Community Feature: Gold!

[Schuesseled]

Diplomacy is not trade in the sense that I'm thinking of it. In any case, I want to sell some spices to another civ - ok, I'll just click through every civ to see who offers me the most money, do a deal with them, then wait 10 turns for it to expire and do it all over again. Thrilling gameplay...

And so trading isn't finding the best price for a good selling some to them, and then finding the best price again and selling again a little bit later on when your new goods are ready. Of course it isnt what was i thinking..

Define spam. I seriously doubt people are going to be building these like they did cottages. Sure, they'll be an important improvement, but that's not really a problem, is it? "TP" spam probably won't be a high-level strategy, since you'll be giving up production, population, and science/specialists in favor of gold.

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying trading posts are the only important improvement, in civ 4 cottages were spammed so much also due to the fact that they offered decent food gold and production, where as trading posts should only offer gold. And if they are spammed it will be for reasons other than science.

 

[Zhahz]

@cottage/trading post spam: You guys forget, that science will not be maintained out of your gold treasure .
There's no need to produce tons of gold to advance in science, so cottage/trading post spam is not that probable .

Gold is used for a lot of stuff this time around and more gold can only be a good thing offering you more flexibility.

If trading posts only increased gold in tiles that already produce gold, that'd be a reasonable limiter. If they magically pull gold out of nowhere then spam is likely.

I didn't mind cottages...I liked how they grew and were kinda like a suburb around your city. A ring of trading posts would seem a little sillier.

 

[Jaybe]

"Trading Post" is just a label. As long as the graphic changes through the ages/advancement, I have no problemo. And there IS evidence of the graphic evolution.

 

[Mercade]

Greg, will all buildings cost maintenance?

What about gold generating buildings? Such as market, bank, stock exchange? Do they also cost maintenance in addition to yielding gold?

 

[AriochIV]

edit: You already know the answer to this question.

 

[12agnar0k]

We've seen that only some buildings will require maintenance.

 

[Tarkhan]

I want to buy up everyone's debt like China and strangle them economically before I crush them into dust.

 

[Mercade]

edit: You already know the answer to this question.

No, I don't. Otherwise I wouldn't ask the question. That is, I think I know the answer (not all buildings require maintenance, and it's silly to charge maintenance on something that generates gold), but that view is being challenged. In another thread, it's been stated with certainty that every building costs 1-5 gold, which I find hard to believe and there's also the screenshot of the stock exchange that Snipperrabbit finds ambiguous because there's no mention of maintenance and the +25% gold statement would be out of place. If you can point me/us to a definitive answer, then great.

 

[AriochIV]

That is, I think I know the answer (not all buildings require maintenance, and it's silly to charge maintenance on something that generates gold), but that view is being challenged. In another thread, it's been stated with certainty that every building costs 1-5 gold, which I find hard to believe and there's also the screenshot of the stock exchange that Snipperrabbit finds ambiguous because there's no mention of maintenance and the +25% gold statement would be out of place. If you can point me/us to a definitive answer, then great.

The production queue screens and rollovers show Maintenance cost right below the Production cost; the Maintenance cost is missing from the Mint and Bank and any building that generates gold. And that's exactly what one would expect... it's kind of silly to have a building that generates +gold but has a maintenance cost in gold. And there's no other plausible reason for this information to be missing from these buildings.

 

[PinkHammurabi]

The production queue screens and rollovers show Maintenance cost right below the Production cost; the Maintenance cost is missing from the Mint and Bank and any building that generates gold. And that's exactly what one would expect... it's kind of silly to have a building that generates +gold but has a maintenance cost in gold. And there's no other plausible reason for this information to be missing from these buildings.

How on Earth do you figure? I think it's silly that any building, whether it generates gold or not, to not have a maintenance. I honestly see no logic in that approach. Banks, Mints, Stock Exchange.. uh.. buildings? all have an upkeep irl, and any of these would likely have a more hefty one than, say, a library. And I don't see why you should get "free" buildings as this is essentially what they are. If a city (both real-life and in the game) isn't large enough to warrant the construction of a bank, it shouldn't build one or else it would just cost more than it's worth.

