Too much cash

zeinul

Warlord
Joined
Apr 24, 2010
Messages
143
Ok, with new buildings you get so much cash. And you get even more with your empire expanding. In previous versions, I could keep my balance positive with 20-25 cities. But now, I'm getting +2k with 23 cities and I'm not in medieval ages yet.

This need to be tweaked.
 
Crime was designed to help rid your empire of some gold, but I fear it might not be enough. Defiantly one of the things we should change is maintenance of your cities could probably be higher.
 
It would depend, zeinul,
on what you have and haven't built for buildings (all the -gold buildings, or all the +gold buildings)
on what you have and haven't built in way of military (bare minimum, or needed to mass troops to defend/attack)
on what amount of animal units you might have held onto for future use (or butchered them all)
on what difficulty you are playing
on what map size you are playing
on how far apart your cities are and where you capitol is in comparison to the rest of your cities
on if you managed to build some wonders that reduce maintenance
on if you have chosen some civics specifically designed to increase your income but with other negative effects
and so on and on.

A lot of the gold issue stems from different play styles. You might have a lot of gold but might not have other things other players deem more important.
More importantly, are you playing well below you own difficulty level? If it's too easy, in any aspect, try increasing the difficulty 2 steps, at least.
Then come back and tell us how much gold you have. *wink*

Cheers
 
I play on giant, eternity, deity with charismatic/spiritual. I place cities so they dont overlap with max influence. My army usually archer+guard+dog per city + small (10-20 units) stack of experienced troops. I keep animals, but only ~10 left by middle ages (mostly badgers). I build all buildings except some culture buildings. I keep a stack of 4 workers per 2-3 cities. And I have experienced rogues/assassins to kill neighbors' armies before they get big enough to attack me.

And right now i have 24 cities, and get +1947 gold per turn.
 
I play on giant, eternity, deity with charismatic/spiritual. I place cities so they dont overlap with max influence. My army usually archer+guard+dog per city + small (10-20 units) stack of experienced troops. I keep animals, but only ~10 left by middle ages (mostly badgers). I build all buildings except some culture buildings. I keep a stack of 4 workers per 2-3 cities. And I have experienced rogues/assassins to kill neighbors' armies before they get big enough to attack me.

And right now i have 24 cities, and get +1947 gold per turn.

That is about right. However on Noble at that stage medieval with 24 cities, archer and city guard (with max anti-crime promotions) plus a spy per city but I am only getting +200 gold per turn.
 
I believe the BIGGEST difference to gold that can be made in this game is currently the combination of Patrician and Slavery... +1 gold per specialist just makes gold a non-problem especially when you collect upwards of 100 slaves as citizens. Easypeasy. This does make Patrician (and Slavery) pretty much a must for most of the game though. Later on you can get away with other choices, especially if you work corporations well.
 
I believe the BIGGEST difference to gold that can be made in this game is currently the combination of Patrician and Slavery... +1 gold per specialist just makes gold a non-problem especially when you collect upwards of 100 slaves as citizens. Easypeasy. This does make Patrician (and Slavery) pretty much a must for most of the game though. Later on you can get away with other choices, especially if you work corporations well.

I do have Patrician/State Religion. I guess that's the reason why I'm getting so much cash.
 
I can hear JosEPh_II already groaning about there not being enough cash. This issue seems to be never ending where some think there is too much and other say there is not enough. But one thing is for sure is no matter what I do either way people will complain.

Wise words. This game is perfect, there is no imbalance with cash. You have too much money because your empire is not under threat by rivals. Therefore you don't have to pump out 50+ unit stacks. That is why you have that much money.

Increase difficulty and start building soldiers. AI will notice your buildup and match it.
 
Maybe next time turn on Multiple Production and aquire more buildings and units?
 
I see didn''t list how many AIs your playing with in your game or if your using raging barbs or not... but I do think the issue is you lack a rival to eat your gold. I'd also like to hear about what happens to your gold per turn if you switch to anything else but Patrician.

Seriously... it sounds like you have more slaves then military units... which should mean slave revolts are randomly breaking out everywhere. That many people with nothing to lose and barely anyone to stop them from gaining their freedom can only work if your slaves like being slaves... which should require mind control or at least behaviorism.

The solution is crime effects on civics. In particular, Patrician mean the Power civic(?) leaves power in the hands of those with :gold:... combined with slavery it means slaves are very, very much expendable to any method that makes :gold: increase.
---
What should happen with the Patrician and Slavery civics active is your slaves are expended to concentration/force labor camp levels to generate quick :gold:... Which should cause population drops you can start to see... unless your constantly invading peoples lands for fresh sacrifices to the grist mill.

