What use does gold have in Civ IV

[The Devil of Yorkshire]

I used to civ V system, which is pretty straightforward when it comes to what uses gold has, but here I strugling to find one. And I assume it must have one, because every so often the game stops to show the civs leaderboards and it always shows that I'm the wealthiest civ, so is a good assumption that the AI civs are spending their gold in something somehow

[ghpstage]

The main use is covering the maintenance costs of cities and units, excess gold can be used to fund a deficit when you push up research. Deficit research is going to be the best use most of the time.

Once you reach the Currency tech gold can also be used in trades with AI, either as lump sum or gold per turn.
While running the Universal Suffrage civic it can be used to complete production of units, buildings and wonders. This is extremely expensive (wonders even more so as a penalty applies), not worth considering this till you can get banks everywhere (at least, if ever).

[The Devil of Yorkshire]

Originally posted by ghpstage:

The main use is covering the maintenance costs of cities and units, excess gold can be used to fund a deficit when you push up research.
Until you get deep enough into the game rules to care about binary research it is generally best to keep the science rate up as close to 100% as you can. Its not normal to pile up a heap of gold.

Once you reach the Currency tech gold can also be used in trades with AI, either as lump sum or gold per turn.
While running the Universal Suffrage civic it can be used to complete production of units, buildings and wonders. This is extremely expensive (wonders even more so as a penalty applies), don't bother considering it till you can get banks everywhere at least.

Well,my research is already at 100%, that's part of the reason why it is bothering me. I'm very aware that if you acomulate gold while playing a civ game, then you doing something wrong

[The Devil of Yorkshire]

Originally posted by ghpstage:

In that case you can spend it on more cities.

I have a really bad habit of avoiding spanding at all and instead focusing at buiding tall, so that could explain why I ended up saving so much gold. anyway, thanks guy

[ghpstage]

In Civ 5 sticking with a handful of cities is the way to go, but in civ 4 it is the opposite, more land = more everything (as long as you can afford it!). Having 6 cities by 1AD should be considered a bare minimum on standard sized maps or larger.

[The Devil of Yorkshire]

Originally posted by ghpstage:

In Civ 5 sticking with a handful of cities is the way to go, but in civ 4 it is the opposite, more land = more everything (as long as you can afford it!). Having 6 cities by 1AD should be considered a bare minimum on standard sized maps or larger.

I have 3, by 1500 BC

At 'huge' map...

God, I fell like the worst 4X player again

[red255]

if your research is above 60-70% you should expand. EXPAND. if there is a rival civ, kill him and take his lands, if there are barbarians kill them and take their cities, send out settlers, workers. EXPAND.

but stop expanding if you hit 60%.

[Albemouff]

Gold also useful to improve your troops when you unlock a new technology.

[Thomas Turbando, o jurista]

Originally posted by ghpstage:

In Civ 5 sticking with a handful of cities is the way to go, but in civ 4 it is the opposite, more land = more everything (as long as you can afford it!). Having 6 cities by 1AD should be considered a bare minimum on standard sized maps or larger.

lol no

[Thomas Turbando, o jurista]

wait a min, this is a fcking necro'd thread

[The Devil of Yorkshire]

Originally posted by Thomas Turbando, o jurista:

wait a min, this is a fcking necro'd thread

Yeah, it is, but I don't mind too much :D

[The Devil of Yorkshire]

Also, you've just been baited into being part of the necro. You must be proud XD

[The Devil of Yorkshire]

Originally posted by Thomas Turbando, o jurista:

Originally posted by ghpstage:

In Civ 5 sticking with a handful of cities is the way to go, but in civ 4 it is the opposite, more land = more everything (as long as you can afford it!). Having 6 cities by 1AD should be considered a bare minimum on standard sized maps or larger.

lol no

You could explain then. I would love to hear why you dissagree

[Thomas Turbando, o jurista]

Nah, I'm only here to flex my 2000+ hours and pose as a pro. Also, I believe I have explained myself on another thread . But, to be brief, it depends on a lot of circumstances, the most important being the player, and just because you can afford more cities doesn't mean you should be making cities anywhere, or conquering whichever cities are closer to you, regardless of their inherent virtues and deficiencies.

[The Devil of Yorkshire]

Originally posted by Thomas Turbando, o jurista:

Nah, I'm only here to flex my 2000+ hours and pose as a pro. Also, I believe I have explained myself on another thread . But, to be brief, it depends on a lot of circumstances, the most important being the player, and just because you can afford more cities doesn't mean you should be making cities anywhere, or conquering whichever cities are closer to you, regardless of their inherent virtues and deficiencies.

I do agree with you on that actually. Many veteran players of pretty much anything fall in the trap to think that one's only playing effectivelly when they're playing by THE M.E.T.A(Massive Enforcement of Tecniques by ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥), and lose grip of observing the many possibilities that lots of games can offer. I rather just appropiate the knowledge of the game's mechanic and make my own strategy from there

[Thomas Turbando, o jurista]

Originally posted by The devil of Yorkshire:

Originally posted by Thomas Turbando, o jurista:

Nah, I'm only here to flex my 2000+ hours and pose as a pro. Also, I believe I have explained myself on another thread . But, to be brief, it depends on a lot of circumstances, the most important being the player, and just because you can afford more cities doesn't mean you should be making cities anywhere, or conquering whichever cities are closer to you, regardless of their inherent virtues and deficiencies.

I do agree with you on that actually. Many veteran players of pretty much anything fall in the trap to think that one's only playing effectivelly when they're playing by THE M.E.T.A(Massive Enforcement of Tecniques by ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥), and lose grip of observing the many possibilities that lots of games can offer. I rather just appropiate the knowledge of the game's mechanic and make my own strategy from there

Indeed, seems about right.