No just build GOLD???? commercial investment each turn in each city sucks

[ButtersBttmBytch]

In CIV5, if you dont want to build anything, just do gold. But in CIV6, late game you have to keep
selecting new things to build: having to pick "commercial investment" for every city on every turn
really destroys the fun of late game. My late game is so glitchy its nearly impossible to play like this. REALLY NEED BUILD GOLD/SCIENCE (late game is all tech researched, modern units)

[ButtersBttmBytch]

The game creators really just threw a bunch of code together and sold it as a game. Maybe CIV 7 won't be a joke?

[Despiser]

Unless you are a supernova, you can’t build gold.

[cerberusiv]

First, district projects can produce faith or culture, not just gold or science. They also produce great people points. So they do more than the choices in V could.

Second, even if you only want gold a commercial district produces, afaik, more than any other district. So there is a more complex choice than V ever offered depending on what districts a city has.

The problem is really that there is no build queue. Gathering Storm is supposed to introduce one. At the moment there are mods that add one (I use CQUI). Once you can chain several district projects in a queue the late game becomes manageable.

[terry]

get one of the build queue mods and queue up a bunch of them.

[ElPrezCBF]

Speaking of gold, I also hope they'd patch in partial buyouts where the gold cost is reduced the nearer you are to project completion. A huge gripe is actually how the gold buyout cost of the same thing increases over time. Don't tell me this is about inflation because this isn't a real life simulator and the gold buyout cost should scale with the corresponding industry cost of the item instead, like what you see in Endless 4x games.

[View The Phenom]

You can forcefully end the turn without queueing up any build items.

[Gonzo_o0]

Originally posted by twel70:

Speaking of gold, I also hope they'd patch in partial buyouts where the gold cost is reduced the nearer you are to project completion. A huge gripe is actually how the gold buyout cost of the same thing increases over time. Don't tell me this is about inflation because this isn't a real life simulator and the gold buyout cost should scale with the corresponding industry cost of the item instead, like what you see in Endless 4x games.

Are you talking about buying city projects? If so, then what's the point of working on a city project if you could just buy the GPP points and the yield? Why go for anything else other than gold in that scenario? You can't buy them and cost doesn't change in order to balance yields altogether. That's also why the CS mechanic has been changed from a previous iteration: to alleviate dependency on certain types of yield and distribute strategic options. It makes the game have more depth, whatever others will try to make you believe.

Also, there was a reason the build queue was not implemented but I'm not gonna delve into that. It's gonna be in come february so we'll finally stop hearing about it like it was a matter of life or death to some people.

[gimmethegepgun]

Originally posted by twel70:

A huge gripe is actually how the gold buyout cost of the same thing increases over time.

Only settlers, builders, and buying districts with gold with one of the governors increases in cost as the game goes on, because the production cost increase as the game goes on. Everything else is always the same price (unless you're also counting the religious units).

like what you see in Endless 4x games.

Meanwhile Endless Space 2 literally has inflation and makes everything ludicrously expensive later on in the game.

[ElPrezCBF]

Originally posted by Gonzo Jerusalem:

Originally posted by twel70:

Speaking of gold, I also hope they'd patch in partial buyouts where the gold cost is reduced the nearer you are to project completion. A huge gripe is actually how the gold buyout cost of the same thing increases over time. Don't tell me this is about inflation because this isn't a real life simulator and the gold buyout cost should scale with the corresponding industry cost of the item instead, like what you see in Endless 4x games.

Are you talking about buying city projects? If so, then what's the point of working on a city project if you could just buy the GPP points and the yield? Why go for anything else other than gold in that scenario? You can't buy them and cost doesn't change in order to balance yields altogether. That's also why the CS mechanic has been changed from a previous iteration: to alleviate dependency on certain types of yield and distribute strategic options. It makes the game have more depth, whatever others will try to make you believe.

Also, there was a reason the build queue was not implemented but I'm not gonna delve into that. It's gonna be in come february so we'll finally stop hearing about it like it was a matter of life or death to some people.

Don't know what you're talking about. I'm referring to paying for the remaining gold buyout cost of the project (be it city improvements or units) according to the production points left for it to be completed.

Originally posted by gimmethegepgun:

Only settlers, builders, and buying districts with gold with one of the governors increases in cost as the game goes on, because the production cost increase as the game goes on. Everything else is always the same price (unless you're also counting the religious units). Meanwhile Endless Space 2 literally has inflation and makes everything ludicrously expensive later on in the game.

I know how it works but that's not what I'm asking. Please refer back to the same comment above. As for ES2, inflation was never a huge problem for me, in fact, the ability for partial buyouts there actually makes it quite manageable.

