Rekk
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2017
- Messages
- 2,569
Getting 30 gpt deals is fine ... If you're also paying 30 gpt when you want something.
Gold inflation
- Thread starter balparmak
- Start date
@Stalker0 Gold inflation has been an issue much longer than that though, so I don't see a reason to restrict our changes.
@nekokon True that would hurt wide more, but from what I've seen Progress/Wide has more gold anyway. Not every city needs to have everything, especially the post-industrial buildings and you can always run processes. As above, considering how excessive the gold inflation is, we can target both gold generation and gold consumption. We should start slow though, so I'll go with a lighter proposal
- Industrial increased by 1 (7,8)
- Modern by 3 (11)
- Atomic by 5 (15)
- Information by 10 (20)
@nekokon True that would hurt wide more, but from what I've seen Progress/Wide has more gold anyway. Not every city needs to have everything, especially the post-industrial buildings and you can always run processes. As above, considering how excessive the gold inflation is, we can target both gold generation and gold consumption. We should start slow though, so I'll go with a lighter proposal
- Industrial increased by 1 (7,8)
- Modern by 3 (11)
- Atomic by 5 (15)
- Information by 10 (20)
Last edited:
It's not a matter of needs, progress has to keep building for culture gain, else they will fall behind after the other 2 trees. And balancing based on one tree having to do one specific thing (run processes) to stay afloat while the other 2 don't have to is bad design. If we're in a design that allow city specialization and all builds/trees involve running different type of processes then that would work, but certainly not in the current design where having more buildings is almost always better, and you only run processes when you absolutely don't have anything else better to do.
Again, as I stated earlier, the main problem is inflated TR gpt and trade deal gpt (which also came mostly from AI's TR giving them good chunk of surplus gpt so player can sell their overprice lux). Personally, I think changing either gold generation or gold sink would be better than doing both at the same time from the very start (less variable, easier to spot where it works and where it doesn't so we can add more changes later while keeping the balance).
Again, as I stated earlier, the main problem is inflated TR gpt and trade deal gpt (which also came mostly from AI's TR giving them good chunk of surplus gpt so player can sell their overprice lux). Personally, I think changing either gold generation or gold sink would be better than doing both at the same time from the very start (less variable, easier to spot where it works and where it doesn't so we can add more changes later while keeping the balance).
Hard disagree on this point, this is what defines having a "playstyle" tied to decisions the player makes (picking Progress, in this case). Tradition "forces you to work specialists", but that isn't seen as bad design. If Progress was designed around making Processes better (maybe especially for Happiness?), I wouldn't say that's bad design. Right now, they are incentivized to just build everything though, so if there's any policy tree that would prefer Process over Buildings, it's not Progress (right now).
You completely missed the term "to stay afloat".
Tradition buffs specialists to create incentive for you to use more specialist, that's a design choice. Nothing in progress actually buff processes (more like even discouraging it since they want to keep building), and you're only doing it in order to not go into deficit (and certainly wouldn't do it if you don't have to), that's a completely different case. Buffing something to encourage a certain playstyle is ok (there is a choice of doing it or not), forcing something to make a certain playstyle a requirement is not ok (there is no choice, you don't do it you might run out of gold and can lose much more).
Tradition buffs specialists to create incentive for you to use more specialist, that's a design choice. Nothing in progress actually buff processes (more like even discouraging it since they want to keep building), and you're only doing it in order to not go into deficit (and certainly wouldn't do it if you don't have to), that's a completely different case. Buffing something to encourage a certain playstyle is ok (there is a choice of doing it or not), forcing something to make a certain playstyle a requirement is not ok (there is no choice, you don't do it you might run out of gold and can lose much more).
With Progress I more often finish the building queue and have to run processes than Tradition which normally has less developed cities for longer stretches of the game.
Anyway, the problem here is that you eventually have so much gold that you're buying everything in all cities and still building up a bank worth tens to hundreds of thousands. Nobody's going into a deficit over these meager maintenance changes, but it's a start. I will say presently the gold conversion is useless, so if gold was nerfed enough to make it situationally better than culture and science, that'd be an improvement.
Anyway, the problem here is that you eventually have so much gold that you're buying everything in all cities and still building up a bank worth tens to hundreds of thousands. Nobody's going into a deficit over these meager maintenance changes, but it's a start. I will say presently the gold conversion is useless, so if gold was nerfed enough to make it situationally better than culture and science, that'd be an improvement.
im all for gold adjustments if it doesnt affect ancient to classical eras as gold is either a negative or very low. Later on I prefere to upgrade the military all in one go and find industrial era and later i have sudden gold issues when upgrading, but the gpt to be extremely high after then.
Legen
Emperor
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2015
- Messages
- 1,424
I think the main issue is on external trade routes (ETR). I remember that they used to be a lot less attractive relative to internal trade routes (ITR), as the gold output from an ETR wasn't really better than the production of an ITR. Nowadays, it is much harder to justify ITRs, ETRs simply generate too much gold.
Progress isn't about building everything. The core idea of this tree is to focus on science and be able to capitalize on it with culture from techs (opener, scaler) and by actually keeping up with buildings that you unlock at a faster rate than usual. The tree is a lot weaker without the focus on science, having to run processes with it is an indication that you didn't give proper attention to your science output.
