What do you use your gold for?

[Vennlig]

I am not a good player. Not sure if it is my playstyle but I often have lots of excess gold despite prioritising gold by some distance the least important among the resources and not really trying to generate it. By the middle of the age I have easily bought all the buildings that make sense for the town and there is nothing that I really want to do with it. Is gold too easy to get in the game or should I just be spending it more freely - pouring the excess gold into more military units maybe?

 

[Shurdus]

I spend it on developing towns, buying units so that I don't have to spend turns in my cities making units, and buying commanders or merchants. Basically every time I can buy a unit, whatever it may be, I do it because I can then save the productionin cities to develop cities.

 

[jammerculture]

Gold is how you move production, I use it quite a bit to buy districts in towns and cities with poor production. You can use it to quickly set up a new settlement. I have been splurging on great people as Egott to pump out wonders. Also it’s great if you get attacked and need to quickly pump out an army.

I think there is this bias in civ games that gold is no good but in civ 7 it’s super valuable and I have been trying hard to break my old habits of not paying attention to it.

 

[Feyd Rautha]

My main focus is military units, but I always save up and get new settlements loaded up with the basic buildings in order to get the farm towns online faster

 

[vorlon_mi]

In Civ7, your towns (or cities) do not get a free defensive shot as they did in Civ5 and Civ6. When I settle a town, I nearly always buy a ranged unit for defense. I usually buy an ageless warehouse building to go along with the ageless city hall.

In addition, I find it useful to use gold to repair flood-damaged tiles, even in cities which could repair them with production. My navigable rivers tend to flood frequently, since we don't (yet) have dams to build.

Near the end of Antiquity or Exploration, I will often buy walls around the city center. In my first game, I bought a LOT of walls, since I though more AI's would come attack me. In later games, I'm buying just 1 set for the city center. I will buy them earlier if a town seems to be bothered by hostile IPs.

If you have extra gold at the end of Exploration, check to see if you can buy a University in a settlement on each of the continents. That will make it easier for your Modern Age explorers to do their studies and race off to do digging.

 

[MightySpice]

I am allways short on gold. Upgrading units. Converting towns into cities.

 

[vorlon_mi]

Upgrading units is als important! It's possible to upgrade units still packed inside a commander, if the commander is not moving. Last night I upgraded my land units while still packed.

 

[Horatio Thorne]

What do I spend gold on? Well, everything. Why work for something if you can simply buy it? I play this game like a Lannister. I focus on generating a strong income at the start of every age then buy everything I need.

Some say cash is king, but if so, gold is god.

You say you aren’t a good player but if you have excess gold that sounds good to me.

 

[rocksinmypath]

What I've been noticing is that it's almost always a good idea to convert good towns into cities. Not having to convert production to gold is great. In Antiquity, there's not a ton of value in having towns pump food into cities. Cities also get extra resource slots, which can sometimes be filled with resources like Gypsum and Kaolin that basically double in value the moment you can take them out of your capital. Access to unique buildings is also great because they're among the most valuable things you can sink your late-age production into. So, I try to prioritize city conversion, but lately, I've been getting more aggressive with my settlements, and the consequence of that is I'm almost constantly at war, and basically all my gold goes into units.

 

[vorlon_mi]

In both of the later ages, I will convert some towns on my borders -- possible targets in a war -- into cities. This gives me more flexibility to use their production directly. I love going for the Railroad Tycoon legacy path in Modern. I have cash-bought a rail station and factory in some towns which could slot in 2 or 3 factory resources. If you are able to take Mughal India in the Modern Age, their final civic is amazing. You can buy any building -- including wonders -- with gold. Boom! Taj Mahal. Boom! Eiffel Tower

 

[MightySpice]

Is there a downside to towns? I played a few games now and i allways converted town into cities in the first era. Not sure if that is wise.

 

[Horatio Thorne]

I play as Augustus. Towns are just fuel for the engine of Rome.

I really enjoy focusing on just a few amazing cities and letting the rest of my settlements feed me.

 

[vorlon_mi]

Is there a downside to towns? I played a few games now and i allways converted town into cities in the first era. Not sure if that is wise.

There is limitation to towns; one can only purchase certain improvements there with gold. They cannot build wonders.

It's a "return on investment" question. In my first two games, I have earned more gold in the later ages. I'm more careful with spending gold in Antiquity. When the Antiquity Age ends, the cities you converted will (mostly) revert to towns, but keep their buildings and terrain improvements. You'll have another chance to determine whether you want to promote them to cities again. I don't understand all the math well enough to do the calculations. I'm happy to let smaller settlements stay as towns, growing to give my empire resources. I promote cities where I want to build more districts/buildings/units, so that I can use their production directly.

 

[MightySpice]

They turn to towns again at the start of exploration. That came as a surprise. Why is that? Why bother turning a town into a city if they turn to towns agein later on?

