Community Feature: Gold!

[PinkHammurabi]

It seems to me that it is simpler, clearer, and more accessible to have only one value for a given asset or modifier. Since not all buildings require maintenance, even consistency does not mandate a maintenance cost for gold producing buildings.

I can absolutely understand that and you are correct. I just think that it is not a burden to factor in maintenance given the modifiers for gold output (and presumably maintenance either through buildings or Social Policies). I think it's an acceptable implementation so that these types of buildings aren't freebies to be built in each and every city and its overall value to your empire/city be deduced before construction (I don't mean its final gold output, just a general usefulness).

I just want the same decisions that go into other buildings be a part of these as well.

 

[12agnar0k]

I know its not a decision, which is my point, why it would be pointless to incorporate the decisionless gold maintenance in this case, Their is no point to it, and that is a fact. The Strategic Decision cost can not be obtained on gold buildings from gold maintenance.

Yes you SHOULD be asking yourself if its worth building, gold maintenance will not do this job, hence it is pointless.

In addition, if you are creating values, you will create both the original and the maintenance and the result, which is fine, until the result becomes singular, i.e "2X - X = X" So the creation of the calculation becomes a muted point, you may as well of created to start existing at X. Maintenance in this case is pointless. Because it can be replaced by simply not inventing it in the first place. Inventing 10 calculations to get to the same result as 1 calculation is a pointless waste of time. E.g "(10X / 2) -2X -2X = X net effectiveness of building" as apposed to simply having "X effectiveness of building". This is simple, maths, logical and factual, the simplest calculation should be used for that exact purpose.

The reason to have Maintenance is when the cost can't be simplified, when their is a CHOICE, i.e "2Y - X" Then you have to choose what is more important to you, 2Y or X.

The reason why "+X% - X" is not a choice is because either X>0 or X<0, if X>0, the "Choice" will always be Yes, if X<0 the "Choice" will always be No. All you will be doing is forcing an uneccesary calculation and a predicted resulting "choice", which is no choice at all. If your playing to maximise profit, which means, playing to win the game, then thier is no choice. You will do the predicted action, where as, X or Y is entirely variable, completely depending on what type of victory your going for and what would be more useful in getting it. A Choice if you will.

IF you WANT a Maintenance Decision Cost on Gold Producing Buildings then this cost must not be in gold, it can be in science or culture or Strategic Resources or anything really, accept the bonus the building gives, otherwise the Maintenance which is inserted to give "Choice" will give none.

 

[PinkHammurabi]

Obviously this should have ended long ago. You don't get it. You don't understand the term "pointless", and you absolutely CAN have it so that you make a decision based on if a Stock Exchange will produce more gold than it costs to maintain it. Guess what? That's how EVERY business works. They're not implementing it and why it's taken me this long to get tired of trying to explain my opinions to you is beyond me. You parade around about "facts" which are not even close to being facts and completely misinterpret what I'm saying. This is getting old.

And to be genuinely helpful, a few times you've used the word "accept" when you meant "except", just something to watch out for.

 

[ori]

Moderator Action: Discuss the posts not the posters, please.

 

[PieceOfMind]

I don't at all accept the argument that a bank or something like that having a gold or two maintenance cost makes it complicated or requires you to do "math" (at least, not any more than you usually do in the game anyway).

Whether you like it or not, to get good at a civ game you do need to be able to do pretty basic maths. If you want to attack and kill your enemies, you want to have units with higher strengths (that means comparing the sizes of numbers) and that might even include adding up some defense or attack bonuses and multiplying by your base strength. Some of the calculation is done for you, but you at least have to understand that the calculation is going on and the interface is only assisting you.

To consider how many turns it is til the next social policy you need to think about how many culture points you have to go and what rate you are collecting them at. Things like that don't have to be exact but even doing a simple estimate in your head (most people like us can do this very quickly so mightn't make a deal of it) is still doing maths.

Honestly, a 1 or 2 gold cost of a bank and comparing that to an estimated payoff for having that bank is not a difficult computation. It's certainly no more difficult than estimating the benefit of a science-improving building that has a gold maintenance cost.

I just want people like PinkHammurabi to know that some people out there see the sense in what you're saying and completely agree. People like myself just have less patience to argue it.

 

[Tomice]

I don't at all accept the argument that a bank or something like that having a gold or two maintenance cost makes it complicated or requires you to do "math" (at least, not any more than you usually do in the game anyway).

As I said:

It's not complicated to do it once, but the usefulness may change due to worker assignment, wars, pillaging, golden ages ending, loss of tiles due to cultural pressure (civ4), changing SPs (if possible), shifting tiles from one city to another,...

