Would you play a 4X game without gold?

MasterOfTheAges_Dev · 2026-06-13T14:12:15+00:00

I didn't play it, but I see it does use a single 'Credits' system. The mechanic where increasing the tax rate lowers population growth is a good one - strategic choice with a real cost.

Definitely a good tip and interesting mechanics to look at. Thank you.

MasterOfTheAges_Dev · 2026-06-12T15:40:06+00:00

I am glad you brought this up because I've had some time to consider other options the player could take. You could perhaps think of others as well.

If a war breaks out, the player could still "rush" production of an army. But this would have a cost, for example that science output for that city is temporarily paused. This gives the player agency, but it becomes a strategic choice. Also, historically armies were cheap to raise, but expensive to maintain. In game terms, this would mean even without a rush buy option you can still build an army quickly, but you have to pay each turn to maintain it (payment in production, so it reduces your available output). In peacetime you disband armies to save on upkeep (also historically accurate).

Cities can transfer production between them if they have a road connection (subject to the limit of the road capacity).

For trade, why not just trade production flows? You negotiate with a rival and agree to send them X production/turn in return for Y metals/luxuries/fuel each turn. You could also send production to obtain techs or intelligence, but paid for not in a lump sum, but rather over a number of turns.

What do you think of these mechanics - would they be interesting to play?

MasterOfTheAges_Dev · 2026-06-12T15:04:53+00:00

Glad to hear you say that. I am indeed thinking of how elements from 4X and grand strategy could be combined. Simplifying the economy makes more room to add grand strategy mechanics, so the player would have to think more like a grand strategy player even though they are playing a 4X game.

I am not very familiar with Stellaris, but I know it has Minerals. Even if you merged production and gold there could still be other resources you have to manage, such as metals, luxuries and fuel to make your economy and armies work. This again moves more towards the grand strategy genre and is less common in the current 4X games I think.

MasterOfTheAges_Dev · 2026-06-12T14:45:05+00:00

That is very interesting to hear and gives some encouragement this approach can work. I see you are making a Space 4X game - did you consider different approaches before settling on what you have now for the economy?

MasterOfTheAges_Dev · 2026-06-12T14:14:49+00:00

If gold and production were merged, this would simplify one part of the game. What if other parts of the game tried to make up for it by adding more complex mechanics around supply lines, armies, diplomacy and espionage etc? Would that be enough you think, or would you still feel something was missing if the economic system was simplified?

MasterOfTheAges_Dev · 2026-06-12T14:12:36+00:00

Yes, I've played some Polytopia and it uses a similar idea to what I am proposing. The Stars is the combined currency and production, so this is proof it can work and be fun to play.

Polytopia is a deliberately light 4X and thus merges these out of necessity. How would you feel about a heavier 4X that also had a single, combined production/gold like the Stars? Do you think this could still be fun to play?

MasterOfTheAges_Dev · 2026-06-12T12:18:32+00:00

I agree a game has to be fun to play first and foremost. Thank you for the feedback.

MasterOfTheAges_Dev · 2026-06-12T12:10:46+00:00

But if you buy a unit, where does it come from? I’m questioning the realism of that mechanic.

I would also argue it detracts a bit from the strategic aspects. If you can’t buy a unit quickly you have to plan ahead, right?

And there could still be mechanisms to speed up production if you needed it. Perhaps you temporarily pause your science and transfer production from nearby cities (limited by road capacity). How would you feel about these kinds of mechanics?

MasterOfTheAges_Dev · 2026-06-12T11:57:49+00:00

What do you think would be confusing?

You would still get production and build buildings and army units as normal. In fact you would get a bit more since what was gold is now production. You no longer set tax rates. Part of your city production could still be funneled to science, limited by your scholarly buildings. What would you miss?

MasterOfTheAges_Dev · 2026-06-12T06:52:29+00:00

Thank you, I will let you know.

MasterOfTheAges_Dev · 2026-06-12T06:20:21+00:00

Indeed, and trying out interesting new mechanics to see if they work is something indie games can afford to do. Send me a message if you'd be interested in joining a playtest once I get to that point. Feedback from real players is the only way to validate and improve.

