PDA

View Full Version : City Value increase over time



reklats
10-10-2005, 01:31 PM
Each time a city is attacked it should be worth less (due to damages). This would introduce another strategy to the game.

Also, as a person occupies a city, the value of the city should slowly increase as the new government improves infrastructure, jobs, etc., So holding a small city for a month would be worth a good deal more. As it stands right now, I have a city that is worth .6 geos a day. I can afford to have about 1500 troops guard it before it looses money. If the city value incresed over time, I could see holding onto it. As it is, it's worthless.

blitzkrieg
10-10-2005, 10:39 PM
I like this one, as long as it doens't cut the realism aspect too much for the purists. Reset all cities to 1,000,000 and try to implement some type of formula for growth and loss. If an army loses 10,000 troops defending a city, the city loses 100,000 or 10% which every is less (so you don't have negative population). Everyday the population increases by 5%.

I'm sure it needs some tweaking but this would probably make most of europe cheap and cape town practically worthless (except for the diamonds :D ).

Also a large player constantly being hit at a city who's value now keeps going down because of it will be more likely to abandon it or let it be taken over without backing up troops because the city just becomes less worth holding onto.

Realism issue - or is this more real because that is what would happen in real life??

Blitzkriegmj

Lukepuuk
10-10-2005, 10:54 PM
Only if attacking a city also costs.
That would be realistic...moving armies and war costs a lot of money.
If you want a rule on the cities, then it should go both ways.

cowtreky
10-10-2005, 11:20 PM
Attacking armies already costs right now. Leveling out the playing field by having the cities on a sliding scale gives alot of newbies a chance by slowly picking at the big guys untill they finally give up the city because it is not worth there while.

Also it makes you think twice as to whether one should attack and assume a city because of the damage it encures.

Lukepuuk
10-10-2005, 11:31 PM
I thought there are only army upkeep costs???
I meant an attack costing you geo's.

reklats
10-10-2005, 11:34 PM
Luuk means that if you attack you get charged more than your regular upkeep. I like that idea as well!

If my army is moving across the globe, it's also going to cost more money than if they're sitting in my city. Pretty cool ideas guys..

razzam21
10-10-2005, 11:41 PM
I think the idea is pretty decent but the implementation my bit on the large size.

i think if Mickey were to add a couple of coders to help him out some of these larger ideas would be easier to implement. But until that happens larger more involved ideas will probably just be fun to contemplate and discuss.

blitzkrieg
10-10-2005, 11:53 PM
Do you live near Atlanta Razzam??

reklats
10-11-2005, 01:45 AM
Well I'm a programmer and if Mickey wants to release a tiny bit of the city code to me I could easily do it... hmm I might even be able to write a city value function that could just be included in each page... tie it to a generic database with a generic table name(s) so he can easily integrate it.

razzam21
10-11-2005, 03:52 AM
Do you live near Atlanta Razzam??

Currently I live in California. A couple of years ago i live in Northern Georgia.

blitzkrieg
10-11-2005, 05:17 AM
Well I'm a programmer and if Mickey wants to release a tiny bit of the city code to me I could easily do it... hmm I might even be able to write a city value function that could just be included in each page... tie it to a generic database with a generic table name(s) so he can easily integrate it.

Now that's the can-do attitude we need!

I fix fridges, so I can keep Mickey's beer cold......

reklats
10-11-2005, 12:46 PM
lmao.. cold beer!