself in a vacuum i would rather have 2% interest for the whole game than veteran warriors for a small portion of it

and again what is completely ignored is how depending on what you keep in reserves that interest as americans can possibly buy a free unit per turn and a free unit per turn is hardly underpowered

 

[Chinese American]

to get a free unit per turn, you need at least 1000 gold in reserves. (1000 x 2% = 20) again reserves mean you are not spending it. again the point of not spending gold means you essentially have 0 gold. again if i have a gold city with market working just 5 sea tiles will earn me 20 gold a turn.

if you're not willing to REX or ICS that is your choice. but long term getting a settler 25 turns earlier than waiting on the gold would give much better return. 25 more turns to grow a city that will give me at least 20 gold a turn.

look at the math i showed. to double your gold, you need to WAIT and not do anything with the gold for 36 turns. I'll be conservative and say 30 turns. to go from 100 to 200, another 30 turns. from 200 to 400, another 30 turns. that is extremely low return.

compare to the gold city. 2 sea tiles give 4 gold and will get me from 50 to 100 in 13 turns. meanwhile it will have grown probably 2 more pop in that duration. which means I will get even more gold from that city. which means my jump from 100 to 200 can probably shorten to 10 turns or less. total of 23 turns and my gold jumped from 50 to 200. with 2% it will take at least 60 turns to go from 50 to 200.
23 turns to 60 turns is no comparison.

however veteran warriors created with barracks that are now elite and all elite units get auto upgrades now all of a sudden veteran warriors means something

again no comparison. veteran and elites get you somewhere. 2% gold you might as well be treading water. 1000 gold earns you 20 gold a turn. seriously, how does that help your gold victory? seriously, a gold city in the end game earns you easily 50 times that much, and 75 times that much if your civ bonus is +50% gold production. seriously, 2% is a joke.

 

[lucifer316]

to get a free unit per turn, you need at least 1000 gold in reserves. (1000 x 2% = 20) again reserves mean you are not spending it. again the point of not spending gold means you essentially have 0 gold. again if i have a gold city with market working just 5 sea tiles will earn me 20 gold a turn.

if you are spending down your gold to the point where you dont have 1000 in reserves in the mid and late game you are doing something seriously wrong period

if you're not willing to REX or ICS that is your choice. but long term getting a settler 25 turns earlier than waiting on the gold would give much better return. 25 more turns to grow a city that will give me at least 20 gold a turn.

again its got nothing to do with rexing or ics please tell me how many games you have played where you have created 2 or more settlers prior to getting your free settler from 100 gold

look at the math i showed. to double your gold, you need to WAIT and not do anything with the gold for 36 turns. I'll be conservative and say 30 turns. to go from 100 to 200, another 30 turns. from 200 to 400, another 30 turns. that is extremely low return.

i looked at the math and its meaningless when taken out of context like you have done you ignore research which is much more important than gold in the early game

and nowhere did i suggest to use the 2% to get past 250 or any other milestone

the point is that the 2% can get you to your second city which you might not be able to get if the barbarians arent giving up any money

the second city bumps research which helps to grow both cities quicker and helps you get to code of laws quicker and allows you to expand quickly and cheaply

you are quoting number in a vacuum rather than how the game actually plays out

compare to the gold city. 2 sea tiles give 4 gold and will get me from 50 to 100 in 13 turns. meanwhile it will have grown probably 2 more pop in that duration. which means I will get even more gold from that city. which means my jump from 100 to 200 can probably shorten to 10 turns or less. total of 23 turns and my gold jumped from 50 to 200. with 2% it will take at least 60 turns to go from 50 to 200.
23 turns to 60 turns is no comparison.

again one city means that if you go gold you have no research im not sure what part of that you arent getting but whatever

im not suggesting that you use the 2% instead of building a gold city im saying that if you are dealt a raw deal in terms of starting out (all barbarians yield spies) the 2% allows you to deal until you can build enough cities to build a gold city

you have yet to show me how you can turn your single city into a gold city and not hurt your research

again no comparison. veteran and elites get you somewhere. 2% gold you might as well be treading water. 1000 gold earns you 20 gold a turn. seriously, how does that help your gold victory? seriously, a gold city in the end game earns you easily 50 times that much, and 75 times that much if your civ bonus is +50% gold production. seriously, 2% is a joke.