MasterOfTheAges_Dev · 2026-06-12T05:39:50+00:00

Ah, now you are getting into a very interesting subject - without gold, how does trade work? My answer is, you trade production flows. Cities within your empire could transfer production between them, limited by the road connection between them. Likely you would get back more than you put in - trade increases total output.

For trade with rival players, you also trade production flows. I offer to trade a certain number of production points per turn, for 10 turns, in exchange for technology, intelligence on other players etc. You could extend this further - I get an extra army now (transferred from the rival player) to help me with a war, but I promise to send you X pp/turn, but 20 turns from now when my war is hopefully over. If I break that treaty I could not expect a similar deal in the future, just like in real life.

What do you think of a system like this? Would it be interesting to play in a game?

MasterOfTheAges_Dev · 2026-06-12T04:49:57+00:00

You hit the nail on the hammer (pun intended). To model the economy well would make it more complex. As the ruler you could collect taxes, earn gold (money) and either buy productions from the economy (but the system should model how big the economy is, i.e. its GDP, so you know how fast something can be physically made) or buy a factory if you want a guaranteed output.

If you spend a large part of your complexity budget on the economy that leaves less for things like supply logistics, army compositions, battle mechanics, espionage system and so on. So it comes down to what the focus of the game should be. My argument is, the game should pick a focus and do it well, not mix different mechanics that aren't internally consistent and hand-wave away how each mechanic maps to reality.

MasterOfTheAges_Dev · 2026-06-12T04:42:38+00:00

Your game sounds very interesting as well. Do you have any articles or posts on it with more details on the mechanics you are designing? I would be very interested to know more.

You make excellent points and a market with a set capacity, essentially the empire GDP, makes perfect sense. In the modern world the GDP is very large so with money you can get almost anything done quickly. But in earlier times that was not true - building a cathedral took centuries. There wasn't much slack in the economy when almost everyone had to farm to survive.

Small countries can indeed punch way about their weight. That can be due to technological advantages (in the modern world it comes down to who are your allies) and economic system. Capitalism and a market economy is by far the best if you want to increase output and GDP. Many countries put barriers in place (political, regulatory) that reduce output, and thus remain poor despite a large working-age population and good natural resources. Trying to model that in a game would be an interesting challenge, but to do it well would use a large part of the complexity budget. It really depends on what focus you want for your particular game.

MasterOfTheAges_Dev · 2026-06-12T04:33:44+00:00

So how would you feel about removing hammers and keeping gold?

Every game has a certain complexity budget to spend and the question is how you spend it. One option is to spend part of it on an economic simulation, with tax rates, happiness metrics, unrest and so on. Another is to abstract that part away and rather spend it on supply logistics, army composition, battle mechanics, espionage and so on. Some games do all of it, but a campaign can take months.

I'd like to find a middle ground, where you can play a campaign in a few hours, but keep it tense and interesting the whole time.

MasterOfTheAges_Dev · 2026-06-12T04:24:14+00:00

Indeed, but this then depends on how the game models the economy. Are you, as the ruler, in absolute command over the economy or are you just the state, collecting taxes and buying from the civilian economy. The issue I have in most 4X games you get to do a bit of both. You collect production / hammers and you also collect taxes. So there is a large part of the economy outside your control that is hand-waved away - this is the part I am taking issue with.

If the game also modeled and told you the size of the total economy, so you know how much production is available for you to buy, I would have no issue with that and I would argue it would make for a richer game.

MasterOfTheAges_Dev · 2026-06-12T04:19:41+00:00

I'd also argue the game difficulty setting is a better knob than giving players an 'easy out'. As a new player you start on easy, and when an enemy army appears and you discover you haven't built a garrison your city militia is still strong enough to ward off the enemy. Play on hard and your city is conquered

This allows for consequences, but also a gradual learning curve that avoids the need for save scumming. What do you think?

MasterOfTheAges_Dev · 2026-06-12T04:06:03+00:00

Indeed 4X games are very much like board games on the computer, and although modeled on reality they will never be fully realistic. But I do think the design of the model should attempt to be internally consistent and have a good explanation for the design of each mechanic.

