Occupy city, win Geos!

[partin]

Thank mikey give us a good game first!
After occupy a city , the winner get nothing, only the "value" of the city. Can the winner plan one or more cottom field in the city ,depended on the city value?

[Mick Heaven]

That's a great idea, that we have to invest in the city we take over to get some geos back. Maybe we could get some geos initially from taking over a city to, sort of pillage and plunder after the troops enter!!

[His Lord Uberdude]

We need prizes for conqueroring. Also, we need taxes! And we need maintenance and improvement costs for our cities!

[partin]

so sorry wrong to write "mickey" to "mikey".

[druidiine]

i think it is a good idea, but maybe we could get the jewels on dayly basis? so everyone would be interested in keeping their cities as long as possible? i.e keep a city for a week and get a free nuke or something

[Brendo]

Originally Posted by His Lord Uberdude

We need prizes for conqueroring. Also, we need taxes! And we need maintenance and improvement costs for our cities!

I think that we should get some form of return for holding a city for a certain time period. eg. 6hrs = 75 Geos (1000 extra troops).
But there should also be a tax involved in keeping a city running. It should be based on the amount of troops in a city. Although only if an army contains more than a certain amount of troops.

[roswelljam]

I agree with the above comments. There should be a reward for the length of time holding a city - otherwise what's the point? I held a city for two hours yesterday - got a lot of my troops killed, lost the city, for what?

[Lukepuuk]

There were a few topics about this and they found out it has a big problem.
The 'big guys' in the game would just be getting bigger until they are unbeatable. So the newbies would have no chance.

So some also came up with the idea that instead of getting Geo's for holding a city, you'd have to pay for it. Just like in real life.
But then again...it would be less fun to hold a city.

I therefor go back to my idea(how arrogant) of heaving independent positive things for cities...like some cities having airports in the far future, others having harbours(both could deploy armies much faster or something).
One city earns taxes from fishing, the other from oil, cotton and diamonds.
When there's a bank system one city should get some rent.

But if you give the big guys money for all the cities they hold they'll be multi-miljonairs in no time

[Brendo]

Originally Posted by Lukepuuk

I therefor go back to my idea(how arrogant) of heaving independent positive things for cities...like some cities having airports in the far future, others having harbours(both could deploy armies much faster or something).
One city earns taxes from fishing, the other from oil, cotton and diamonds.
When there's a bank system one city should get some rent.

I agree with your idea. You should get certain advantages depending on your cities. But to help a new player, they should be able to choose a speciality and be able to use it for a set time.

[Mickey]

Here's my thoughts:

- You will get income from holding cities. The greater the value of a city, the more income you will get. How much should this be? My thought is around 0.0001 Geos per value per day, meaning a city of 8,000,000 would earn you 80 Geos a day.

- You will have to pay upkeep on your armies/troops. The more armies/troops, the more upkeep you need to pay. How much should this be?

In terms of finances, what happens when someone runs out of money? (if they have a lot of armies, but no cities).

The easiest way would simply be to let the money run negative, which would prevent them from purchasing more troops until they got it straightened out. However, this might lead to people quitting the game if they got too far negative.

Thoughts?

[Lukepuuk]

Originally Posted by Mickey

Here's my thoughts:

- You will get income from holding cities. The greater the value of a city, the more income you will get. How much should this be? My thought is around 0.0001 Geos per value per day, meaning a city of 8,000,000 would earn you 80 Geos a day.

- You will have to pay upkeep on your armies/troops. The more armies/troops, the more upkeep you need to pay. How much should this be?

In terms of finances, what happens when someone runs out of money? (if they have a lot of armies, but no cities).

The easiest way would simply be to let the money run negative, which would prevent them from purchasing more troops until they got it straightened out. However, this might lead to people quitting the game if they got too far negative.

Thoughts?

Not bad. That way the big guys are still beatable. If they occupy a high valued city, they would get money. But if they keep on expanding their armies till there are 200.000troops in a city, it would COST them money.
If people get too far negative...how about being able to sell troops?

Hmmm no it's got its problems...what about someone who just has a lot of armies in its homebase...he wouldn't get the money but still pay for the armies. Only pay for armies occupying cities and moving(last one preferable in oil or something).
Else it wouldn't be fun building armies in your homebase. You would have to conquer cities right away and a lot don't want to.
So? Good idea about only paying for occupying troops?

[rasqual]

Originally Posted by Mickey

Here's my thoughts:

- You will get income from holding cities. The greater the value of a city, the more income you will get. How much should this be? My thought is around 0.0001 Geos per value per day, meaning a city of 8,000,000 would earn you 80 Geos a day.

- You will have to pay upkeep on your armies/troops. The more armies/troops, the more upkeep you need to pay. How much should this be?

Good thinking. You're developing a tension between what it costs to protect an asset, and the value of the asset.

I suggest you use more of your dynamic evaluations for keeping these in tension. The risk an occupier faces of being overthrown is related to the average power other players possess in terms of armies. If you make this average a determinant of the geo yield per capita, then the tension I describe will be constant as average power of players varies over time -- and you can tweak for that.

Something like that.

In terms of finances, what happens when someone runs out of money? (if they have a lot of armies, but no cities).

The easiest way would simply be to let the money run negative, which would prevent them from purchasing more troops until they got it straightened out. However, this might lead to people quitting the game if they got too far negative.

Thoughts?

Attrition. AWOL. Desertion. Morale is low, because pay is being withheld. Seriously, these troops need to be paid -- and if they're not paid, they walk. When they walk, they leave their weapons -- which yield a redemption value of 1/4 what it took to conscript the troop in the first place. Something like that.