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)

[Exemplar]

I think the ratio is 4gold per 1 production cog and that remains static. As was said, "cost" increases as you purchase more (for units) or as you amass tech or civic (whichever is larger) for district placement [60*(1+9*Larger of [100*(Number of Techs/67 OR Number of Civics/50)]/100] * 75%.

Incidentally, chopping/harvesting yield also increases over time. Base Value*(1+9*Larger of [100*(Number of Techs/67 OR Number of Civics/50)]/100)

And right now I'm totally having a Mandela effect moment. Until 15 minutes ago I thought for sure district cost in cogs increased with number of cities. I'm pretty sure the mistakes I've made in advice on this forum over the last several months have been the result of multiple tears in the time space continuum by time travelers altering the future.

ok, that last part wasn't true, but still. It's weird how many things I thought I knew which panned out incomplete or patently false.

edit: oh, also I'm glad the devs removed "partial buyout", it was too exploitable. It's not so much a different thing, though, to project the cost and anticipate the buyout. Just have to be careful to not spend your last dime if Monte or Shaka are sitting next to you, because they are watching...

[Gonzo_o0]

Originally posted by Exemplar:

edit: oh, also I'm glad the devs removed "partial buyout", it was too exploitable. It's not so much a different thing, though, to project the cost and anticipate the buyout. Just have to be careful to not spend your last dime if Monte or Shaka are sitting next to you, because they are watching...

Exactly. Thank you for pointing it out.

[ElPrezCBF]

Originally posted by Gonzo Jerusalem:

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.

If it doesn't require reinventing the game, it seems the only issue is whether it's "balanced", which I'm reluctant to judge until it's been tested and proven otherwise.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that allowing partial buyouts would bias the game in favor of certain victory types, which I've yet to see the connection. Every victory type in a 4x usually requires adequate attention to other areas as well. To attribute the bias simply to partial buyouts without testing is oversimplifying the issue imo.

I also don't get the part about it being "unnecessary". Of course, if you're arguing based on personal preference, no one's going to dispute you on that. But once you mention "balance", it's a completely different issue. There are ways to balance it, which I already explained. Similar to what you see in the Endless games, the remaining buyout cost would still scale according to the industry point requirement and it becomes less cost effective the closer you are to project completion, which would discourage cheap last minute partial buyouts.

I mentioned AI because it's relevant. If the AI is capable of taking advantage of such a feature, I don't see how it's necessarily "unbalanced" as long as it's tested. I'm not saying the change is necessarily easy but then again, we're not talking about personal preference but balance.

Originally posted by gimmethegepgun:

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.

I'm not against cost increases because that's besides the point, which is that cost increases should not be arbitrary (as it seems to be the case) and the viability of partial buyouts in this game.

Originally posted by Exemplar:

edit: oh, also I'm glad the devs removed "partial buyout", it was too exploitable. It's not so much a different thing, though, to project the cost and anticipate the buyout. Just have to be careful to not spend your last dime if Monte or Shaka are sitting next to you, because they are watching...

Explain "exploitable" please. Maxing out religious output to use religious purchases to bypass gold buyouts is not "exploitable"? Cutting off expansion of a neighboring civ that happens to be at the corner of a map is not "exploitable"? If you played the Endless games, I'd suggest you take a look at how partial buyouts are implemented before you conclude it's an exploit.

[Exemplar]

edited. not time for lengthy civ 5 discussion in civ 6 forum

also, gonzo jerusalem did a good job in the post below. don't need multiple people flogging the horse.

[Gonzo_o0]

Originally posted by twel70:

If it doesn't require reinventing the game, it seems the only issue is whether it's "balanced", which I'm reluctant to judge until it's been tested and proven otherwise.

Rebalancing yields is basically reinventing the game. The concept doesn't need to be tested or proven: it's already been tested and proven since games were invented. That's just how games work. I'll give you a very weak analogy: if you raise minimum wage, prices will go up. Same basic concept.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_balance
"In game design, balance is the concept and the practice of tuning a game's rules, usually with the goal of preventing any of its component systems from being ineffective or otherwise undesirable when compared to their peers. An unbalanced system represents wasted development resources at the very least, and at worst can undermine the game's entire ruleset by making important roles or tasks impossible to perform."