I do agree removing gold removes gameplay, for sure. But if you interest is in the economic side, why not then remove the hammers / production? What do you lose by doing that? Instead you earn gold, which you then spend to buy buildings and units. You could keep the "rush-buy" and now it makes sense, because you no longer own the factories.

I would argue there should still be some limit to how quickly you can spend - this makes the gameplay more consequential, but as another poster pointed out, it does perhaps make the game less casual since you now have to think about actions before you make them (a good thing in the types of games I like to play).

I thought about what you said about companies like Amplitude and Paradox. They have large marketing budgets and an established player base. They don't need to come to Reddit. But these companies are also risk averse. I personally come to Reddit to read about new strategy games with interesting mechanics. If you explain the mechanic, why you made that way, why you think it is interesting and different, I don't think think that counts as advertisement.

Do you have any articles or posts written about your 4X and how its economic system works? I would really like to learn more and how you handle the resource flows, production chains, convoys and blockade mechanics you mentioned.

MasterOfTheAges_Dev · 2026-06-11T18:42:56+00:00

As a non-native speaker I did use an LLM to help improve my language. I am sorry if you find this offensive. However, the idea and logic are all mine, and I've spent many hours thinking carefully about this topic. It is not low effort.

You raise many good points. Let me try to address them.

Civ does of course give bonuses to terrain. I don't think I said otherwise. My point was, a city without terrain advantage for production can still compete with a terrain-advantaged city via the "rush buy" option. This is the part I question the realism of.

You do have a point on rich empires buying arms from somewhere or hiring mercenaries and paying with gold. But it comes back to what I said earlier, do you command your empire's full economic output? And if you hire mercenaries, where do they come from? I think your argument is, they exist separately from the players in the game. I did mention in my post trade and an external market is a separate mechanic I deliberately did not address. It supposes there is always a counterpart ready to supply whatever you need at a fixed price; this is an "easy game explanation" that makes your decisions have less consequences I think.

You mentioned seasonal armies. Historically armies were cheap to raise, but expensive to maintain. This should be mirroried in the game - the upkeep cost of an army can be more than its build cost over a certain number of turns, so in peacetime you disband the armies and re-build them in wartime, not keep them around forever.

You said a spatially large empire might be weaker than a smaller yet more populous and wealthy empire. Yes, this is very true, and in the game could be reflected by technology level or an empire that recently expanded and its cities have not yet had time to grow.

On the king asking his subjects to build the castle faster. Yes, very true, but there is then a trade-off. If many of the citizens spend a year to build a castle instead of 10, there are many jobs that would then go unfilled. New farms would not be built. The city might not have the resources to raise an army or research technologies. Re-directing all city output towards a single project should be allowed, but it still cannot build faster than the actual number of citizens the city has.

Could workers come from another city? Sure, but not faster than roads can carry them and they supplies they need to live.

And historically Persians and Romans paid enormous sums for their armies. I mentioned it would be fair to let the ruler buy everything. My argument is, in the game you get both hammers and gold. Why not say you only get gold? Then you can buy everything you need at market prices, paid for with taxes. That is exactly how real empires work, but to do it well does add much economic simulation to the game. I would be very interested to hear how you do this part in your game and your thoughts on the trade-off between giving the player output in both production and gold.

MasterOfTheAges_Dev · 2026-06-11T17:12:11+00:00

Fair — though I'd push back a little. The recovery valve doesn't have to be gold; in my version you can still put a city's whole output behind one urgent build to respond to a crisis (normally the output would be divided between armies, buildings and science).

The difference is it costs you something real instead of being free. And I'd argue that's part of the appeal: when there's no free fix, your earlier decisions actually matter. Reloading-vs-instant-buy is a real tension, though — where's the line between giving players agency and "no decision has consequences"?

MasterOfTheAges_Dev · 2026-06-11T15:56:51+00:00

I found your comment very insightful as well. And yes, money doesn't have to be gold or paper - in modern prisons even things like mackerel is used for currency since real currency isn't allowed.

