Maniac
Apolyton Sage
1) Yes, 3 gold for 1 hammer is a good deal.
2) Only in extreme emergencies.
3) I never use it. It's a very bad deal.
2) Only in extreme emergencies.
3) I never use it. It's a very bad deal.
Do you find gold rushing attractive?
- Thread starter Maniac
- Start date
Snerk
Smeghead
What's gold rushing?
Maniac
Apolyton Sage
sweetpete said:
Hurrying your production with gold.
I very rarely use Universal Sufferage though, so I didn't vote. I would probably say that it is a good deal if you can get your income way above your expenses (which I know you can).
Wouldn't it get tedious having to rush everything though? Be good if there was an automatic way of gold rushing everything. It would make it more realistic too for democratic, free market societies, paying for labour.
Wouldn't it get tedious having to rush everything though? Be good if there was an automatic way of gold rushing everything. It would make it more realistic too for democratic, free market societies, paying for labour.
Maniac
Apolyton Sage
Seems like the majority likes gold hurrying.
A follow-up question then; what tile would you prefer: one that produces two hammers or one that produces 5 gold?
Just trying to understand everyone's way of thinking. I'm from a Civ2/SMAC background where you could hurry a hammer with only two gold. So personally I consider three gold for a hammer a ridiculously bad deal, and am mystified why many people like it. Especially since everyone seems content to get only one gold per hammer lost when a wonder is built before you.
See my problem? People are happy to get one hammer for three gold (which suggest hammers have a high value), but at the same time happy to get one gold for one hammer (which suggests hammer have a low value), or even less, when producing "Wealth".
A follow-up question then; what tile would you prefer: one that produces two hammers or one that produces 5 gold?
Just trying to understand everyone's way of thinking. I'm from a Civ2/SMAC background where you could hurry a hammer with only two gold. So personally I consider three gold for a hammer a ridiculously bad deal, and am mystified why many people like it. Especially since everyone seems content to get only one gold per hammer lost when a wonder is built before you.
See my problem? People are happy to get one hammer for three gold (which suggest hammers have a high value), but at the same time happy to get one gold for one hammer (which suggests hammer have a low value), or even less, when producing "Wealth".
HourlyDaily
Man-o-Mercy
Lomely life out on the goldfields. Not many wimmen' tornsarnit'.
I would prefer the hammers than gold (even though gold rushing would be more practical). I like the raw production power it gives. I am fine with gold rushing being 3-1. It isn't meant to be something that you rely on, it's meant to be something that can allow you to rush build if you want to. I don't see any problem with it the way it is. If you make it too powerful, then hammers become pointless. In the end, hammers is what matters with regards to production - not gold (as it should be and as it always has been in all the Civ/SMAC games). In SMAC I loved having a high production yield. My favorite factions were the Hive and the Plannet Cult (loved having lots of units). But I don't think for a minute that gold, which is easier to come by than hammers, should be a cheap conversion. Doing do would devalue the importance and difficulty in obtaining raw hammer count.
I will say though that I think you do get ripped off when you miss out on building a wonder. The gold you get back is nothing compared to what you put into it.
Watiggi
I will say though that I think you do get ripped off when you miss out on building a wonder. The gold you get back is nothing compared to what you put into it.
Watiggi
armchairknight
Warlord
M@ni@c said:
You know, I never break it down like this. Being rich in Civ IV means absolutely nothing if you can't buy stuff with it and the stuff I want most is the stuff that helps the most. Usually major projects of some sort or another. I'm a builder by nature and I usually have a decent-sized pile of gold just sitting around not earning interest in the latter stages of the game. I'll have quite a few cities and I'll be unlocking new technologies at a nice clip. This, in turn, provides many new things to build. By then I also tend to have huge cities with many pressing needs. Money helps sooth my ill-tempered and slightly woozy citizens back into a state of productiveness. Or, sadly, it can also create an instant army for those times I've ignored my own defense a tad too long and been attacked. Especially when upgrading my army, the exchange rate is meaningless to me. Victory...at any cost!
I usually gold rush culture producing buildings, usually after taking over a hostle city to get at least some cuture in there (while having to station 20 units). In some cases I'll rush a lighthouse or granary to get a struggling city going as well. Rushing for everything else is just too damned expensive.
Zombie69 said:
Yeah, and a workshop produces 3 hammers making it a ratio of 7:3 per tile. I think paying 3 gold for each hammer is reasonable. Especially considering the mass cottage spamming / State Property potential that can be done. A lot of income can be generated from it to pay for it.
drkodos
Emperor
It is a good thing. I use it all the time.
Older than Dirt
King
It is a great way to get airports built in a newly founded or conquered city on another continent and to rapidly build cultural producing buildings to force your borders to expand more rapidly, especially if close to another civ.
As soon as I get Universal Suffrage, I reduce science to 0% and rush-buy improvements in my core cities that are yet to build them (financial buildings such as banks and marketplaces followed by research ones). You will drop about a couple of techs behind but can easily double your economic capacity and will hit the early industrial age in a very strong position.
sand
under the sun
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2006
- Messages
- 427
i don't think its OP because to get enough cash out of the 8gold town you would need to run around 40% less to get enough which will damage your tech. i only use when i have a tech lead on industrialism to pump out tanks quickly. unless its end game and all but futre tech is done.
Slax
Prince
M@ni@c said:
The civ "experts" always said that producing wealth was the most inefficient use of your production (in civ 2 and 3).
kristopherb
Protective/Charismatic
i used it on my top militery city for temples to air ports (and the stuff in beetween)M@ni@c said:
Similar threads