More gold IS changing the balance of the game. By definition.

Originally posted by twel70:

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that allowing partial buyouts would bias the game in favor of certain victory types, which I've yet to see the connection. Every victory type in a 4x usually requires adequate attention to other areas as well. To attribute the bias simply to partial buyouts without testing is oversimplifying the issue imo.

It's a direct consequence of modifying how much Gold you can accumulate. Under the current rules, if you can mitigate any city production with Gold, then it makes Gold more valuable AND makes the game faster (already pretty fast imo.) This should already make you suspicious. As for Victory conditions, I wouldn't know which one(s) it would favor because the game doesn't currently work that way and it takes a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ of games to figure out, but modifying a yield is basically tampering with Victory conditions because it gives more importance from one yield and the consequences on the other yields are modified. I cannot explain it better, I'm sorry. Google it, I guess.

It is not unfair to assume that this will happen. Based on common knowledge, common experience and logic.

Originally posted by twel70:

I also don't get the part about it being "unnecessary". Of course, if you're arguing based on personal preference, no one's going to dispute you on that. But once you mention "balance", it's a completely different issue. There are ways to balance it, which I already explained. Similar to what you see in the Endless games, the remaining buyout cost would still scale according to the industry point requirement and it becomes less cost effective the closer you are to project completion, which would discourage cheap last minute partial buyouts.

It's unnecessary because the yields are already fairly balanced. It's not a preference: it's observable when you play the game.

Yes, "there are ways" to balance it. But it is already balanced... So, why rebalance it? Why implement a new system with multiple constantly changing moving parts, evaluate every building, every unit's value based on the partial buyout cost, then check how much Gold is left, check if there's a way to exploit it, and so on, when it already works? Is it because you would LIKE the feature to be in the game? You're talking about a bias on my part but it seems it's the other way around. I wouldn't mind if there was a partial buyout, but not under the current rules of the game because the game works and the values are fair: you can win with every Victory type and none of them appear to be favored (based on yield...). And the Civs are all "fairly" balanced (not really, but close).

Originally posted by twel70:

I mentioned AI because it's relevant. If the AI is capable of taking advantage of such a feature, I don't see how it's necessarily "unbalanced" as long as it's tested. I'm not saying the change is necessarily easy but then again, we're not talking about personal preference but balance.

The AI argument is irrelevant on this matter. It changes strictly nothing that the AI can take advantage of it or not.

---

I played the Endless games, but not necessarily enough to make a fair judgement. All I remember was picking a Dust-oriented faction in EL and paying my way to victory. To me, that's totally fine in the context of EL's mechanics because that is how the devs decided to balance the game. It's a different game.

---

Originally posted by twel70:

Explain "exploitable" please. Maxing out religious output to use religious purchases to bypass gold buyouts is not "exploitable"? Cutting off expansion of a neighboring civ that happens to be at the corner of a map is not "exploitable"? If you played the Endless games, I'd suggest you take a look at how partial buyouts are implemented before you conclude it's an exploit.

We're not discussing the Government buildings or strategies, we're discussing partial buyouts. Apples and oranges.

[ButtersBttmBytch]

Yall dont understand. To finish your turn, each city has to produce something. In Civ 5, you could just say City produe gold or science, and never have to choose another project for each city. (never have the camera go to that city to produce something) In Civ 6, When ALL buildings have been built and your Army is MASSIVE, (and late game is glitchy so no smooth and fast gameplay) you have to select commercial hub investment or one of the other districts investments, you cant just leave a city empty with no production project. In Civ 5, you would select Gold or science and never have to pick building production again. Those district investmant projects finish in 1-5 turns, so you have to keep selecting new projects in each city every few turns it really ruins the game. Some games with 15+ cities, it takes 5 minutes to select commercial hub investment with the late game sluggishness. Civ 6 does have a queue mod BUT again, you have to hit commercial hub 10 times in the queue and have to do it again every 10 turns.