The idea here was to give wide play a bit more peaceful incentive, as wide is generally more suited to diplomacy than little civs.
Been following this thread for a while and just wanted to pitch in on the discussion:
seems to spike around late Medieval era.
IMO it's largely thanks to these factors:
I've started 6 games in the current version, and so far I noticed my GPT
seems to spike around late Medieval era.IMO it's largely thanks to these factors:
- Both the player and AI tend to have larger and overlapping territories around this time (compared to ancient and classical era) so less risk of Barbs plundering, and more partners for TRs
, more gold tiles to work, and most/all the Villages/Towns have been built around this era. - There's a lot of gold sources from classical-medieval era: Customs House, East India Company, Harbors, and an additional TR gets unlocked (also Banks directly after on Renaissance) so if you have a robust infrastructure like I tend to do, combined with Caravansaries, Markets, and Merchant specialists
, they add up a substantial amount. - Most AI civs have been met at this point, and the income from trade deals shoots up.
- Lastly, as @CrazyG have mentioned, the Chanceries might be adding up on this issue. I play on a Huge map, 10 Civs, 25 CS, so that's potentially 25 GPT per chancery for something you're already heavily incentivized to do (allying with CS).
Last edited:
glaivemaster
Prince
I find the same sort of inflation happening around late Medieval, and also more so with Progress than with Tradition, as people have already pointed out.
The thing that I haven't seen being talked about is unit upgrade costs. I always think I'm richer than Midas (and am) until late Modern/Atomic unit upgrades come around, and then suddenly my substantial gold reserves just dry up. Mind, I don't often get to that stage of the game (and I should, it's just old habits from non-VP civ games that cause me to lose interest), but I do feel like that's the point that my GPT struggles to keep up with my ongoing promotion costs. I'm not "poor", I just suddenly have something to spend money on that means I can't just throw it around like I can in Renaissance.
Whether that's too late for inflation to kick in (given that it means I've probably bought my way into a good spot by then) is another matter, but it's worth noting, I think. With less money in Modern onwards, I think I'd struggle to keep a modern army.
The thing that I haven't seen being talked about is unit upgrade costs. I always think I'm richer than Midas (and am) until late Modern/Atomic unit upgrades come around, and then suddenly my substantial gold reserves just dry up. Mind, I don't often get to that stage of the game (and I should, it's just old habits from non-VP civ games that cause me to lose interest), but I do feel like that's the point that my GPT struggles to keep up with my ongoing promotion costs. I'm not "poor", I just suddenly have something to spend money on that means I can't just throw it around like I can in Renaissance.
Whether that's too late for inflation to kick in (given that it means I've probably bought my way into a good spot by then) is another matter, but it's worth noting, I think. With less money in Modern onwards, I think I'd struggle to keep a modern army.
youngsteve
Prince
The biggest cause is the abundance of bonuses AI gets, which increase rapidly the higher difficulty you take. In turn the player then gains massive amounts from AI through trade deals, spying, war deals, & various other ways depending what things you have turned on.
+1 on buildings, nay on units. It's the only thing that helps a player keep up with AI unit production. Especially for Tradition and Progress which couldn't afford to waste hammers on them.
Also, IIRC isn't unit cost already progressive by era? Nevermind I think only civilian units are affected by this.
Voremonger
Warlord
I would like it if there was some way to adjust a "tax rate" or whatever you would want to call it - effectively allowing players to trade gold generation for happiness.
I don't know how easy this would be to implement and/or balance though.
Or maybe some sort of system where your cities start to rebel/produce more unhappiness unless you occupy them with (up-to-date) units?
Intuitively I would suspect that there is a correlation between a surplus of gold/production and building as few units as possible to defend one's territory.
I don't know how easy this would be to implement and/or balance though.
Or maybe some sort of system where your cities start to rebel/produce more unhappiness unless you occupy them with (up-to-date) units?
Intuitively I would suspect that there is a correlation between a surplus of gold/production and building as few units as possible to defend one's territory.
We have games where the gold is insanely high, then there is this game.
Once again I'm weirdly lacking in money, and I'm playing Progress! I have Trade Routes, I have a number of stock exchanges, but yeah money is weirdly tight. I come back to I wonder if this whole problem is mainly AI deal making. If you stop getting those 50 GPT lux deals, suddenly money gets a bit tighter
Spoiler :
Once again I'm weirdly lacking in money, and I'm playing Progress! I have Trade Routes, I have a number of stock exchanges, but yeah money is weirdly tight. I come back to I wonder if this whole problem is mainly AI deal making. If you stop getting those 50 GPT lux deals, suddenly money gets a bit tighter
glaivemaster
Prince
Yeah, I just got sanctioned by WC and went from +3xx to -2xx - I've bounced back up to a positive income, but I'm not rolling in it like when the AI were offering me 50+ for each luxury (plus some trade routes, of course)
You should be positive in gold once the golden age begins, right?
I wonder if gold has been added to many tiles which means means its easy to double it via golden age.
I can find only 4 tiles that don't give gold in the above image
- Empty snow
- Marble (will give gold if stoneworks built)
- Empty tundra (which qualifies for a trading post)
- Some mines (with iron or any luxury they give gold, or with industry)