In turn you'd need a huge military simply so all those people with nothing to lose don't get the idea of 'I've got nothing to lose... lets see how many of these {explitive list deleted}s I can take with me' being the driving force behind a lot of the population.
 
I can hear JosEPh_II already groaning about there not being enough cash. This issue seems to be never ending where some think there is too much and other say there is not enough. But one thing is for sure is no matter what I do either way people will complain.

23 going 24 version now this pops it's ugly little head up. And almost exclusively with newer players. That's why I bit my tongue and didn't say anything when I saw this thread. But I was thinking it! ;)

No offense to zeinul or any other newer player but Please play a while before jumping in with this Old Tired Mantra "There's too much gold". This battle has been fought before, again and again and again......

JosEPh :)
 
23 going 24 version now this pops it's ugly little head up. And almost exclusively with newer players. That's why I bit my tongue and didn't say anything when I saw this thread. But I was thinking it! ;)

No offense to zeinul or any other newer player but Please play a while before jumping in with this Old Tired Mantra "There's too much gold". This battle has been fought before, again and again and again......

JosEPh :)

And it will be fought in the future again and again...:p

That said, I actually think that the gold situation is better now than ever. I am using my science slider a little bit, and have to work at it to maintain a balanced budget in a war. You would probably know better though how things are in Epic.;)
 
This game is perfect

No. This mod is fun with a lot of neat mechanics and interesting stuff, but it is nowhere near balanced.

And slavery is by no means required to achieve ridiculous GPT. Especially after the changes to houses in one of the last two updates.
 
No. This mod is fun with a lot of neat mechanics and interesting stuff, but it is nowhere near balanced.

And slavery is by no means required to achieve ridiculous GPT. Especially after the changes to houses in one of the last two updates.

I have to admit I still have crazy gold surplasses too, but it think it relates to the dege of competition you're having from neighboring civs. I'm a mile ahead in my current game, and have no realistic military pressure against me. In that environment, running a large gold surplus is very easy. However, in my previous game, where I was coming from behind this was much less the case due to having to maintain a much larger military.

I don't know that the balanced answer to this is, but I think (as a general point, not specific t gold only) that the difficulty setting needs to interact with more aspects of the game. In vanilla bts the health and happiness changes that come with difficulty levels is highly significant, but it easily gets swamped out by the much larger number of health and happiness modifiers present in c2c, and effectively makes the difficulty levels much less differentiated. I'm thinking we need to add some measure of 'taxation efficiency' or something that acts on raw income (as a global negative percentage modifier) that has no effect at noble but increases with increasing difficulty.
 
If you are finding the game too easy, play on a higher difficulty setting (and you can change your difficulty in the BUG menu mid game).

Problem is that people come in and start up a game on a low difficulty setting, complain it's too easy, then everyone is in a rush to mod the game to make it more difficult, and it messes it up for the rest of us with different playstyles than your own. As an expansionist, I rarely have too much money, despite playing on a low difficulty setting (spent most of my last game on 35% research or less, just to fund the -gold buildings that I needed). So turn your difficulty setting up before demanding it be changed!
 
Hm... I had this problem too on Eternity with noble (Because to my understanding it is the most balanced), it is bogged away somewhere many threads ago, but perhaps the exact conditions should be looked into more, or even documented, between the have too much gold and the have too little gold, perhaps it is just some options are too good or others not good enough.
 
Hm... I had this problem too on Eternity with noble (Because to my understanding it is the most balanced), it is bogged away somewhere many threads ago, but perhaps the exact conditions should be looked into more, or even documented, between the have too much gold and the have too little gold, perhaps it is just some options are too good or others not good enough.

I have this problem on eternity and deity, which is why I want to scale the difficulty settings out more, but having said that, if you are reporting it on lower difficulty settings the answer is indeed to try increasing the difficulty a bit first.
 
I don't know that the balanced answer to this is, but I think (as a general point, not specific t gold only) that the difficulty setting needs to interact with more aspects of the game. In vanilla bts the health and happiness changes that come with difficulty levels is highly significant, but it easily gets swamped out by the much larger number of health and happiness modifiers present in c2c, and effectively makes the difficulty levels much less differentiated. I'm thinking we need to add some measure of 'taxation efficiency' or something that acts on raw income (as a global negative percentage modifier) that has no effect at noble but increases with increasing difficulty.

This is the key I think. It would be nice to have the difficulty setting mean more. So that people who want to have 60 cities and a 5,000 unit army in the acient era, with science at 100% and still run a gold surplus can have a dificulty setting to acomodate that and those us who prefer a more challenging game can have a setting for us too. That way everyone is happy.

If someone could make the differences for health, happiness and gold vary much more between the difficulties then I would be very happy. :)
 
Top Bottom