Gold mining has been far underestimated

[eddie_verdde]

I don't understand why tiles with the "gold" resource are so useless...I mean we know from history that empires and kingdoms would do everything to gain acess to a mine of gold since gold mines could induce a major boost on the economy...

maybe in CIV4 the concept of mining gold should be redefined, or at least tiles rich in gold should yield a lot more gold, in a way that building a city, outpost or colony far from the core of the empire would be worthy as long as there was a gold mine nearby...

 

[Jon Shafer]

If gold tiles produced too much they would be imbalancing, and players who started with or near gold would be far stronger than their neighbors... which isn't good for gameplay.

 

[Trade-peror]

I agree with Trip regarding the gameplay consequences of having "uber-squares" like the gold mines you seem to be suggesting.

In this particular case, the historical-realism justification is not entirely convincing, because in reality it only so happened that Europeans and some other nations viewed gold as being so valuable. Plenty of other nations, such as those in Africa and the Americas, did not place such a high value upon gold. Gold had few practical applications in the early ages, and so there is no reason to expect gold to have any inherent economic value.

Since Civ is a historical-what-if game, then this idea of gold necessarily being so valuable is not sufficiently justified.

 

[eddie_verdde]

If gold tiles produced too much they would be imbalancing, and players who started with or near gold would be far stronger than their neighbors... which isn't good for gameplay.

well, it would be as much imbalancing as a civ starting near a strategic resource (eg: iron) or near a luxury resource (eg: ivory)...

and the arguments stated by Trade-peror make no sense to me...if some nations (as you say "european") consider gold to be valuable they will pay other nations (as you say African, American nations) to obtain gold, so the gold will be valuable to both sides...

And when you say it hadn't "practical" aplications...welll, it had the same pratical applications of ivory, spices, incense, etc, etc...

So maybe you should have a second thaught on this issue


To sum up, maybe gold should be at least a luxury resource...

 

[Jon Shafer]

well, it would be as much imbalancing as a civ starting near a strategic resource (eg: iron) or near a luxury resource (eg: ivory)...

Well, the idea is to give every civ an equal distribution of resources in order to have things balanced. When that doesn't turn out to be the way things work, yes, it is imbalancing...

 

[eddie_verdde]

Well, the idea is to give every civ an equal distribution of resources in order to have things balanced. When that doesn't turn out to be the way things work, yes, it is imbalancing...

well, I never said that gold shouldn't be apropriately distributed...it should have the same type of distribution as other resources such as iron, coal, etc...some continents have more of one resource than others and less of other resources than othe continents...just as in the real world...

 

[Synergy67]

Seems to me gold has always been a highly prized metal from the dawn of civilization. It does not tarnish, it is beautiful, it has been used for jewelry and royal decoration, etc. for ages, it has been used for the most valuable coins for a very long time. Gold is the king of metals. I'd like to see it be more valuable and lucrative, and perhaps more difficult to mine or make more efficiently productive to mine until later times. But any gold found inside your borders would be well worth exploiting from day one to the best degree possible. Gold and iron were the most important resources in the world for a long time in ancient days, and gold was the monetary standard for much of the world well into the 20th century.

Doug

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

Maybe to remove the imbalancing aspect require a tech in the middle ages to get the added benefit. The california gold rush provided tons and tons of money to the North to help win the civil war, also it allowed for investments in buisnesses to be made on a much larger scale.

 

[Trade-peror]

Please allow me clarify some of my points:

if some nations (as you say "european") consider gold to be valuable they will pay other nations (as you say African, American nations) to obtain gold, so the gold will be valuable to both sides...

True. Of course gold was valuable to both sides. However, my point is that it was not equally valuable to everyone. Africans just treated gold as another commodity, like salt or firearms. Gold should therefore not forced to be more valuable than other commodities, all resources should be the same.

And when you say it hadn't "practical" aplications...welll, it had the same pratical applications of ivory, spices, incense, etc, etc...

Again, true, so gold should not be forced to be any more valuable than ivory, spices, incense, or any other resource. But I do agree with you that gold should be a luxury resource.

Ultimately, I still don't think gold should be particularly valuable relative to other resources. In ancient times, the prospect of getting more silks and spices were enough to send explorers all over the world. Today, oil and diamonds are valuable enough to make wealthy any nation that can exploit them. None of this is to say that gold is not valuable, just that it is not more valuable than any other resource.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Hmmm, perhaps the value of a commodity, to a nation, should be in proportion to how MUCH of the resource that nation possesses. So, for example, a nation with LOTS of gold throughout its borders, will actually recieve less benefit locally because it is so common. However, if they should meet a nation for whom gold is scarce, then they can trade it for a LOT of money, because that nation places great value on it! If this trade creates scarcity at home, then the value of gold, locally, would also increase!
Of course, this approach could be applied to ALL resources-be they bonus, luxury or Strategic. The more you have, the less it is worth to YOU!!!
Also, perhaps the same thinking could be applied to happiness benefits from luxuries-that the more you have of it, the less happiness it actually produces, wheras RARE luxuries will provide greater happiness benefits. In fact certain bonus resources (like gold), could act as 'pseudo-luxuries' if they are sufficiently rare!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Trade-peror]

The more you have, the less it is worth to YOU!!!

I was thinking of something effectively the same--the resource values should be based on the particular demands (needs) of each civ. So gold would be valuable for a civ with significant demand for gold. In such cases, the government could be using gold for minting coins, or the population could demand gold as luxuries. Otherwise, gold should not be especially valuable.

 

[searcheagle]

Well, it shouldn't be just supply. There should also be a market emphasis. There should be a window showing what the going rate is for a resource, whether strategic or luxury, so the player would know before begining diplomacy with another civ. This way you would easily know what other civs are offering, not just the one you are currently negiating with.

