I don't understand the economy

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by mmmfloorpie, Oct 11, 2010.

  1. Hurk

    Hurk Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2010
    Messages:
    4
    so what im reading here, the only way to play civ 5 is like a roving band of mercinaries that slaughters all your enemies for profit because there is no way to be profitable on your own, unless your civilization is the equivalent of mud huts?

    a mech inf.... ONE costs 10 gold per TURN?
     
  2. Krall

    Krall Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Messages:
    106
    Location:
    in central NY
    4 & 7 seem like restrictive ways to go. Yes, I know with Civ V you don't need as many units as in previous incarnations, but you still need a fair amount when fighting wars. If you don't build a good amount of cities (depending on map size) I find it impossible to cut off the AI from settling in and all around you.

    2 seems to be the key to this game which isn't too much unlike Civ IV were it was pointless to build everything available.

    Any other strats for more income?
     
  3. Stoney the I

    Stoney the I Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2008
    Messages:
    531
    Location:
    Netherlands
    strange , english is not my native language but i believe the desciption is: faster worker construction.

    that means building workers faster right.

    if it had said "workers build faster"....
     
  4. OTAKUjbski

    OTAKUjbski TK421

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    Messages:
    1,511
    Location:
    not at my post
    IMO, you've misunderstood what you're reading, because it's entirely possible to play peacefully and profitably as long as you pay attention to how you're playing.

    Unlike cIV, you have to really pay attention to what you're doing now. If you play ciV like its predecessor (spamming roads and cities everywhere with no thoughts to the consequences), you're going to go bankrupt.

    (Exterminas and SlothMD outlined some good things to pay attention to and plan around.)

    I find myself disbanding one unit to see no change then a second to see +10 on my GPT. As odd as it seems, I think every two units (rounded up) cost 10 gold ... so more like 5GPT per unit. :confused:
     
  5. Some units are free IIRC.
     
  6. Aenima86

    Aenima86 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2010
    Messages:
    5
    I'm confused... people were actually under the impression that building a harbor in a city magically created a trade network to a landlocked capital...? Civilopedia entry or not, one has to think that people wouldn't make such a bizarre assumption.

    Other than my first playthrough, I haven't had a problem with economy in Civ 5. A few circuses, markets, banks, and luxuries keep my people happy and profitable. The only time I had a crappy economy was my first game, where I was building military units like it was Civ 4.

    At OP: If you want a game concerned with just building cities and going to war, you want Starcraft 2 or Warcraft 3. Civilization is a game about building a civilization. As such, there are maintenance issues, scientific research, policies, diplomatic issues, and, yes, war to worry with. Wars are part of Civilization not because Civ is a game of war, but because war is a part of real-life civilization. Civilization has been, and always will be, a game about building a civilization, not building a few cities and fighting a few wars. It sounds like you're playing the wrong game.
     
  7. mamuz

    mamuz Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    Messages:
    44
    No, no, no. I can't believe a player who has played Civ IV has problem with the difficulty of the Prince level in Civ V.
     
  8. da_Vinci

    da_Vinci Gypsy Prince

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,182
    Location:
    Maryland, USA
    That is what I get ... it is every second unit disbanded that reduces my GPT drain, not each one. Although each one does give back some gold one time to the treasury.

    I read somewhere about what might be called the "build and disband scout exploit": someone said that they build scouts with the intention of disbanding them for the gold, and that is the best way to convert hammers to gold! :eek: :lol:

    dV
     
  9. John-SJ

    John-SJ Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2001
    Messages:
    63
    Location:
    Silicon Valley, USA
    It's not too expensive to maintain any of them, but it is too expensive to maintain all of them. If you're up to the challenge, pick which ones are important to you, build them, and leave the rest.

    And, if you're not, then, as someone already suggested, there is always settler level.
     
  10. JudgeDeath

    JudgeDeath Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    191
    Once you get the Empire on a solid foundation you can build all sorts of stuff. It's just that rather than rush buildings as in IV, you need to get the economy right first. Now if only our real civ had worked that way, eh?
     