[cerberusiv]

Originally posted by richardlapd:

Yall dont understand.

In Civ 6, When ALL buildings have been built and your Army is MASSIVE, (and late game is glitchy so no smooth and fast gameplay) you have to select commercial hub investment or one of the other districts investments, you cant just leave a city empty with no production project.

At that point why have you not already won the game?

[=[NK]= Col. Jack O'Neil]

There's a mod called repeat projects that, repeats projects :)

[BlackSmokeDMax]

Originally posted by =NK= Col. Jack O'Neil:

There's a mod called repeat projects that, repeats projects :)

There is also the production queue mods where you can just queue up a whole bunch of those projects so you aren't doing it every turn.

And with the update coming with the next expansion, the vanilla game is getting production queues as well. They announced this back in Nov/Dec. And if you watch the stream replay (you can find it on youtube) from yesterday you can see them go into how the queue will work in game. It actually looks pretty decent. Looks like they even improved on how the mod was doing it.

note: they did announce the production queue WILL be back ported to all versions of the game, so you don't need to own any DLC or expansions to get the new feature

[Martin]

Originally posted by 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.

Districts and Great people are an illusion, they actually cost so much in resources that in the short term are almost useless. But eventually in the very long term become useful.

You can use the build q mod, tbh tho, even tho i have it, I don't actually use it that much except for building reserve armies when off fighting a war. (sp only obviously)

There is a very real issue with the games economy, if you start where there is no plantation gold resources or heaps of copper or rivers.. you've just lost the game. The game is now very much won or lost on your random starting position, it isn't about how skillfull you are. In many games I am 1 pt off my first golden age.. which means I will struggle to get a religion if I'm going for one, religion is useful for buying settlers, workers, soliders later on as well as some minor buffs to your civ.

The "common sense nerf" to the economy was caused by focing upgrades to lighthouse and market.. it essentially doubles the time period to build them. And during that time period is when you most desperately need them.

It should be, that your default district is the marketplace and when you build it, it also produces the zone as well. So the default would be marketplace, bank and so on.. or lighthouse/docks etc. Building a harbour should automatically create a lighthouse..

They've extended the economy game to basically frustrate and piss off players, it's been done purposefully to make the game worse to play. I do now actually believe that firaxis actually produce games to sell as a scam and then make patches to deliberately chase off their customers and their ultimate goal is to push their company into bankruptsy..

It's the only possible explaination for how they operate.

[Martin]

Originally posted by Gonzo Jerusalem:

if you raise minimum wage, prices will go up. Same basic concept.

Great quote.. since if you raise the minimum wage, your overal costs actually go down. Due to you having more money. The price increases never go above your wage increases. Or you just don't buy those items that do.

It's a funny thing, but here in the Uk, the avg price for every item currently on sale, except for foods. Has remained at the exact same price for the last 40 years. A top end car is still only 30k a top end pc is still only 1300£ and so on. The same goes with whitegoods, like fridges, washing machines, cookers and so on. Yet our wages, have increase 100x over the same period.

Food, electricity, gas/heating and fuel has also increased 100x.. ie the essentials of life.

[gimmethegepgun]

Originally posted by Martin:

Originally posted by Gonzo Jerusalem:

if you raise minimum wage, prices will go up. Same basic concept.

Great quote.. since if you raise the minimum wage, your overal costs actually go down. Due to you having more money. The price increases never go above your wage increases. Or you just don't buy those items that do.

It's a funny thing, but here in the Uk, the avg price for every item currently on sale, except for foods. Has remained at the exact same price for the last 40 years. A top end car is still only 30k a top end pc is still only 1300£ and so on. The same goes with whitegoods, like fridges, washing machines, cookers and so on. Yet our wages, have increase 100x over the same period.

Food, electricity, gas/heating and fuel has also increased 100x.. ie the essentials of life.

Yep. That's the problem with common sense: "common sense" is assumptions that haven't actually been rigorously tested. "Common sense" is wrong A LOT.