 

[vorlon_mi]

That (turning cities into towns when Antiquity ends) is by design. Achieving a "Silk Road Golden Age" allows you to keep your cities as cities.
The transition means that you need to make a conscious decision about spending gold in Antiquity to promote to cities. Will I get enough benefit by having this as a city until the end of the age? If cities stayed as cities, that decision would be a no-brainer.

Note that you can -- in the early turns of Exploration -- spend gold again to promote towns to cities. In my latest game, I've had less gold in Antiquity so I promoted fewer towns to cities. I'm considering which ones will benefit the most. Perhaps my coastal settlements, to build ships? Perhaps some with lots of open land, for building wonders?

As I wrote above, it's a return on investment question.

 

[Methos]

I play as Augustus. Towns are just fuel for the engine of Rome.

I really enjoy focusing on just a few amazing cities and letting the rest of my settlements feed me.

I'm doing the same thing and I've made it an OCC game (One City Challenge, note I said city).

I have an upset Xerxes as a neighbor, so buying units right now, but eventually the gold will be to buy buildings in my towns. I like to prioritize gold as much as I can, as having the ability to get a large army if needed, or turn a new settlement into a bustling town right away is nice.

 

[Fluffball]

I am allways short on gold. Upgrading units. Converting towns into cities.

Upgrading units is als important! It's possible to upgrade units still packed inside a commander, if the commander is not moving. Last night I upgraded my land units while still packed.

I only upgrade units that are being used or about to be used in combat.

Most of my units usually end up upgraded for free when they are replaced on change of era.

If not in direct combat I always try to leave at least one unit packed with a commander so it keeps the movement buff then if I need to move them into combat I pack the rest of the units into to commander, upgrade the units inside the commander then move the commander.

Therefore you can upgrade ad move your units on the same turn when reacting to threats.

 

[vorlon_mi]

I only upgrade units that are being used or about to be used in combat.

Most of my units usually end up upgraded for free when they are replaced on change of era.

If not in direct combat I always try to leave at least one unit packed with a commander so it keeps the movement buff then if I need to move them into combat I pack the rest of the units into to commander, upgrade the units inside the commander then move the commander.

Therefore you can upgrade ad move your units on the same turn when reacting to threats.

Interesting contrast. When I'm not in direct combat, (so far) I have been keeping my commanders fully packed, then keep the whole stack on "alert." I don't see a reason to take up map space with unpacked units, all sitting on alert status. I figure if they're packed, they can start moving *now*, when I want them to, without taking the time to pack them up.

So far, I haven't been declared on with a surprise war by the AI very often. The AI seem to find a "buddy", ally with another AI, so that when I declare on one their ally declares on me the next turn.

Keeping your commanders mostly unpacked: is that more of a preference, or have you seen a benefit?

 

[Fluffball]

Interesting contrast. When I'm not in direct combat, (so far) I have been keeping my commanders fully packed, then keep the whole stack on "alert." I don't see a reason to take up map space with unpacked units, all sitting on alert status. I figure if they're packed, they can start moving *now*, when I want them to, without taking the time to pack them up.

So far, I haven't been declared on with a surprise war by the AI very often. The AI seem to find a "buddy", ally with another AI, so that when I declare on one their ally declares on me the next turn.

Keeping your commanders mostly unpacked: is that more of a preference, or have you seen a benefit?

It depends on the situation.

If I have units in position to defend against attack from either a civ or a unfriendly IP i tend to keep some unpacked so they can be fortified and in particular if it is a commander who doesn't have the move after unpacking promotion so they are ready to fight as soon as any enemies appear. In part his was also to counter the fact you couldn't originally unpack a unit on to the commanders tile.

This is less important if the commander has the promotion so units can act after unpacking and also now we can place a unit on the commander tile while unpacking but the fortification bonus is still good as you get into higher difficulties with the combat buffs the AI has.

As I have moved up the difficulty I have really noticed how squishy my defensive melee unitsbarebifbthey aren't fortified. Without fortification they often loose nearly half their hp in the first round and considering healing and fortifying are now separate you can't fortify and heal at the same time so they will probably die next turn. If they are fortified they can usually last 4 or 5 rounds before I am actually worried they won't survive.

I am not certain but it seems like temporary fortifications survive if you shuffle units out and in but not if you abandon them...this may be a perception only and needs more specific testing.

I am more likely to leave units unpacked early on when I haven't formed my military properly so can see what I have and what I am missing more easily.

If I have a commander and units making up a standard army unit or just sitting around in reserve then I usually just leave them packed.

In short;
Less likely to be packed if commander doesn't have unpacking promotion, I haven't formed a standard army unit yet or they are on the Frontier.

More likely to be packed when I have a standard army unit, when the commander has the unpacking promotion or the unit is somewhere in reserve.

 

[MightySpice]

The notion that upgrading units is a waste of gold in many occasions occured to me also. Another thing is turning towns into cities. I do it whenever i can. Not sure if that is the wisest thing to do.