Why don't units and buildings have a gold and materials cost? Seems like it would add to the strategy and choices?

What are you reffering to in regards to gold or mainenance costs?

If you train units the production costs = gold cost. Each unit has a maintenance cost except pioneers in gold. Also, if you make somebody with an axe that costs metal. If you make somebody with an amulet that costs crystal. So it does have material costs.

If you are referring instead to the maintenance cost of buildings, this was eliminated because it was contradictory to the point of the city as a source of income to the player. Which resulted in lower income from the buildings that did make income and the current tax system.

If you are talking about building structures, well then the main cost for all of these buildings would be wood or stone, neither of which is a material to be gathered in the game. It is represented as material when you settle the city and thus is abtractly imbued through production costs.

If you always wondered this, you must have been wondering why it didn't exist at several points in time when it did exist. Your statement is suspect.

Also, as we are 7 days from release, please try to avoid cluttering the forums with general, unspecific questions and suggestions that belong to a period 3-4 months ago...

Sorry I should have clarified. I mean an upfront payment not a maintenance cost. Like make pioneers cost 100 gold to build upfront.

How does production costs = gold? If I que a unit I lose no gold?

Yes units do have some material costs when you arm them true. I see your point about wood and stone.

I can understand the decision on building maintenance that makes sense. I see what your saying about material being abstract through production costs.

Thanks you have made things make more sense.

I guess my question then is about why no upfront costs for anything? And is production cost just time?

Sorry I have not been an expert on the beta...

You can always rush production, which will cost gold...

Behave! It's an honest question and it isn't hurting anyone. People should ask whatever they want.

@auboy105 units pay wages in Gildar after they are finished. The exact amount of wages they pay is determined by how much production is used for their creation. In a way it makes sense to not have to pay Gildar up front for creating units. When you put something in the city production queue, it means you are allocating all the city's dynamic resources towards creating a unit. Why should you pay Gildar for that? They are your resources to steer. You are basically saying "Okay guys, I want all you craftsmen, blacksmiths, weaponsmiths, army recruiters and so on to focus on this task." That's what production is - the sum of every craftsman, forge and workshop in the city working towards a goal you set. Why should you pay for Gildar for that?

As pointed out, you pay Gildar once the units are complete in wages. Wages supposedly go towards upkeep of military equipment so things don't deteriorate. You can also use Gildar to purchase units extra quick, in which case the logic is that you are buying production resources from something your city doesn't have. You are buying things from visiting merchants or hired trainers.

City buildings face a similar trade-off. You can either use production (again, the "sum of all dynamic resources" in a city). Or you can pay Gildar to have them rushed (hire a bunch of extra work teams to finish it in a season).

So why don't buildings cost "wages" or upkeep? It's a design decision. Derek Paxton has said that he wants cities to be resource production centers. They should not be a drain on your economy, only boost it. I think that isn't great, because surely there could be interesting choices where we pay upkeep for strong buildings. But there it is, a design choice by Derek Paxton.

Gotcha thanks!