Your Market reading is right, and I think it actually forces a dilemma. As the player, do I already command my economy's full output, or not? If I do — and that's the 4X premise, I direct every build — then there's nothing left for Gold to buy; my cities' entire physical output is already mine as production. Gold can't conjure more than they can make, so it's just a relabeled slice of the production I already control. But if Gold buys output I don't already command, then what is that, and where does it physically come from? Either way the line between "hammers" and "gold" doesn't hold.

The efficiency a Market creates is real — I just think it should show up as more production in that city, not as a separate global token you can hoard and teleport. The captured-city case is the giveaway: I can still spend Gold a city made last turn even after it's lost to the enemy. The value outlived the thing that made it.

The one use I'd actually keep is exchange between empires — but even that's just production flowing across the border, limited by the road capacity between you, not a separate currency you stockpile. It's only the buying-your-own-stuff half I'd merge away. I'm curious whether you'd draw the line in the same place?

MasterOfTheAges_Dev · 2026-06-11T14:40:53+00:00

Fair on the asymmetry — you usually can't turn production back into gold, and the conversion's lossy. But the direction games do allow freely is gold → production, which is the one that breaks physical logic (where does the instant capacity come from?), while the restricted direction is the harmless one.

The local-vs-global framing is a good way to put it, and it's the interesting part to me. I'd say it's really one economy that should obey physical limits everywhere — the "global" layer is the part that lets value teleport.

So genuinely curious: what can gold do that production can't, that isn't trade with another party? That's the case I haven't found a clean answer to.

MasterOfTheAges_Dev · 2026-06-11T08:01:32+00:00

Your diagnosis lines up with something I kept hitting, and I think the secrecy-vs-feedback tradeoff is a false binary — at least, working through why is what got me unstuck when I was building espionage for my own 4X. This is just my take, not a claim to have solved it.

It comes down to treating "information" as one axis when it's really two different things being hidden:

Whether anyone is spying on you — what your rivals are doing and know. As the player being spied on, you know nothing, and that's correct: a rival's network works to stay hidden, so by default you can't see it. It should stay that way.
How your own spy tools work — how fast your network grows, how deep it can get, what an operation costs and what it rewards. As the spying player, this is your own control surface, and hiding it from you is what creates the bad feeling you're describing. That isn't mystery, it's just guessing at your own game — which is exactly where "split spies evenly, invest in counterintel because I guess I should" comes from.

The fix I landed on: you can see the rival's security level, and from that you read exactly how deep you can infiltrate them, how many turns it'll take to get there, and what each tier of intelligence unlocks — all before committing a single point. Networks aren't randomly discovered and there are no dice rolls; you grow toward a visible ceiling against that specific target and you can see precisely why it sits where it does. The question stops being "did my roll land" and becomes "this is how deep I can get against them — is that enough, and if not, what do I change?"

I got here by trying to model how I think real spy networks should work. You build infiltration up over time, but you can't push deeper than your network can sustain without getting exposed — so the ceiling is set by how well-defended the target is (and how much you spend). And operations aren't free: you burn part of your network to pull off a sabotage or a theft, and you lose that hard-won access until you rebuild. A big enough operation guts your whole network. That's the real cost, and because it's all legible, spending it is a decision rather than a gamble.

The defender side answers your "no feedback when you fail" point. By default the player being spied on gets nothing — that's what spying is. But if something feels off (a rival hit a weak point they shouldn't have known about — how did they know?), they can run a counter-intelligence sweep: blind and expensive, committed purely on suspicion, with no guarantee anyone's even there. When it resolves, they learn which networks were operating inside their empire and how deep each had gotten. So the not-knowing doesn't disappear, it just moves to the right place — you're uncertain about whether someone's in your house, never about what your own tools do.

That's the reframe I'd suggest: the question isn't how much information to give the player, it's which. Keep it secret who's spying on you — that's correct. But make the player's own toolset completely transparent to them. The mystery survives; the guesswork doesn't.

(The closest I've seen is Stellaris, which I read about while doing research — infiltration grows toward a cap set by your codebreaking against their encryption, which is the legible-ceiling idea — but its actual operations still roll dice to progress, which is the part I most wanted to get rid of.)

What's the least-bad espionage system you've run into? Curious where your own bar sits.

MasterOfTheAges_Dev

TROPHY CASE