How is there a net change in gold at 100% science?

[civnoob13]

Hi, I played civ 4, albeit rather poorly, for years before civ 5 came out. Ever since then, I have been playing civ 5, but now I want a change. I am playing the Warlords expansion. I had BTS but I left it in my laptop which I sent off for being broken!

I can barely remember anything about civ 4, and one thing especially is deeply confusing me. I am playing on warlord difficulty, and got a free settler early on. When I found a spot to settle, I immediately ran into negative income. It is my understanding that the science slider converts however much gold you have into science. So, at 100% gold, I would assume that you are using up 100% of your net gain in gold on science, and thus would have no net change in reserves. But how come you can be at 100% science and yet be either losing or gaining gold? I don't understand this, so thanks for any help. Also, how exactly is city maintenance calculated? Why do I immediately lose gold upon settling my second city, and how come, even when all my six tiles I am working on on my second city produce one gold, it still is negative all together? To be honest I really miss this complexity which is absent from civ 5 in many ways.

Oh, and one more thing, please go to the poll in my signature if you have to time. I want to get mixed opinions from players of civ 4 and civ 5.

 

[Ghpstage]

So, at 100% gold, I would assume that you are using up 100% of your net gain in gold on science, and thus would have no net change in reserves. But how come you can be at 100% science and yet be either losing or gaining gold? I don't understand this, so thanks for any help.

Its not 100% of your gold gold, its 100% of your commerce commerce. Commerce comes from working tiles and trade routes.

There are a number of things that can change your gold incomes that are completely independant of your commerce and city maintainance is just one of them. Others include specialists (i.e. merchants), gold per turn deals with AIs or some wonders (i.e. shrines)

 

[civnoob13]

Thanks. I just had my capital taken over by a barb. I really need to work on this game! I am finding it more enjoyable at the moment. Just add social policies (with worldwide culture and one tile culture acquisition), limited strategic resources, 1UPT, and hex tiles and you have a fantastic game.

 

[AJ11]

Similar question:

At one stage, my economy took a major hit when all of my cities that were building wealth started building some new buildings (airports to be precise). My income went down to about -200/turn. I noticed that my actual $$ loss was actually more like 50 than 200 a turn. Is that a bug?

 

[Antilogic]

Thanks. I just had my capital taken over by a barb. I really need to work on this game! I am finding it more enjoyable at the moment. Just add social policies (with worldwide culture and one tile culture acquisition), limited strategic resources, 1UPT, and hex tiles and you have a fantastic game.

I'm wondering why 1UPT is in that list. Are social policies somewhat akin to civics? But I wouldn't mind Civ4 with limited strategic resources and hexes.

Similar question:

At one stage, my economy took a major hit when all of my cities that were building wealth started building some new buildings (airports to be precise). My income went down to about -200/turn. I noticed that my actual $$ loss was actually more like 50 than 200 a turn. Is that a bug?

Do you have a screenshot? I'm kind of curious as to how it happened.

My train-of-though list of explanations (not all might be valid): Did an event occur that gave you money? When you changed production in your cities, did your cities start running merchant specialists instead to cover the gap? Did several airports complete on one turn to give you a boost in trade route income? Did you obtain a city with a religious shrine producing income?

 

[civnoob13]

I'm wondering why 1UPT is in that list. Are social policies somewhat akin to civics? But I wouldn't mind Civ4 with limited strategic resources and hexes.

I find 1UPT far more strategically satisfying - I'm finding it hard to go back to infinite UPT at the moment. I find 1UPT far more fun. I'd say that social policies are superior to civics because there is more to choose from, you have far, far more control over how you get them and, in my opinion, they make a far larger impact on the overall game.

 

[elz17]

I find 1UPT far more strategically satisfying - I'm finding it hard to go back to infinite UPT at the moment. I find 1UPT far more fun. I'd say that social policies are superior to civics because there is more to choose from, you have far, far more control over how you get them and, in my opinion, they make a far larger impact on the overall game.

My assumption:
you: Civ 5 > Civ 4
me: Civ 4 > Civ 5

There are some great ideas in Civ 5 - but I would of preferred if they tried to make a Civ game not a Total War game

 

[need my speed]

Yes, 1UPT doesn't work, especially if you want to role play, do not play to win, and like playing on Earth maps. The only thing that is better in Civilization V (of your poll) is hexes, but really, I couldn't care less about whether there were hexes or squares.

 

[Kid R]

Re. gold, open up the domestic advisor screen (dollar sign button near the menu) and it'll show where it's all going.

Cities after the capital cost some maintenance so you can't run 100% science after the second city is built, until such time (maybe never again in the game) when you have other sources of to pay the bills. E.g. merchant specialists or religious shrines. Or if you somehow come into a big pile of from trade or something or just save it up - then you can turn the slider back up to 100% for a while because the bills can be paid from savings.