veteran warriors get you nowhere if you are lucky they might get you two cities tops but that will be it until you build the workshop and upgrade them to something a bit more current

1000 gold earns you 20 gold the first turn again the concept of compounding seems to be eluding you oh thats right you are spending all that money even though you claim you are going for a gold victory right

and yes +50% is better but again auto upgrade elites beats other bonuses hands down does that mean they are useless no it doesnt

you refuse to look at the synergy and refuse to take the civs as a whole

if you added +50% to the civs that have 2% they would be grossly overpowered compared to everyone else

the bonuses arent meant to be balanced against each other but rather the civs against each other

the idea that we only complain about the 2% when there are other weak bonuses when taken alone (and im sorry veteran warriors taken alone is extremely weak) is a joke

these bonuses arent meant to exist in a vacuum

they are meant to provide a synergy with each other

 

[ATL Jones Bro3]

Accually i find this very helpful. I've made over 20,000 gpt (on cheiftain just seein how much gold i could make per turn) and i would have never got there without the intrest. The intrest only was givin me like 50+ to my gold production each turn. Trust me this is one of the better bonuses.

 

[Chinese American]

if you are spending down your gold to the point where you dont have 1000 in reserves in the mid and late game you are doing something seriously wrong period

If you are not spending gold , then you're doing something seriously wrong. You're not rushing things to get them many, many turns ahead than with pure hammers. So yes I would rather rush my buidings and units than looking at 1000 gold in my treasury, even though I can't touch it.

By the time I go for econ victory, I can get from 0 to 20k gold in 15 turns. So yes, I don't have any fear of my treasury ever being at 0 gold. Because I know my gold cities can produce so much gold, turn after turn after turn. In essence, my gold cities are my "reserve".

again its got nothing to do with rexing or ics please tell me how many games you have played where you have created 2 or more settlers prior to getting your free settler from 100 gold

there are many stratregies where founding new cities is much more important than waiting for glaciers to melt.

i looked at the math and its meaningless when taken out of context like you have done you ignore research which is much more important than gold in the early game

i would say research in the early game is not that important. more important are rushing a warrior and settler to start a new city. with 2 cities you can focus one on science and another on gold or production or even science. now i have twice as much research as you.

the point is that the 2% can get you to your second city which you might not be able to get if the barbarians arent giving up any money

the second city bumps research which helps to grow both cities quicker and helps you get to code of laws quicker and allows you to expand quickly and cheaply

you are quoting number in a vacuum rather than how the game actually plays out

if you actually play out the math, i could have 3 cities by the time you just reach 100 gold. tell me which civ is ahead now when you havent even started a second city.

1000 gold earns you 20 gold the first turn again the concept of compounding seems to be eluding you oh thats right you are spending all that money even though you claim you are going for a gold victory right

I can spend gold as I go for the econ victory because I earn 50 times more than the 2% interest. I can make back what I spend in just a few turns, not every 36 turns or however long you have to wait for the interest to compound. Sure compound interest is good, but not at the measly rate of 2%. If it was that good, why dont you retire on $1000 at 2% interest and see how far that gets you.

Another math example. If my cities are making 250 gold a turn, I can make 1000 gold back in 4 turns. so why would I fear having any trouble reaching 1000 gold? By then, 20 gold a turn is chump change. In the late game, 20 gold is the difference of one and a half tile being worked.

and yes +50% is better but again auto upgrade elites beats other bonuses hands down does that mean they are useless no it doesnt

They serve different purposes.

Upgrade is long term effect. Upgrading is conditional on the fact that they have to be elite by the time you get the tech. Usually though no more than 2 or 3 armies get elite, and you dont need more than that against AI.

