Shall we require a minimum amount of gold to carry 3.1

[Kev]

Sorry I've been so poll-crazy of late, everyone.

Some good points have been made in the "rush-building" thread and I thought it warranted a discussion and poll.

Basically, I'd like to see what we all think of establishing a treasury level that we should not drop below - of course unless it's an emergency.

Call it our emergency fund if you will.

The numbers can change from turn-group to turn-group always depending on the current atmosphere, but it may be nice to establish a benchmark. It could at least be a guideline, and again the president could have the ability to use it if and when he feels the necessity warrants such.

The nice thing is, if we go well above the number we can institue some rush-buying of items when we wish - so long as it will not drop us below the minimum. Perhaps even some fun-filled bribing if we're feeling especially naughty as well. Rushing can really speed things along, and if we are sure to stay above a certain level perhaps we can make more use of this and be more comfortable with it.

Please discuss as well as vote.

 

[Dell19]

Perhaps we should aim to have over 500 gold so that we could afford to rush build a wonder if it was partly constructed. However I do not believe it should be a fixed limit because things will continue to change rapidly in the game. It is a good idea though to have a target treasury.

 

[Apollo]

For the moment I think 500 is a good number. I definitely think it should be reevaluated in future terms however as our civilization and economy grow.

 

[Pellaken]

I say we have enough to build a coleseum or cathedral, whatever's more expensive. this, just in case some of our cities go into disorder... we should have enough money to buy one for 1/5th of all our cities. so hence, if it costs 100 and we have 10 cities, we should have 200...

 

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

500 is my preference to ,a mighty nation needs a filled treasury.

 

[Stormbringer]

500 it is!

 

[duke o' york]

Bear in mind that the amount of money demanded in tribute, and from barbs about to take an undefended city is dependent on the total amount in the bank, and so if we have lots of gold at the time it is demanded then we will have to pay a lot out. Can we afford to refuse a tribute demand from Mongolia at the moment?

 

[Dell19]

So should we have a maximum treasury as well? If the treasury goes over the limit then the most popular items from the rush building poll could be rush built to keep our treasury below the maximum.

 

[Kev]

Originally posted by Dell19
So should we have a maximum treasury as well? If the treasury goes over the limit then the most popular items from the rush building poll could be rush built to keep our treasury below the maximum.

Very interesting thought, Dell.

TheDuckofFlanders made a similar suggestion in the "What shall we do with the Surplus of United Fanatica" thread.

Here is the connection to that thread:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17863

Check it out and join that discussion.

 

[Leowind]

gold is useless unless spent, so I would opt for a slightly lower minimum myself (I voted for 400), but I definitely support the idea of a minimum above which we start rush-buying. I don't think we need a maximum, just start rush-buying whenever we get above the minimum sufficiently.

 

[CornMaster]

I said 200.....200 is more than enough.