 

[AJ11]

Do you have a screenshot? I'm kind of curious as to how it happened.

My train-of-though list of explanations (not all might be valid): Did an event occur that gave you money? When you changed production in your cities, did your cities start running merchant specialists instead to cover the gap? Did several airports complete on one turn to give you a boost in trade route income? Did you obtain a city with a religious shrine producing income?

Unfortunately not. My keyboard doesn't have a Print Screen key, so I have never taken screenshots.

The thing is that the actual loss doesn't tally with the loss displayed on the main map screen (in the top right corner). Merchant specs should change the displayed loss. It was the first couple of turns, so no airports were built yet.

The thing is, Before, during and after the end turn sequence, the gold loss displayed was more or less constant at around -200/turn. It was weird, and felt a bit like cheating.

 

[God-Emperor]

If you were playing a mod, that could explain it. Mods sometimes have features that are not fully incorporated into the game, like not modifying the displayed income/turn - for example, some building that gives you a percentage interest on your saved money (so if you have 1000 saved up and it gives you 2% then the indicated gain/loss per turn will be off by 20).

 

[AJ11]

If you were playing a mod, that could explain it. Mods sometimes have features that are not fully incorporated into the game, like not modifying the displayed income/turn - for example, some building that gives you a percentage interest on your saved money (so if you have 1000 saved up and it gives you 2% then the indicated gain/loss per turn will be off by 20).

Only mod that I have on is BUG 4.4 + BULL

 

[Kid R]

BULL gives overflow gold from builds which probably isn't factored into the displayed +- figure either. Perhaps several of the cities had more hammers than required for the airports and got overflow gold.

 

[AJ11]

BULL gives overflow gold from builds which probably isn't factored into the displayed +- figure either. Perhaps several of the cities had more hammers than required for the airports and got overflow gold.

Wouldn't the overflow go into the next thing built?

 

[Kid R]

Depends how much it is. It'll overflow any amount up to what the thing costs into the next build, but any more after that is .... well it depends on game version.

Originally it overflowed to cash, then it overflowed including multipliers into cash, then they took it away altogether and that's where it stands at the current official 3.19 level. Why take it away? Because people were having too much fun with things like putting 5 simultaneous forest chops into stone-accelerated-protective walls which are pretty cheap in the first place, and making several hundred gold overflow. BULL is a mod which gives the people what they want, and they want their overflow gold back!

So in this case an airport is 250 so if a city X had 400 per turn it would just have put 150 into the next build. If city X had 600 per turn it would have left 250 for next turn and 100 lost (unmodified game) or 100 (BULL). You can abuse this early on if you like by multi-chop-whipping warriors and using the proceeds for research.

 

[AJ11]

Depends how much it is. It'll overflow any amount up to what the thing costs into the next build, but any more after that is .... well it depends on game version.

Originally it overflowed to cash, then it overflowed including multipliers into cash, then they took it away altogether and that's where it stands at the current official 3.19 level. Why take it away? Because people were having too much fun with things like putting 5 simultaneous forest chops into stone-accelerated-protective walls which are pretty cheap in the first place, and making several hundred gold overflow. BULL is a mod which gives the people what they want, and they want their overflow gold back!

So in this case an airport is 250 so if a city X had 400 per turn it would just have put 150 into the next build. If city X had 600 per turn it would have left 250 for next turn and 100 lost (unmodified game) or 100 (BULL). You can abuse this early on if you like by multi-chop-whipping warriors and using the proceeds for research.

I doubt that is happening. The place is pretty much a greenie's worst nightmare by the time the airports came about...

 

[civnoob13]

My assumption:
you: Civ 5 > Civ 4
me: Civ 4 > Civ 5

There are some great ideas in Civ 5 - but I would of preferred if they tried to make a Civ game not a Total War game

That's why I am shamelessly advertising my poll here (in the signature). I think that civ 4 is underepresented because the poll is in the civ 5 section.

 

[Kid R]

^ I just voted and it seems to me the reason the "Civ 4" choices are losing might be that the areas covered are mostly things where Civ 5 is OK. For example there was no "Feels deep and strategic; feels superficial and dumb; no opinion on how it feels".

 

[QuixotesGhost]

It's think it's more that players don't understand how certain features, that sound appealing in isolation, are interacting to create an inferior game. For example, I bet the majority of players don't really understand how 1UPT is effecting the economic side of the game.

 

[Sir Spanky]

The only thing effecting the Economic Side of CIV V is that there Economic Model is terrible... No reason to have friends in Civ V... just out right dominate with military. Why can't I have a road to another empire and reap in gold? Absolutely terrible but I do love 1upt and ranged Combat