Community Feature: Gold!

[Celevin]

By the importance in Civ4, and Greg saying that it's a third of the gold income in his games.

Plus it's easy to figure out. If losing ALL trade doesn't sink your empire, then trade income is too insignificant and should be bolstered.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well, the 'capital mechanics' are interesting (I think the Domination Victories will have to mean capuring the Original Cities rather than the actual Capitals)

I think Moving it should be an option even without it being captured because of the Blockade Possibility.

I also think they need to include "Trade Pacts" for Foreign Trade (a Capital-Capital Trade Route depending on the size of the two civs involved)

 

[Ahriman]

I agree it sounds lame for a moment, but then again, how much trade happens in a real country when the capital is besieged and the main trade harbor blocked?

Think of the American Revolutionary war. Would Boston and New York no longer be able to trade with each other (if they were unoccupied) because British troops surrounded and blockaded Philadelphia?

Or the ACW.
Would Charleston and Atlanta and Savannah not be able to trade anymore because Richmond was surrounded?

Did Hannibal's forces surrounding Rome shut down all the rest of the Republic's trade?

Would international forces blockading Peking have shut down trade in the rest of China?

Think of ancient Rome - what do you think would have happened if Rome got captured?

Captured, or besieged?

 

[Calouste]

Think of the American Revolutionary war. Would Boston and New York no longer be able to trade with each other (if they were unoccupied) because British troops surrounded and blockaded Philadelphia?

Or the ACW.
Would Charleston and Atlanta and Savannah not be able to trade anymore because Richmond was surrounded?

Did Hannibal's forces surrounding Rome shut down all the rest of the Republic's trade?

Would international forces blockading Peking have shut down trade in the rest of China?


Captured, or besieged?

Trade would still be going on, but it would be a tad problematic to get the tax collected on that trade to the capital to pay the troops

I think people are making too much of an issue of this. If your capital is surrounded by enemy units that you can't get rid off (i.e. you can't even attack them in the rear), you're stuffed anyway. And keep in mind that your city (your capital, with a fair bit of strength) gets a free shot at the blockaders every turn, so you only need a little help to destroy one blockader every turn.

 

[Tomice]

A one-year siege on ancient Rome would probably mean that it's provinces would declare independance, let alone that the economy would suffer heavily. Depending on centralism, some countries could hardly function without their original capital, some would even fall apart in anarchy.

If the capital is captured or "just" besieged for long time without possibilities of communication and a locked government is not that much of a difference. Sure, other cities COULD trade, but supposedly most companies have their primary office in the capital, some special goods might only be available there.

A besieged capital should cripple a civ. We can assume that "some" trade is still going on, but in gameplay it might be easier to say "complete shutdown" than "75% reduction".



And yes, if they screw it up it might end that a lost capital is better than a besieged. But that's another story

 

[Ahriman]

Trade would still be going on, but it would be a tad problematic to get the tax collected on that trade to the capital to pay the troops

Wealth is wealth. Not just taxes.
And even if it were taxes, why couldn't it be collected and spent locally? Its not like taxes are physically sent to the capital, then resent out to other cities again to pay for road maintenance and building upkeep.

If your capital is surrounded by enemy units that you can't get rid off (i.e. you can't even attack them in the rear), you're stuffed anyway.

Ummm... archipelago map?

Or your massive army happens to be several turns away kicking someone else's teeth in?

but supposedly most companies have their primary office in the capital

Says who?
Again, revolutionary US. Most business didn't happen out of Philadelphia.
Or modern US, most business doesn't happen out of DC.

Since when does the political capital necessarily have to be the commercial center?

Brazil, Australia, US, New Zealand, Canada, Turkey....

A besieged capital should cripple a civ.

Why?
And why should it be worse for the economy of the rest of the nation than if the capital were actually captured? Thats totally nonsensial.

 

[Calouste]

Wealth is wealth. Not just taxes.
And even if it were taxes, why couldn't it be collected and spent locally? Its not like taxes are physically sent to the capital, then resent out to other cities again to pay for road maintenance and building upkeep.

I didn't say road maintenance or building upkeep, I said pyaing the troops.

Ummm... archipelago map?

Or your massive army happens to be several turns away kicking someone else's teeth in?

Cities have a fairly strong ranged attack themselves, a point I made in my previous post and that you completely ignored.

Says who?
Again, revolutionary US. Most business didn't happen out of Philadelphia.
Or modern US, most business doesn't happen out of DC.

Since when does the political capital necessarily have to be the commercial center?

It is in Civ5.

Brazil, Australia, US, New Zealand, Canada, Turkey....

Why?
And why should it be worse for the economy of the rest of the nation than if the capital were actually captured? Thats totally nonsensial.

That blockading the capital would be worse than capturing it is an assumption that has been made on close to zero data.