Early veteran warriors give you a head start. You get a better chance against barbarians. So you spend less time healing and more time getting the goods. Also vet warriors need fewer experience to become elite.

On the other hand, 2% doesn't give you a headstart and not even decent as a long term benefit. By far this is the weakest ability.

you refuse to look at the synergy and refuse to take the civs as a whole

if you added +50% to the civs that have 2% they would be grossly overpowered compared to everyone else

That might be true in your eyes, but fact is if I have +50% gold already, I dont want a pathetic ability like 2%. I actually want something good and that actually does something to help me win. Hell, give me vet warriors so I can get more goods from barbarians. You know what else they give besides gold directly? Spies to steal gold, caravans to convert to gold, galley for reaching ruins, etc. Not only that, the sooner I get to the barbs, the fewer there are for the opponents to grab.

 

[Apolex]

I would say the 2% is actually counterproductive. It tricks some people into trying to "invest" their money rather than spending it. Money is far better used in this game early on. The earlier you can get any advantage on your opponents, the quicker you widen that advantage to great return. So spending your money early (and wisely, of course) is far more powerful than a silly 2% bonus. I look at it as being intentionally designed to be crappy, in order to balance some of the more powerful bonuses from that civ.

 

[lucifer316]

If you are not spending gold , then you're doing something seriously wrong. You're not rushing things to get them many, many turns ahead than with pure hammers. So yes I would rather rush my buidings and units than looking at 1000 gold in my treasury, even though I can't touch it.

i never said not to spend gold but the idea that mid to late game you are spending down every last penny makes no sense how can you possibly be ready for something immediately if you drain your account every single turn

By the time I go for econ victory, I can get from 0 to 20k gold in 15 turns. So yes, I don't have any fear of my treasury ever being at 0 gold. Because I know my gold cities can produce so much gold, turn after turn after turn. In essence, my gold cities are my "reserve".

actually no they are not your reserve

reserve means you can buy immediately and if you spend down you cant period

there are many stratregies where founding new cities is much more important than waiting for glaciers to melt.

who said wait there are plenty of other things you need to build early in the game that are much more important than settlers like say i dont know units to defend your civ

i would say research in the early game is not that important. more important are rushing a warrior and settler to start a new city. with 2 cities you can focus one on science and another on gold or production or even science. now i have twice as much research as you.

no you have nothing because i just took both your undefended cities while you were focused on building your second city and sending your warrior out to explore

and i disagree that research isnt important

if you actually play out the math, i could have 3 cities by the time you just reach 100 gold. tell me which civ is ahead now when you havent even started a second city.

actually i have 3 cities mine and both of yours

I can spend gold as I go for the econ victory because I earn 50 times more than the 2% interest. I can make back what I spend in just a few turns, not every 36 turns or however long you have to wait for the interest to compound. Sure compound interest is good, but not at the measly rate of 2%. If it was that good, why dont you retire on $1000 at 2% interest and see how far that gets you.

im curious when i ever said to use the 2% to get your 20000

making up lies about what im posting doesnt prove your point you know

also i love how you bring real life examples to prove something doesnt work in a game bravo

Another math example. If my cities are making 250 gold a turn, I can make 1000 gold back in 4 turns. so why would I fear having any trouble reaching 1000 gold? By then, 20 gold a turn is chump change. In the late game, 20 gold is the difference of one and a half tile being worked.

again i would love to see you quote the post where i said to not have any gold cities in the mid to late game

you are comparing your 'strategy' to something i never said to do again bravo

and again if you think that a free unit per turn is worthless in the late game i dont know what to say

They serve different purposes.

Upgrade is long term effect. Upgrading is conditional on the fact that they have to be elite by the time you get the tech. Usually though no more than 2 or 3 armies get elite, and you dont need more than that against AI.

Early veteran warriors give you a head start. You get a better chance against barbarians. So you spend less time healing and more time getting the goods. Also vet warriors need fewer experience to become elite.