The usefulness of bank-like buildings needs to be re-evaluated quite often, if they have (significant) upkeep.

 

[12agnar0k]

And to be genuinely helpful, a few times you've used the word "accept" when you meant "except", just something to watch out for.

Ah, I will watch out for that, my English teacher would be ashamed.

I guess we will end the discussion their if you do not wish to continue with no agreed outcome standing.

 

[Schuesseled]

accept, mwahahahahahah. I recently spelt qualified with a w.

 

[Celevin]

I just want people like PinkHammurabi to know that some people out there see the sense in what you're saying and completely agree. People like myself just have less patience to argue it.

This right here explains so much on the internet. I should have stepped out of this argument earlier than I did, and I'm really happy PinkHammurabi kept fighting the good fight

 

[Dunkah]

I guess we will end the discussion their if you do not wish to continue with no agreed outcome standing.

there

I agree with the over complicated crowd. Don't need it, so why put it in. Who cares if it's free?

 

[PieceOfMind]

As I said:

It's not complicated to do it once, but the usefulness may change due to worker assignment, wars, pillaging, golden ages ending, loss of tiles due to cultural pressure (civ4), changing SPs (if possible), shifting tiles from one city to another,...

The usefulness of bank-like buildings needs to be re-evaluated quite often, if they have (significant) upkeep.

I went looking at some screenshots, and I found one where there was a bank and a market in the city, with 3 merchant specialists employed and 10 from tiles, and the city was still earning only 24 gold.

The only reason banks appear to have no maintenance is that the scale of gold earned from cities is quite low and in many cases it looks like even 1 as maintenance would be a big chunk out of what the building is doing.

I'm not sure why, but in the example I looked at, none of the gold seemed to come from trade routes. Maybe trade route gold is collected separately from city incomes now.

I can see reason for having a bank cost no maintenance but it's purely a gameplay balance one. They're not avoiding the maintenance because it's complicated for the player to have to factor it in every turn - it's only because gold income isn't much in the first place. If a cost of 1 or 2 gold per turn was enough to convince you not to build the bank, then even without that cost you would probably have better things to build than the bank.

 

[glaivemaster]

I'm not sure why, but in the example I looked at, none of the gold seemed to come from trade routes. Maybe trade route gold is collected separately from city incomes now.

From what Gregg said we need to consider trade routes as a force unto themselves, not as parts of cities. Just as a unit can gain bonuses based on the terrain it's on, or the city it's in (in the case of Civ 4), but is not actually part of the terrain or city, a trade route gains money based on the city it goes between, but is part of neither city - it generates gold by itself.

Presumably this also means that banks etc. don't affect trade routes.

 

[Schuesseled]

I'm not sure why, but in the example I looked at, none of the gold seemed to come from trade routes. Maybe trade route gold is collected separately from city incomes now.

2kgreg confirmed as much, earlier in this thread.

Greg, Are trade routes considered an "internal" source of gold for your cities?, and by that I mean are they affected by markets and banks and so forth?, or are they external and are therefore not affected by markets and banks?

I believe trade route income is not boosted by city-specific buildings. I'll double-check.

 

[Ahriman]

I thought it was boosted by trade buildings (like the harbor).

Makes sense to have separate buildings for boosting trade yield, vs tile/specialist yield.

 

[King Jason]

I thought it was boosted by trade buildings (like the harbor).

Makes sense to have separate buildings for boosting trade yield, vs tile/specialist yield.

As of our current knowledge, a Harbor merely forms a trade route with the capital without needing a road.

 

[PinkHammurabi]

As of our current knowledge, a Harbor merely forms a trade route with the capital without needing a road.

It also increases construction of Naval units by 25%.

 

[King Jason]

It also increases construction of Naval units by 25%.

Well yes, but that wasn't relevant to the trade route topic so I ommitted it.

 

[Horizons]

Can you have trade routes with open borders/harbours/airports connections to other civs?

 

[bjbrains]

Can you have trade routes with open borders/harbours/airports connections to other civs? ???

Nope. The previous automatic trade route system is gone (fortunately from a gameplay and performance perspective), 'trade routes' in Civ 5 are only between a civ's capital and their other cities, by road or harbor.

 

[Horizons]

Nope. The previous automatic trade route system is gone (fortunately from a gameplay and performance perspective), 'trade routes' in Civ 5 are only between a civ's capital and their other cities, by road or harbor.

You say 'fortunately' - why so?

I quite liked having trade routes with my allies.