This game is very Euro-centric [Archive] - Google Earth Hacks Forums

MkhitarSparapet

10-20-2005, 09:37 PM

In addition to small cities, I think it would be invaluable to add more cities in Asia, Africa, etc... Besides being more fair, it would also be a great way for players to learn about geography of far away places and maybe even get inspired to travel, research culture, etc...

Come on!

Coolman315987

10-20-2005, 09:39 PM

In addition to small cities, I think it would be invaluable to add more cities in Asia, Africa, etc... Besides being more fair, it would also be a great way for players to learn about geography of far away places and maybe even get inspired to travel, research culture, etc...

Come on!

It would be invaluable if some of the cities on the city request forum would actually get set up!

Timmetie

10-20-2005, 10:36 PM

beezer stopped that because we were getting too many cities.

if im right he's still saving them in a file somewhere ready to implement.

Beezer

10-21-2005, 12:50 AM

beezer stopped that because we were getting too many cities.

if im right he's still saving them in a file somewhere ready to implement.
I have loads to put in there. But I'm holding off for now, because we don't have many players. If the world is flooded with cities, people will simply stop attacking and become content with what they have.

This is war!! There should be attacks!!!

birq

10-21-2005, 01:23 AM

I have loads to put in there. But I'm holding off for now, because we don't have many players. If the world is flooded with cities, people will simply stop attacking and become content with what they have.

This is war!! There should be attacks!!!

Maybe bonus cities should shift or there should be multiple bonus cities whose bonus value changes (based on market conditions, regional activity, hurricanes, whatever). Ever play Drugwars? Coke in London may be really cheap right now, but a random event (a bust, a poor harvest, whatever) send it through the roof for a short period of time making London extremely attractive.

blitzkrieg

10-21-2005, 01:49 AM

Maybe bonus cities should shift or there should be multiple bonus cities whose bonus value changes (based on market conditions, regional activity, hurricanes, whatever). Ever play Drugwars? Coke in London may be really cheap right now, but a random event (a bust, a poor harvest, whatever) send it through the roof for a short period of time making London extremely attractive.

Yeah I've thought of this aswell, but held off posting for fear of upsetting araT :)

This needs it's own thread - very good idea to keep the battles raging!!!

My Cape Town reoccupation was a LOT of fun!

Coolman315987

10-21-2005, 02:49 AM

I have loads to put in there. But I'm holding off for now, because we don't have many players. If the world is flooded with cities, people will simply stop attacking and become content with what they have.

This is war!! There should be attacks!!!
Ahhh... I see... I thought it was an issue of lazyness...

Beezer

10-21-2005, 03:06 AM

Ahhh... I see... I thought it was an issue of lazyness...
Don't be mistaken, part of it is. ;)

felipeboralli

10-21-2005, 04:40 PM

I have loads to put in there. But I'm holding off for now, because we don't have many players. If the world is flooded with cities, people will simply stop attacking and become content with what they have.

This is war!! There should be attacks!!!

what you say is fundamentaly wrong. ppl will never beome content. we always want more and more. also more cities pump up more money in the game, providing more ammo for war.

also, if you created a bunch of small cities, like 50 to 500k, this would be a good chance for war for the small players

Mickey

10-21-2005, 05:14 PM

what you say is fundamentaly wrong. ppl will never beome content. we always want more and more. also more cities pump up more money in the game, providing more ammo for war.

also, if you created a bunch of small cities, like 50 to 500k, this would be a good chance for war for the small players
I was on Beezer's bandwagon about this, but you make some good points. If there are available cities, they'll get snatched up. After that, those users will be making more money (extra tax income) and will want more. You might be right...

TheMightySquigglies

10-21-2005, 05:35 PM

I was on Beezer's bandwagon about this, but you make some good points. If there are available cities, they'll get snatched up. After that, those users will be making more money (extra tax income) and will want more. You might be right...

but the biggest players will just take them over and we are back to square one.

Timmetie

10-21-2005, 05:44 PM

no, cause i dont like big players, i will take the city, and leave it for small players.

and small players will have to make sure the cities are well enough defended not to be profitable for the big players..

Lukepuuk

10-21-2005, 06:08 PM

Agree with Timmetie...big players mostly fight with other big players like big alliances fight with other big alliances...they don't want to hurt the small players...they'd rather use the troops to kick another alliance.

Timmetie

10-21-2005, 07:29 PM

so this way small cities would help, start the noobs off small.

eventually we might even want to make it official, make it so big players cant even attack the small cities or vice versa.

ghchinoy

10-21-2005, 07:39 PM

I don't think it's just a "big player" v. "little player" thing - i think it's more of a "big alliance" sort of thing. There'll always be "little players" in a big alliance who'll want a small earning city. I do like the concept, though, that a smaller city would be less attractive to a "big player," I'm just not sure it holds true. People like them some cities and a "big alliance" will want them all.