Gold mining has been far underestimated

[Trade-peror]

How would you keep it simple enoght to make it fun rather than MM?

This system would require no MM, because market forces would determine prices (values) of the resources, and whatever can be afforded would automatically be bought by those who need it (whichever cities are building items requiring resources, or that are in need of luxuries).

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.

My flexible system adds a new economic dimension to the game--market forces, and the idea that things are worth different amounts to different people in different situations. This by itself would be plenty, but my approach also adds replayability and unpredictability to the game. For example, the player does not know that a certain resource is worth hoarding for the future, if he comes upon one, and the player does not know that he might as well abandon resources that will become useless in some easily calculable amount of time. It all depends on the particular game the player is playing!

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

Not quite. Hint: Eidos Interactive's Trade Empires.

 

[Synergy67]

Hmmm, I think gold should be the king of metals in Civilization as far as commercial value goes simply because that has been its role throughout all of history. Even having abandoned gold based currency systems in very recent history, here in America, a “$20” gold piece today still buys me what is bought a century ago...a fine suit, except in devalued and inflated American dollars, that suit costs $500 now. Dollars have not held that consistent value. Gold essentially holds its intrinsic value more or less because it is a limited resource with unbeatable qualities. It is the most beautiful of metals, highly malleable, and does not corrode or tarnish (unlike silver). It is highly symbolic and nostalgic to many people. We make our wedding rings out of it. It symbolizes that which cannot tarnish (too bad marriages don’t follow suit as reliably, but it’s the hope, the ideal.) It’s simply the best metal to forever represent our most valued currency, even if a metal like platinum is a rarer thing with other industrial uses. It is not as beautiful and desirable for as many reasons.

Iron, coal, and aluminum make sense to generate a lot of extra shields due to generating so much production. Gold generates production, but not nearly to the degree that other metals and coal have. Gold is too precious to be an industrial metal. I would like to see other metals like silver and copper and tin (the latter two necessary to make bronze-age units perhaps?). They would also have a monetary value, represented by adding a smaller amount of “gold”/commerce when worked or mined. Gold is the standard. Silver is worth less gold than and equal mass of gold and copper is worth less gold than silver. To diminish the kingship of gold as far as sheer value goes is to kill some of the romance of all of history. Civ already carries this notion. Mining gold in hills yields what, three extra gold? I just think gold mines could generate even a little more gold than that and serve in some way to contribute to luxuries, since so much jewelry or ornamentation is made from gold.

 

[Trade-peror]

Hmmm, I think gold should be the king of metals in Civilization as far as commercial value goes simply because that has been its role throughout all of history.

Again, I argue that this historical premise is, ultimately, inconsistent with the fundamental premise of Civ. Civ is not a historical simulation, it is a historical "what-if" game. If Civ had to pertain to history, then only civs could start at certain times. At predetermined points, civs would split up or disappear, according to the actual historical behavior and fate of such civs. But this would no longer be our game of Civ! Gold should be allowed, but not forced, to be as valuable as it was throughout much of history.

But note that even in real history, this was not always the case. Many American and African nations did not have such a high regard for gold, and used other materials as currency or quantification of wealth. Gold had few practical applications back then, and drew its allure primarily from its "beauty," which is purely subjective. Therefore, gold cannot claim to have had much inherent value. Today, oil and diamonds are much more valuable than gold. Thus, even in terms of real history, gold did not always hold particular sway, and should not be forced to do so in Civ, only allowed to, should gameplay bear that out.

 

[Evie]

Please allow me clarify some of my points:


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.


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.

Problem is that, at present in Civ, all ressources are NOT the same. Gold is in fact one of the least valuable ressources in all things.

1 - Unlike luxury ressources, it doesn't provide happy faces. Luxury ressources are thus better, especially since they can be traded.

2 - Unlike strategic ressources, it's not needed for anything. Strategic ressources are thus better, especially since they can be traded..

3 - Unlike other bonus ressources, it only provide bonuses to trade. Nearly all other bonus ressources boost food, which is the primary ressource for a city.

Compare the impact of two gold squares and two wines squares on a city.

Two gold squares give +8 trade so, (assuming no improvements built, no corruption and 100% tax rate) +8 GPT. That's all.

Two Wines squares gives +2 food, so accelerated city growth.
Two wines squares gives +2 trade, so +2 GPT.
Two wines squares gives +1 happy face (assuming no market) to all your cities.
Two wines squares gives you a lucrative trade deal with a neighboring civilization that may well involve a few techs or MUCH more GPTs than the 8 the gold provide.

So, while it'S true that gold should not be more valuable than other ressources, teh thing is, it'S about the LEAST valuable ressource now.