I see absolutely no reason to have gold-generating buildings free of maintenance. These buildings should be built where they will prove useful, not everywhere just because "it'll bring in money". Cost vs Reward is something that is evaluated with every other construction, why should these be excluded?

 

[Mercade]

The production queue screens and rollovers show Maintenance cost right below the Production cost; the Maintenance cost is missing from the Mint and Bank and any building that generates gold. And that's exactly what one would expect... it's kind of silly to have a building that generates +gold but has a maintenance cost in gold. And there's no other plausible reason for this information to be missing from these buildings.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[AriochIV]

It doesn't make sense that the cost of the building is just subtracted out of the gold it generates?

I realize that these are +% bonuses, and the costs are in whole units, but Civ V has shown thus far to be the kind of game that doesn't ask you to do math in your head to figure out whether something is worthwhile or not.

 

[PinkHammurabi]

It doesn't make sense that the cost of the build is just subtracted out of the gold it generates?

But is it? Do we have reason to expect that to be the case? If it did, wouldn't it just list the maintenance like it does with the others?

 

[12agnar0k]

Some buildings wont have gold maintenance, including gold producing buildings for obvious reasons. These buildings can be built anywhere/everywhere without consequence other than spending hammers, which is probably because they aren't particularly over powering (i.e won't need limiting), where as Theater's for example all give +4 happiness globally, which is powerful, a permanent cost to building them is useful to stop them being built without any consideration.

 

[PinkHammurabi]

Some buildings wont have gold maintenance, including gold producing buildings for obvious reasons. These buildings can be built anywhere/everywhere without consequence other than spending hammers, which is probably because they aren't particularly over powering (i.e won't need limiting), where as Theater's for example all give +4 happiness globally, which is powerful, a permanent cost to building them is useful to stop them being built without any consideration.

How? How does it make sense that they "obviously" require no upkeep? How many banks or of the like have you seen close because they don't make enough money? I'm sure no one is telling them they don't have to pay a mortgage just because they "contribute". Having these buildings for free in every city is an absolute mistake imo. They should be built where the reward outweighs the cost, just like every other building.

 

[12agnar0k]

Okay I guess I will have to explain it, it really is obvious.
When a building gives 10 gold, and you decide to give this amazing building 1 gold maintenance, then it still gives + 9 gold, so why not start off with just giving +9 gold and remove the unneeded calculation.
Maintenance is used to slightly limit or give a cost to building a building, its not effective if that cost is immediately removed.

 

[PinkHammurabi]

Yes, but I asked if this WAS in the calculation? And, if it is, then why not SAY it is, so that when someone builds it expecting +10 Gold and get only 9, they're not confused as to what happened?

 

[12agnar0k]

They can't expect anything other than the final result as it IS displayed. E.g their not displaying +25% but actually only giving +23% after subtracting a hidden maintenance.
The bonus will already be small enough so that maintenance is not required, because making it too powerful and then giving a maintenance cost would be pointless.

It really is obvious, giving +3 gold & -1 gold = +2 gold, so why not just keep maintenance out and give +2 gold from the start.

The purpose for maintenance is deciding; its a choice, is +2 science worth paying -1 gold for.
Is +3 gold worth paying -1 gold for is not a choice, it is no decision at all.
This is the obvious reason why maintenance wouldn't be on any gold producing building.

 

[PinkHammurabi]

I can't agree. It makes much more sense to me to just stick with the formula as it applies everywhere else. What's the point in making it a hidden maintenance? Where's the benefit?

And, again, are they actually subtracting a hidden maintenance in the game?

 

[12agnar0k]

Its not a hidden maintenance, you obviously don't know what that means, it would be a pointless maintenance if it was in putted, so it is not. This is not hidden, it does not exist at all.

The benefit of "not in putting a pointless maintenance" is just that, the removal of a useless feature.

The buildings will just be designed from the start to not be overpowering and need choice simply because maintenance would be pointless on the building. So requiring maintenance in the first place would be a pointless decision for the building.