  11. ChaplainDMK

    ChaplainDMK Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    103
    Build a core region of cities, something like 5 at most to grab as much resources around you as possible.
    Avoid expansion wars untill the industrial era, by that time your main cities will expand enough to give you a good +10 happiness and atleast 50 gpt
    Maintain a small defensive force, nothing fancy. A few soldiers get you a long way against the brain-dead AI :)
    Untill the renessance, i wouldn't recommand building anything exept happiness and money buildings.
    Social policies should be aimed towards happiness and gold (commerce, piety, order) first.
    Then just mind your own buisness untill you get your economy in a stable condition, then just steamroll evreything in the industrial age. By that time you, and maybe 2-3 AI (on a huge map with 12 AI) will be the big boys, while the rest will be just food for your expansionism.
    So just grab up you neighbours and voila, you have a giant empire, with lots of gold and happiness excess and 3 AI players that actualy pose a threat xD
    Atleast thast how i went in my best game. 5 cities for most of the game, on the defensive beating evreyone back then in the industrial age just going mental and gobbling up Persia, France, Ottomans, Songhay and then turning on Russia (my biggest rival at the time), fighting 3 wars, one being a purely defensive one when my troops were away, the 2nd two just being pure out blitzkrieg. In the end I gobbled up about 20% of the game world :)
    And on normal difficulty :)
     
  12. TheBlackAdderBG

    TheBlackAdderBG Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    56
    Location:
    Back in Bulgaria
    I can see the frustration here.When the AI have 12 cities with 3 happiness resources,+30 gold per turn and at least 15 units and you have 4 cities with 6 happiness resources,+/- 0 GPT and 4 units.Playing on bigger map than "small" with default number of civs and CS you will be one of the smallest civ always.Sometimes game may be interesting ,but most of the games end in frustration for me.
     
  13. ByblosHex

    ByblosHex Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2010
    Messages:
    42
    Workers are people, and as such they're not constructed. They're trained.
     
  14. Pantastic

    Pantastic King

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Messages:
    922
    How is that a bizarre assumption exactly? It's not like civilization is a detailed simulation of actual real-world cities, it's a game with all kinds of abstractions and simplifications. I think in a game where an immortal leader can send his units of troops that have been operating continuously for 5000 years into a multi-century war to lay siege to a single city for over a century while he's building monuments to enable him to adopt a policy that keeps city-states friendly for longer, it's not unreasonable to assume that spending 200 years building a building might create a trade connection to another city.
     
  15. Gath

    Gath Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    221
    Mine are mostly kidnapped.:lol:
     
  16. Cosian

    Cosian Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2005
    Messages:
    25
    On my first play through I experienced a similar problem as the OP. Things were rolling nicely. I was expanding pretty rapidly and scooping up areas with a lot of lux resources. I had 13 cities all growing as I rolled into the middle ages. I was allied with three city states .... 2 supplying food and 1 culture. I had a clear advantange in points over my nearest rival. Then, I started to smell disaster around the corner.....

    My happiness was dropping rapidly and many of my cities were still in the early rapid growth phase. My net income per turn was also heading down.....

    It became pretty clear what the problem was. I was playing my first game on Warlord so once I saw what I had to do it was farily easy to rectify it.

    I had built way too many farms and not nearly enough trading posts. In CIV 5 food is a lot easier to come by than in CIV 4. So I had all these farm plots generating plenty of food but no money. Further, the rapid growth was killing my happiness.

    To rectify, I got rid of excess military and workers....I wasn't too bad off here....just needed to get rid of a few.

    Then I went to all my cities, removed all citizens from plots and replaced locked or as specialists such that gowth either stagnated or was as slow as possible while optimizing for income/production wherever possible.

    Then I replaced a lot of farms with trading posts. I built happiness buildings along with markets, banks, and soon I was back on track opening up further growth. It should be noted that another mistake was perhaps building too many cultural buildings early on.

    I don't think anyone will dispute the fact the AI is darn weak and an agressive military strategy will assure victory. Clearly that is going to be beefed up along with more love to diplomacy and cultural paths. But that said, now that I understand things a bit better, I really like the design decisions. It seems cleaner and more manageable. I can focus on micromanaging fewer cities and units. In CIV 4 after 15-20+ cities all with substantial pops and 40 workers running around managing a spider web of roads and railroads, the micromangement was no longer fun IMHO.
     
  17. SlothMD

    SlothMD Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    Messages:
    88
    If it's no obvious, it's rather hard to explain.
     
  18. largedarryl

    largedarryl Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2006
    Messages:
    423
    Location:
    Canada
    One thing I suggest is by not allowing all of your cities to run with default citizen allocation. I think the default citizen allocation has too much emphasis on food and science. So I would suggest changing a few cities (1 or 2 in a medium empire is usually enough) to commerce focus. The other key thing is to check the avoid growth in cities that will not benefit from another pop point.
     
  19. Pantastic

    Pantastic King

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Messages:
    922
    It's obvious that you have no explanation for how it's bizarre to think that a building that takes 200 years to build creates a trade route to another city in a game where an immortal leader.. well, I already posted the rest.
     
  20. SlothMD

    SlothMD Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    Messages:
    88
    Like I said, either it's obvious that it's a bizarre assumption that harbors would magically create a teleportal between the harbor city and a landlocked capitol, or it's very difficult to explain. No need to get nasty about it.
     

Share This Page