On the other hand, 2% doesn't give you a headstart and not even decent as a long term benefit. By far this is the weakest ability.

they serve different purposes brilliant thats what i have been saying all along when you try to compare 2% to other things

and again all that you have listed for the veteran warrior is useless after about turn 50 maybe less

and you bringing up the upgrading is something you cannot do if the 2%s synergy with other bonuses is irrelevant than the veteran warriors synergy with other bonuses is just as irrelevant you wanted to look at them in a vacuum so keep it that way

and again who cares if its is the weakest ability or not the balance is among civs not among abilities

and i dont agree that its the weakest ability it is perhaps the weakest ability for you because of how you play

but that doesnt make it the weakest ability that just means its not suited to your playstyle

That might be true in your eyes, but fact is if I have +50% gold already, I dont want a pathetic ability like 2%. I actually want something good and that actually does something to help me win. Hell, give me vet warriors so I can get more goods from barbarians. You know what else they give besides gold directly? Spies to steal gold, caravans to convert to gold, galley for reaching ruins, etc. Not only that, the sooner I get to the barbs, the fewer there are for the opponents to grab.

wow the concept of balance between the civs rather than abilities is something you just are not getting at all are you

i get it you hate 2% because its not grossly overpowered and any bonus that isnt grossly overpowered doesnt belong in the game

its amazing that anyone can ever win a game with those civs being so grossly underpowered compared to the rest of the civs

 

[lucifer316]

I would say the 2% is actually counterproductive. It tricks some people into trying to "invest" their money rather than spending it. Money is far better used in this game early on. The earlier you can get any advantage on your opponents, the quicker you widen that advantage to great return. So spending your money early (and wisely, of course) is far more powerful than a silly 2% bonus. I look at it as being intentionally designed to be crappy, in order to balance some of the more powerful bonuses from that civ.

it doesnt trick anyone into anything

it allows for other methods of playing the game

why are people so interested in having this game be about playing one single way and one single way only

and you forget that the silly 2% bonus is good the whole game not just the beginning

 

[Apolex]

Every civ's ancient bonus is good for the whole game. But you're right: everybody has different playing styles, and that's good. For your style 2% might work a lot better; for mine it's not so good.

 

[Quotey]

there are many stratregies where founding new cities is much more important than waiting for glaciers to melt.

i never said not to spend gold but the idea that mid to late game you are spending down every last penny makes no sense how can you possibly be ready for something immediately if you drain your account every single turn

actually no they are not your reserve

reserve means you can buy immediately and if you spend down you cant period

Because mid to late game you're earning 500-2k per turn. Since you can't buy during the IT after a surprise (yeah right) attack there's no point in having ANY gold at the end of a turn unless you're saving to buy an early bank or wonder.

who said wait there are plenty of other things you need to build early in the game that are much more important than settlers like say i dont know units to defend your civ + other taking cities comments

Archers aren't expensive, hammer or gold wise. Gold from barb huts easily makes a quick archer army. If you're building 8 armies of archers before settler 1 then the other guy will visit you with 8 armies of Tanks soon enough. Seriously, how are you defending your cities, attacking the other guy's cities and researching with 1 city?

im curious when i ever said to use the 2% to get your 20000

You talked about 2% compounding interest being absolutely awesome! for a gold victory. Okay, maybe an exageration- but you did:

1000 gold earns you 20 gold the first turn again the concept of compounding seems to be eluding you oh thats right you are spending all that money even though you claim you are going for a gold victory right

and again if you think that a free unit per turn is worthless in the late game i dont know what to say

With our nice 1000 stockpiled gold example: 20 extra gpt is NOT an extra unit.

it allows for other methods of playing the game

You can play the whole game in Despotism, Always War, OCC, never building units better than Archers and no buildings. It's another method!

Though, I'm sure OCCAWNGCNBCBD is a fun variant, unlike NRU1KG (no rushes until 1thousand gold).

and you forget that the silly 2% bonus is good the whole game not just the beginning

I have a feeling we've established it's not good the whole game. I'd say it's not good even in the beginning.