 

[12agnar0k]

I think the whole "capital is the hub for your trade routes" and the removal of foreign trade routes in place of much better revenue from your own trade routes is all for gameplay reasons. Whether or not it is realistic or historically relevant is not really that big of a deal.

 

[Senethro]

Silly thing to argue over really.

If you can't defend your capital you don't deserve it's benefits. If your opponent refuses to capture it then they're probably a bad player or just messing with you.

 

[Schuesseled]

having a third of your gold income cut off, isn't as bad as it would have been in civ 4, your units aren't going to strike (well actually even greg doesn't know what happens when you completley bottom out, science too.) your science is just decreased, so its hardly a game ending event.

 

[King Jason]

You're missing the point. The point is "It's more detrimental for you to have your capitol blockaded than taken and razed". How does this make any sense? If I was trying to kill a 20-city empire in a huge game, I would rather blockade their capitol than take it. This is stupid.

I've had multiplayer and singleplayer games continue on after a capitol is taken. This won't be the case with a blockading instead.

By the importance in Civ4, and Greg saying that it's a third of the gold income in his games.

Plus it's easy to figure out. If losing ALL trade doesn't sink your empire, then trade income is too insignificant and should be bolstered.

Not really. Let's say trade on average is a 3rd of your gold for the empire. Which was a claim for one guy's singular game of civ. So losing a 3rd of your empire's gold shouldn't, and likely won't, "sink" your empire.

It's a 3rd. Which likely equates to the most of the surplus. Which means the average civ will still be fielding their entire army. Which means they can still wander their way over to the capitol and whup your ass if you decided to just rest outside of a 20-city empire and take away some of their gold.

Not their culture. Not their productive capabilities. Not (in theory) their science. Their gold, and a 3rd of it. Which will only have a negative impact if the empire absolutely needs over 2/3rds of their gold income. Which considering that most things require surplus, is probably not the case.

Additionally, most people with have portions of gold in reserve simply cause no one is likely to be spending X gold they accumulate per turn at all times. Which means if the surplus dips due to the blockade, there's still time to counter assault.

Further, if the surplus dips to 0 and you're still losing money, the excess will be subtracted from your +.

So again, it's not as if they lose their army, or their ability to produce or function. The worst possible scenario is you prevent them from making purchases with gold, and you slow their research a tad.

All of this assumes you can maintain your force outside the capital to allow these disadvantages to ramp up. If I have 100 gold income, and 75 of it is maintanance and thus I'm making 25 gpt, and I have a surplus of 200... and you blockade a 3rd of that... Congrats, you bumped my 25gpt down to -8... Which means I have 25 turns before economy drops into the a negative... Oh goodness, but what happens if I can't defeat you in twenty-five turns!? Oh... I lose -8 per turn.

Meanwhile... In those 25 turns, I retain all of the benefits of my capitols let's say.... +39... +15... Great people point production... Empire-wide + buildings... and Oh yes, let's not forget all the possible wonders I've built there over the course of the game, Porcelein tower? Hmm... I have 20 cities? Well, +2 to all of the population in my empire? Oh yes, blockading me for 25 turns to reap the benefits of a -8 is clearly the way to go. Not to invade my capital and take the rest of it's empire-spanning benefits away from me. Not at all.

 

[Ahriman]

So losing a 3rd of your empire's gold shouldn't, and likely won't, "sink" your empire.

How so?

Just the opposite.

Imagine I have 80 gold of expenses (roads, buildings, military units) and 90 gold of income, with a +10 gold surplus per turn.
Losing 1/3 of my gold income then means I have an income of only 60, and so I drop to a -20 gold deficit.

That sounds pretty serious.

Which considering that most things require surplus,

How do you figure?
I would expect surpluses to be small relative to total expenses. From the screenshots we've seen, MOST of what gold is used for is for paying upkeep expenses - just like in previous versions of Civ.

Not to invade my capital and take the rest of it's empire-spanning benefits away from me.

You can't imagine a case where say you have 20 cities, and so where losing your capital is relatively small vs losing 1/3 of your gold income?

 

[King Jason]

How so?

Just the opposite.

Imagine I have 80 gold of expenses (roads, buildings, military units) and 90 gold of income, with a +10 gold surplus per turn.
Losing 1/3 of my gold income then means I have an income of only 60, and so I drop to a -20 gold deficit.

That sounds pretty serious.

Serious to what effect? that gold deficit could only ever amount to, at worse, a -20 science deficit. Negative gold results in no other penalties at the moment. Plus, how much was your surplus? If you have 10gpt, how long have you been at that? 10 turns? 20? Okay, so that's 5 or 10 turns your blockaded with zero effect, and time to retaliate. In those 5 or 10 turns, in addition to whatever plans you wish to execute in retaliation, your capital city is still pumping out it's effect in full force. What if your capital is generating 30 science per turn? You gained 300 science before you hit a gold defecit. At which point it's -20 science... which essentially just makes the capital +10 instead of 30.