 

[Synergy67]

i think the world has finite qualities a certain sense. No matter how many times you'd run through a new history, I think gold would still lend itself to be the most prized metal and used for decoration and currency, because it has absolute relative qualities which are stil unique. I'm not saying gold is the most valuable substance out there based on quantity or usefulness. I'm saying it becomes the most valuable form and standard of currency and symbol of wealth for the majority of the world for a very long time, and I think based on its unique inherent qualities coupled with ours as human beings, we would choose it again and again. I think our notion of beauty and value comes from a deeper place within us, and it would cause us to still favor gold.

 

[brinko]

lets say golds all around u, your civ is peaking at its finacial wealth, then shouldnt the buildings and city improvements be shiny, colorful, warm and rich looking. then all of a sudden a huge scale war leaves u in a stale mate and your broke. then shouldn the buildings u build be somewhat dull, little and cold. in the end when u look at the history of your country u should be able to see evidence of good times and bad while viewing your cities. times of prosperity and times of poverty.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Oda, all you have shown is that the current trade and economic system needs to be substantially overhauled. In my system, a mountain that produced gold would generate wealth based on the size of the gold resource, the wealth of the city it 'belongs' to, and the current scarcity of the resource in the empire.
In addition, though, if it is scarce then it will also produce happy faces in much the same way as a luxury does.
Lastly, however, as a 'bonus' resource, it could be traded to other nations who might value it more (or the same) as you do. This not ONLY earns you money via trade, but can also increase its scarcity at home!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Now, where would we be without an example?

Lets say that we have a city with a wealth of 20 (based on population and demographic factors). The city finds 'gold in them thar hills' -5 units worth, to be exact. Prior to this discovery, the nation had only 5 units of gold TOTAL-meaning that the value of this find is:
20*(1/5)*(4:based on 'scarcity factor', or SF)*5 units=80gpt in total.

Now, the big issue is SCARCITY, a number which is derived from a ratio of the appearance chance and the disappearance chance. So, a resource which has both a LOW chance of appearing, and a HIGH chance of disappearing, then it will have a VERY HIGH scarcity number-thus increasing its value.

Now, its value as a 'luxury' would be equivalent to 1/10 (1 divided by the total number of units of the resource)*4(SF)=40%. This is divided by the number of cities in the trade network to determine the actual % happiness boost PER CITY. Of course, banning the resource will DOUBLE its value in monetary and happiness terms, but will also result in an increase in crime and corruption in all cities which benefit from it (via happiness boost)-and most especially the city to which resource belongs.

So, to use the example above, if gold were banned in this nation, then the value of this new gold resource would be 160gpt, and would boost happiness by a total of 80%. However, it would also increase crime/corruption rates in ALL connected cities by 8%, and boost it by 16% in the city which located it (resulting in lost income and food/shields).

Please note, though, that ALL numbers are merely for illustrative purposes-and actual numbers would be chosen according to gameplay balance.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Trade-peror]

Problem is that, at present in Civ, all ressources are NOT the same. Gold is in fact one of the least valuable ressources in all things.

This is true, and that is why I support making gold a luxury resource.

Synergy67, I understand your view. However, I am not convinced that gold (or anything else, for that matter ) has absolute qualities that make it necessarily more valuable than other materials. For example, if gold were the most abundant metal on earth, would it be nearly as valuable? Probably not, even if it still had all the physical qualities it has now. Not every world generated in Civ is physically identical, so these considerations are not simply for the sake of the discussion.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with gold in fact being an extremely valuable resource in the game, but only if there is reason (i.e. the gameplay circumstances) to make it so valuable. I don't want it to be defined as so valuable before the game even starts.

 

[Albow]

I agree that gold needs to be made more equal at least with other luxs ... also, perhaps it could be a required resoruce for some sort of religious structures (even go so far as temple perhaps, but happy with cathedral ... I mean, most cathedrials are dripping in the stuff) ...this way, gold is not 'over powered' and brings it back into a more prominent position.

 

[GoodGame]

I clipped the barrage below from Wikipedia.com.

My summary:
In short, early man found gold fun---shiny and malleable---maybe even got an electrical charge from it.
Basically jewelry.

Because it was fun that made a good choice for one of the first trade goods (luxury), and then later became synomonous (sp.?) with trade, since it was reliably exchanged (due to being chemically resistant).

As powers grew, that trade became tax. As conquerors conquered that tax became symbols of greatness (dominion), to use to swagger and boast about your empire, and thru that became a perfectly good way to pay for the military to boost your power more. Which in the end made it pretty respectable for backing currency when it changed to other metals/paper. And then lost it's importance again as the be-all, to just become jewelry again, and functional in electronics due to conductivity.