 

[eddie_verdde]

and the demand of gold (as well as other resources) by each civ would depend on its special characteristics, like traits, on-going wars, etc...I like the idea...

also remember that nowadays, countries all over the world have large stocks of gold that they use (sell) in case of economic problems... I think that says much about the importance of gold in our world...

 

[Naokaukodem]

If gold tiles produced too much they would be imbalancing, and players who started with or near gold would be far stronger than their neighbors... which isn't good for gameplay.

In fact gold is usefull only when we start near it... so it is imbalancing in that way, but this is true, no too much imbalancing.
No, I think the way he is talking about gold is much more to find a way to use it even if we didn't start near it, and its benefit could be also not too imbalancing, like giving permanent bonuses, say +2 gold per gold mine.

 

[eddie_verdde]

In fact gold is usefull only when we start near it... so it is imbalancing in that way

once again, it would be as much imbalancing as starting near a luxury resource...if you have a luxury resource right from start your citizens will be happier and you won't need to increase the luxury rate to keep people happy and you can keep higher tax rates, so, luxury resource means more money to your vaults.

so, gold would ultimately have an effect similar to the effects of other luxury resources...

 

[Albow]

To those who think gold is unimportant ... umm, why is it that you talk about gpt?

Hahahhaaaahahahahaha

So, you see, even the currency in Civ is GOLD! gold I tell you!

So I agree that gold should be more useful than it currently is ... if it is to become an "uber"square, perhaps have it exhausted more quickly, and then have it appear in different areas ... this would lead to gold rushes just like in history!! So it would add a very cool dimension to the game.

My .02gpt

 

[Trade-peror]

I was hoping to avoid the currency discussion, but I will just say that "gold" in Civ is merely an abstraction for dollars, pounds, euros, lira, denarii, yen, or whatever the currency is. It would be uselessly complicating to actually have the different currencies and need to convert between them, so "gold" was used to make it simple.

Besides, the historical relation is not a completely convincing argument. What if people had valued silver more than gold? Would it make any difference that all transactions were in silver? Probably not. Could this attitude of valuing silver over gold have happened in history? I do not see why not. Civ should not completely imitate what actually happened, because the fun is in seeing what could have happened.

Also, gold currently does not disrupt the game balance because it is just another resource. If it were a superior resource, then the game would be imbalanced in that others starting with a luxury is still not as advantageous as someone starting with gold. Currently, everyone will usually find a few luxuries and resources in their territory, and since all of these resources have the same "value," there is no imbalance. Again, making gold more valuable would cause an imbalance if one of these resources happened to be gold.

Finally, what about oil drilling? Most certainly, whoever controls the oil nowadays ultimately controls the world...

 

[Albow]

Dear Mr Trade,

I tottally agree -civ is about "what if", not "what has". The gold thing was just to rile people up, as you said, its there for simplicity ... but why are you so against gold (or oil later) being a resource above and beyond other resources?

Is copper the same value as platinum? Are iron mines still as important as they once were?

No.

So I think that some sort of hierarchy of resources could add in some fun elements into the game. Why would people settle in Siberia if it wasn't for the govt going, heck, what a crud load of gold and oil there is ... hmm ... better go get that and fortify it so no one else can have it ...

 

[Trade-peror]

So I think that some sort of hierarchy of resources could add in some fun elements into the game.

Oh, by no means do I think a hierarchy of resources a bad thing. What I would rather have, however, is a hierarchy for each civ, depending on the particular and changing needs and circumstances of that civ. In other words, factors such as supply and demand, construction projects, military plans, and so forth should influence each civ's view of the hierarachy of resource values.

I am against rigidly defining certain resources as "inferior" or "superior" to other resources in terms of value; it should all depend on perspective. For example, you mention that iron is not as important as it once was. This is due to the less common use of iron in major industries, and the greater supply of iron available. Another resource is silks--the Age of Exploration came about due to the search for silks. Yet the value of silks is not quite so high today. The same applies for spices, and for coal. Britain's industrialization depended on coal. But all of these examples simply demonstrate that nothing should be hardwired into the game as being more or less valuable than anything else.

Thus, gold should not be rigidly defined as being so much more valuable than other resources. Instead, gold should become valuable if indeed it is valuable in terms of gameplay. But it could as well be silver, shells, oil, or whatever the case may turn out to be.

Dear Mr Trade

Although I prefer Trade-peror, I am generally fine with nicknames (although this one actually comes pretty close to cracking how I came up with the name "Trade-peror"!)

 

[Albow]

Dear Trade-peror,

Cool, about the name thingy ... let me guess, you out trade all your buddies in card games or pc games, right?

I like the realism in your model, about shifting priorities ... kind of like a commodity market or something. How would you keep it simple enoght to make it fun rather than MM?

A sub-screen in trade advisor perhaps? And what dimension do you see it adding to the game? If you take the less real, but more general approach of making a hierarchy (which can change due to tech or some other defined variable) then you are left with something which mimics your system without the complexity.

Ok, example time, right?

Right

If Iron is one of the most important resources in middle ages and industrial, eveyone will want it (when a civ is in those ages, they put extra value on Iron), but before and after, the value is less. Also, early deposits are discovered with iron working (maybe 1 for each 3 civs), then by middle ages, with feud tech, you assume more has been discovered (better mining tech or somesuch) so now the board has 1 iron for each civ, then more in industrial and even more in modern ... so this way, slowly, iron loses its initial value and importance naturally, without the need to tweek the 'hierarchy' as such, and without the player needing to look up any tables etc ...

my 2 ingots