PDA

View Full Version : Army Upkeep Costs/City Taxes



birq
10-16-2005, 02:09 AM
Have you adjusted these already, or is it still on your list? Currently, the cost of maintaining armies is way out of whack related to city taxes. For example, Port Moresby, New Guinea earns you 1.4 Geos per day, which is less than the upkeep cost of a 100-troop army. If you populate the city with 100 troops, you're losing money by holding it. What's the point in that?

Beezer
10-16-2005, 02:14 AM
Have you adjusted these already, or is it still on your list? Currently, the cost of maintaining armies is way out of whack related to city taxes. For example, Port Moresby, New Guinea earns you 1.4 Geos per day, which is less than the upkeep cost of a 100-troop army. If you populate the city with 100 troops, you're losing money by holding it. What's the point in that?
Maybe we should institute a minimum city population requirement for new cities being added. I'll talk to Mickey about what the tax formula is and then put a minimum on the population for new cities being added.

For this particular case, my advice would be to hold more than one city if you hold Port Moresby. I don't expect he'll change the tax or troop costs formulas.

birq
10-16-2005, 02:23 AM
Maybe we should institute a minimum city population requirement for new cities being added. I'll talk to Mickey about what the tax formula is and then put a minimum on the population for new cities being added.

I still think we should be able to improve cities by putting money into infrastructure. You take a small city and put a lot of money into it and turn it into a profit center. Then someone comes along and nukes it or overruns it and it's back to being worth next to nothing.


For this particular case, my advice would be to hold more than one city if you hold Port Moresby. I don't expect he'll change the tax or troop costs formulas.

With its small size, it doesn't do any good as a loss leader. If it costs too much to occupy it, what is really the point? Smaller cities are supposed to be good for smaller players to get started. With the high cost of upkeep, it doesn't make any sense for anyone to hold it.

Beezer
10-16-2005, 02:28 AM
I still think we should be able to improve cities by putting money into infrastructure. You take a small city and put a lot of money into it and turn it into a profit center. Then someone comes along and nukes it or overruns it and it's back to being worth next to nothing.
I've been a supporter of this every time its been brought up. I still think that it may be a ways off.



With its small size, it doesn't do any good as a loss leader. If it costs too much to occupy it, what is really the point? Smaller cities are supposed to be good for smaller players to get started. With the high cost of upkeep, it doesn't make any sense for anyone to hold it.
True. There aren't too many cities in the game right now that would lose money with a 100 troop army in them. Not sure what to do with those. Maybe remove them and add other, higher value cities in their place?? Not super cities, like Tokyo, but smaller ones that will be more useful to the newer/smaller player, but big enough that a 100 troop army doesn't lose money holding it.

I think for future city updates though, we'll have to have a minimum limit on population. No sense in adding cities that will cost more to occupy than they return in tax revenue.

Mickey
10-16-2005, 02:34 AM
Have you adjusted these already, or is it still on your list? Currently, the cost of maintaining armies is way out of whack related to city taxes. For example, Port Moresby, New Guinea earns you 1.4 Geos per day, which is less than the upkeep cost of a 100-troop army. If you populate the city with 100 troops, you're losing money by holding it. What's the point in that?
It had been raised, but you raise a good point about the tiny cities.

City income is now 5 Geos/day + whatever they were getting per day before. For the big cities it won't make a huge difference, but it'll really help out the smaller ones.

birq
10-16-2005, 02:35 AM
It had been raised, but you raise a good point about the tiny cities.

City income is now 5 Geos/day + whatever they were getting per day before. For the big cities it won't make a huge difference, but it'll really help out the smaller ones.

Nice. That will make a big difference on the smaller cities. Thanks!

Mickey
10-16-2005, 02:36 AM
I still think we should be able to improve cities by putting money into infrastructure. You take a small city and put a lot of money into it and turn it into a profit center. Then someone comes along and nukes it or overruns it and it's back to being worth next to nothing.
Agreed, great idea. Like Beezer said, though, it's probably not coming real soon.


I think for future city updates though, we'll have to have a minimum limit on population. No sense in adding cities that will cost more to occupy than they return in tax revenue.
With my latest change (previous post), this shouldn't be an issue. We probably don't need to add any smaller than 100K, but I wouldn't worry about the exact number too much.