So in a way it's always just a luxury, unless man vainly pursues it to enshrine themselves in their own glory.

So I'd additionally make it a luxury, and an optional tech in the medieval ages---probably Monetarism, or simply Vanity, by which
you get extra happiness for building the Gold Vault (Gold required), never expires; And with that tech, Gold resources produce double trade. And maybe a Great Wonder----Gold Monopoly (that's what Spain wanted, no?), to put a Gold Vault in every city.

Really the duality of gold in Civ just highlights how CIV ignores quanitites of Resources to simplify. I haven't read Trade-Peror's thread yet, so maybe he has another interpretation?

Pure gold is too soft for ordinary use and is hardened by alloying with silver, copper, and other metals. Gold and its many alloys are most often used in jewelry, coinage and as a standard for monetary exchange in many countries. Because of its superior electrical conductivity and resistance to corrosion and other desirable combinations of physical and chemical properties, gold also emerged in the late 20th century as an essential industrial metal.

has been known and highly valued since prehistoric times. It may have been the first metal used by humans and was valued for ornamentation and rituals.

History

Gold (Sanskrit jval, Greek χρυσος [khrusos], Latin aurum for "shining dawn", Anglo-Saxon gold, Chinese 金 [jīn]) has been known and highly valued since prehistoric times. It may have been the first metal used by humans and was valued for ornamentation and rituals. Egyptian hieroglyphs from as early as 2600 BC describe gold, which king Tushratta of the Mitanni claimed was as "common as dust" in Egypt. Egypt and Nubia had the resources to make them major gold-producing areas for much of history. Gold is also mentioned several times in the Old Testament. The south-east corner of the Black Sea was famed for its gold. Exploitation is said to date from the time of Midas, and this gold was important in the establishment of what is probably the world's earliest coinage in Lydia between 643 and 630 BC.

The European exploration of the Americas was fueled in no small part by reports of the gold ornaments displayed in great profusion by Native American peoples, especially in Central America, Peru, and Colombia.

Gold has long been considered one of the most precious metals, and its value has been used as the standard for many currencies (known as the gold standard) in history. Gold has been used as a symbol for purity, value, royalty, and particularly roles that combine these properties (see gold album).

Gold in antiquity was relatively easy to obtain geologically however 75% of all gold ever produced has been extracted since 1910.[1] (http://www.goldsheetlinks.com/production2.htm) It has been estimated that all the gold in the world that has ever been refined would form a single cube 20 m (66 ft) a side.

The primary goal of the alchemists was to produce gold from other substances, such as lead — presumably by the interaction with a mythical substance called the philosopher's stone. Although they never succeeded in this attempt, the alchemists promoted an interest in what can be done with substances, and this laid a foundation for today's chemistry. Their symbol for gold was the circle with a point at its center (&#9737, which was also the astrological symbol, the Egyptian hieroglyph and the ancient Chinese character for the Sun (now &#26085. For modern attempts to produce artifical gold, see gold synthesis.

During the 19th century gold rushes occurred whenever large gold deposits were discovered, including the California, Colorado, Otago, Australia, Witwatersrand, Black Hills, and Klondike gold rushes.

Because of its historically high value, much of the gold mined throughout history is still in circulation in one form or another.

Early coinage

The first metal used as currency was silver, before 2000 BC, when silver ingots were used in trade, and it was not until 1500 years later that the first coinage of pure gold was introduced. However, long before this time gold had been the basis of trade contracts in Akkadia, and later in Egypt. Silver would remain the most common monetary metal used in ordinary transactions through the 19th century.

The Persian Empire collected taxes in gold, and when conquered by Alexander the Great, this gold became the basis for the gold coinage of his empire. The paying of mercenaries and armies in gold solidified its importance: gold would become synonymous with paying for military operations, as mentioned by Niccolo Machiavelli in The Prince two thousand years later. The Roman Empire would mint two important gold coins: aureus, which was approximately 7 grams of gold alloyed with silver and the smaller solidus which weighed 4.4 grams, of which 4.2 was gold. The Roman mints were fantastically active — the Romans minted, and circulated, millions of coins during the course of the Republic and the Empire.

 

[GoodGame]

Apparently gold is naturally found contaminated with silver, so it took while before ancient's gold was pure (I think Archimedes name is attached to a chemistry experiment along those lines), so they probably considered it gold anyway. (no contradiction here with gold vs. silver)

Early coinage

The first metal used as currency was silver, before 2000 BC, when silver ingots were used in trade, and it was not until 1500 years later that the first coinage of pure gold was introduced. However, long before this time gold had been the basis of trade contracts in Akkadia, and later in Egypt. Silver would remain the most common monetary metal used in ordinary transactions through the 19th century.