[Gonzo_o0]

Originally posted by twel70:

Don't know what you're talking about. I'm referring to paying for the remaining gold buyout cost of the project (be it city improvements or units) according to the production points left for it to be completed.

I see. Sorry, it was unclear to me.

The argument of balance is still valid though. Gold becomes positively unbalanced under the current rules if a buildings/units partial buyout is implemented. There would be no reason to invest in anything other than Gold and some Production.

[gimmethegepgun]

Originally posted by twel70:

Originally posted by gimmethegepgun:

Only settlers, builders, and buying districts with gold with one of the governors increases in cost as the game goes on, because the production cost increase as the game goes on. Everything else is always the same price (unless you're also counting the religious units). Meanwhile Endless Space 2 literally has inflation and makes everything ludicrously expensive later on in the game.

I know how it works but that's not what I'm asking.

No. Evidently, you don't.

Originally posted by twel70:

A huge gripe is actually how the gold buyout cost of the same thing increases over time.

This statement is incorrect except for those 3 things I listed. It also IS based on the production cost of the item, just not with partial buyouts.

[ElPrezCBF]

Originally posted by Gonzo Jerusalem:

Originally posted by twel70:

Don't know what you're talking about. I'm referring to paying for the remaining gold buyout cost of the project (be it city improvements or units) according to the production points left for it to be completed.

I see. Sorry, it was unclear to me.

The argument of balance is still valid though. Gold becomes positively unbalanced under the current rules if a buildings/units partial buyout is implemented. There would be no reason to invest in anything other than Gold and some Production.

No worries. It's hard to see how this could be a balance issue when the buyout cost scales according to the production cost remaining. Note for example that 10 production points left does not mean just 10 gold to buy out the remaining cost, it could be 100 depending on what is considered "balanced" and assuming the AI knows how to use this function as well. So I wouldn't immediately conclude unbalance until these have been tested.

[ElPrezCBF]

Originally posted by gimmethegepgun:

Originally posted by twel70:

I know how it works but that's not what I'm asking.

No. Evidently, you don't.

Originally posted by twel70:

A huge gripe is actually how the gold buyout cost of the same thing increases over time.

This statement is incorrect except for those 3 things I listed. It also IS based on the production cost of the item, just not with partial buyouts.

Perhaps its a miscommunication because I mentioned it in the context of partial buyouts, not which buildings/units increase in buyout costs over time. Anyway, that's besides the point of my earlier explanation. So any discussion should be about partial buyouts regardless of improvement or unit. In other words, it doesnt make sense that the production cost of the same item should increase over time unless its been upgraded. If production cost is defined as gold cost which it seems to be, that would look like inflation, in which case why doesnt it apply to all projects?

If production cost is defined as industry point cost, then it should only differ between different improvements/units, not increase by some arbitrary amount over time, as it seems to be the case currently under the first definition.

[Gonzo_o0]

Originally posted by twel70:

Originally posted by Gonzo Jerusalem:

I see. Sorry, it was unclear to me.

The argument of balance is still valid though. Gold becomes positively unbalanced under the current rules if a buildings/units partial buyout is implemented. There would be no reason to invest in anything other than Gold and some Production.

No worries. It's hard to see how this could be a balance issue when the buyout cost scales according to the production cost remaining. Note for example that 10 production points left does not mean just 10 gold to buy out the remaining cost, it could be 100 depending on what is considered "balanced" and assuming the AI knows how to use this function as well. So I wouldn't immediately conclude unbalance until these have been tested.

See it like this: you would have to rebalance all yields based on the value of 1 Gold vs. any other yield.Then balance all those yields together, change the values from each source, then rebalance the Gold based on those values and so on. It's not a question of balance vs. the AI. It's balance between yields and Victory types. It's not necessarily difficult to achieve, it's just unnecessary. In programming and game design, constant values are generally encouraged for simplicity.

[gimmethegepgun]

Originally posted by twel70:

In other words, it doesnt make sense that the production cost of the same item should increase over time unless its been upgraded. If production cost is defined as gold cost which it seems to be, that would look like inflation, in which case why doesnt it apply to all projects?

If production cost is defined as industry point cost, then it should only differ between different improvements/units, not increase by some arbitrary amount over time, as it seems to be the case currently under the first definition.

Good, because it doesn't except for those few things. Builders increase in cost as you make more of them, and settlers and non-spaceport districts increase in cost as you get more techs and civics. Religious units also cost more to purchase for each one you get. Everything else stays the same price.