How do you figure?
I would expect surpluses to be small relative to total expenses. From the screenshots we've seen, MOST of what gold is used for is for paying upkeep expenses - just like in previous versions of Civ.

I wouldn't, and no we haven't seen that. If gold is supposed to be relevant this time around via trade agreements, unit purchases, tile purchases, and city-state influence and whatever else... Then obviously it is assumed we're going to be generating it..

You can't imagine a case where say you have 20 cities, and so where losing your capital is relatively small vs losing 1/3 of your gold income?

Not unless you have a completely worthless capital city. It's bonuses to science, unit production, empire-wide happiness count, Culture, great people production, gold itself, as well as potental wonder bonuses, would more than likely combine to match 1/3rd of the gold production. Especially since a gold deficit only ever leads to a science deficit.

I'll cede the debate if someone can explain to me how a gold deficit could ever sink an empire in civ5, based off of what we know. From what we know it doesn't prevent units from being constructed, nor does it make them weaker, or make them disappear, nor does it affect our buildings or our roads. The only thing it does is remove the use of gold as a benefit to our empire, and at extremes, shaves off a bit from out + count.

 

[Celevin]

I have had an empire of mine sink in Civ4 very easily due to a lack of trade, in multiple games. A DoW can cut off all your trade routes if you're not careful, and has lead to me having 0% science and losing money. If it weren't for that, I had near top science in the game. This was on Immortal, so while it's not Deity, it's still pretty high up.

I would expect surpluses to be small relative to total expenses. From the screenshots we've seen, MOST of what gold is used for is for paying upkeep expenses - just like in previous versions of Civ.

This right here. Ahriman nailed it on the head.

 

[King Jason]

I have had an empire of mine sink in Civ4 very easily due to a lack of trade, in multiple games. A DoW can cut off all your trade routes if you're not careful, and has lead to me having 0% science and losing money. If it weren't for that, I had near top science in the game. This was on Immortal, so while it's not Deity, it's still pretty high up.

Of course, because in civ4, You don't gain gold from trade routes. You gain Commerce. Which means loss of trade is a direct and immediate hit on your income and your science. Further, If you hit deficits, your units are sold off to make the difference. More importantly, Overseas and Internation trade was huge in civ4, and nonexistance in civ5.

But we're talking about civ5. Not civ4.

I'll cede the debate if someone can explain to me how a gold deficit could ever sink an empire in civ5, based off of what we know. From what we know it doesn't prevent units from being constructed, nor does it make them weaker, or make them disappear, nor does it affect our buildings or our roads. The only thing it does is remove the use of gold as a benefit to our empire, and at extremes, shaves off a bit from out + count.

 

[Celevin]

Of course, because in civ4, You don't gain gold from trade routes. You gain Commerce. Which means loss of trade is a direct and immediate hit on your income and your science. Further, If you hit deficits, your units are sold off to make the difference. More importantly, Overseas and Internation trade was huge in civ4, and nonexistance in civ5.

But we're talking about civ5. Not civ4.

You don't need to bold every second word, I can see what's important, and it's a little belittling. I see your point, but the difference between gold and commerce isn't important for this argument. We know gold is going to be useful, and we know that traditionally expense is much larger than surplus. Moreover, this is more severe than my Civ4 example, as you don't even benefit from trading in your own empire.



My main concern is still not addressed. Under this system, it makes more sense to, and is easier to blockade a capitol than to take it to hurt your opponent. One good city is not more important than all trade in the empire.

 

[xarver]

Keep in mind guys that most battles will be fought outside of cities. So the enemy blockading your capital could only happen if your army got destroyed by their's.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

True... Besieging for multiple turns should be just as hard as Taking.

If your "Trade Route Center" gets relocated when your Capital is taken, you should be able to relocate it under other conditions as well.

 

[Celevin]

Keep in mind guys that most battles will be fought outside of cities. So the enemy blockading your capital could only happen if your army got destroyed by their's.

I don't buy this, all it would take is a sea attack if the capitol is maritime. Do we know if roads can be destroyed by bombers?

If your "Trade Route Center" gets relocated when your Capital is taken, you should be able to relocate it under other conditions as well.

This could solve it quite easily. Maybe something like, instead of building a palace, "You may relocate your capitol once every 50 turns" (of course adjusted based on game speed)?

 

[xarver]

I don't buy this, all it would take is a sea attack if the capitol is maritime. Do we know if roads can be destroyed by bombers?

Then don't leave your coastal borders undefended! It's simple common sense; leave it undefended and get trade embargoed, or have a navy to defend from attackers.