 

[klopolov]

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.

The kingdom of Zimbabwe was powerful only due to the vast gold resources that they used for trade. When that gold ran out, the kingdom declined and fell. If Europeans placed a large value on gold, that means they would trade stuff for gold. Since trade is important in civilization, the gold should be too, since it fascilitates the trade.

 

[Evie]

This is true, and that is why I support making gold a luxury resource.

Synergy67, I understand your view. However, I am not convinced that gold (or anything else, for that matter ) has absolute qualities that make it necessarily more valuable than other materials. For example, if gold were the most abundant metal on earth, would it be nearly as valuable? Probably not, even if it still had all the physical qualities it has now. Not every world generated in Civ is physically identical, so these considerations are not simply for the sake of the discussion..

But if we assume that gold actually represent "precious metals as a whole" (which is sensible, as there are no silver, etc ressources), then what? Yeah, Gold itself could be pretty common - but there'll always be some rare, very precious metal that humans will attach a great value to, and we can just assume that the game call that metal "gold" for easy reference purpose.

 

[Synergy67]

Hey GoodGame, thanks for the info quotes on gold...very interesting. I learned some things. I think the simple point I keep trying to make about the "intrinsic value" of gold is getting a bit lost in semantics, so I'll reword it this way in the hope of clarifying. My point is that gold will always be valued by human beings regardless of its actual monetary value or scarcity because it has properties like no other metal, and now has a long romantic history giving it sentimental value on top of that. It is lustrous & beautiful like no other metal and does not corrode. These make gold very beautiful to us as human beings--whatever "beauty" is and wherever it comes from in our sense, we largely seem to agree universally on at least certain kinds of beauty. For instance, it is a statistical fact that no matter the nationality, the human male naturally highly prefers the 3:2:3 ratio of proportions for the human female to find her most sexually attractive. (36:24:36 matches that ratio). Where do these things come from? Hardwired inside somewhere long ago somehow. I think there is something in human beings that causes the majority of us to find the look of gold more attractive and desirable than any other metal. The fact that it does not corrode (rust) unlike so many other metals makes it ideal for jewelry and ornamentation. These factors in combination make gold always very desirable and valued by human beings, regardless of value. Demand will always be high. Supply and price will vary. In fact, if gold were much more plentiful like copper, we'd be using it for all our electrical wiring and a lot more industrial uses (I'm an electrician--had to get that in).

 

[Trade-peror]

Since trade is important in civilization, the gold should be too, since it fascilitates the trade.

Actually, trade in Civ is currently one of the most superficial elements of the game. I do agree, however, that trade should be important, but such a fact has nothing to do with gold. Gold does not facilitate trade, it only serves as a means of trade if used as a currency, and any material can be used as currency as long as the buyer and seller agree on its value.

But if we assume that gold actually represent "precious metals as a whole" (which is sensible, as there are no silver, etc ressources), then what? Yeah, Gold itself could be pretty common - but there'll always be some rare, very precious metal that humans will attach a great value to, and we can just assume that the game call that metal "gold" for easy reference purpose.

I agree with this assumption regarding gold as probably an abstraction of all "precious metals." But what makes a metal "precious"? I am inclined to think that the rarity of such metals make them valuable. Since a fictitious Civ-world allows the possibility of such metals being more common than in the real world, their value should be determined according to the actual gameplay situation. Why would it not be possible to have a game world in which the "precious metals" are actually plentiful? Humans can attach great value to other non-metal substances, if they are rare enough, such as diamonds.

My point is that gold will always be valued by human beings

I agree. I simply do not think gold will always be valued more than other materials.

and now has a long romantic history giving it sentimental value on top of that

Since Civ does not force the player to replay the history of the real world, this is not entirely convincing.

I think there is something in human beings that causes the majority of us to find the look of gold more attractive and desirable than any other metal.

This is an interesting view. Whatever your historical sources may be, consider that not all people loved gold so much--plenty of African and American nations treated gold as just another commodity.

Again, after repeating this several times in this thread already, I am not against allowing gold to be valuable, I am against forcing gold to be. The value of gold and all other resources should be determined by gameplay circumstances, not ahead of time.

I haven't read Trade-Peror's thread yet, so maybe he has another interpretation?

I do not specifically address gold in my thread, the Unified Economic Theory II, but I modeled rather in depth some fundamental trading principles I have hinted at here.