Dominating Cities: The Issue

War_Peace · 09-01-2005, 12:24 PM

The game is getting better every day. Battles occur all over the virtual map. But there is a major problem: Dominating Cities

I seem to hear that many people have the same thing in mind: Geos for Cities

I want to make a few suggestions here and see what do u guys think.

- Geos for holding cities: Periodically (small amount - proportional to the value of the cities)

- Geos for repelling attacks: Since they occur (proportional to the number of troops that are being repelled)

- Geos for capturing(not occupy) cities: Since they occur (large amount - proportional to the value of the city and the number of troops that are being defeated)

Mick Heaven · 09-01-2005, 12:49 PM

The first two sound like great ideas and should be implemented immediately.

I don't see why the last one is useful though except in regards to alliances and wouldn't there be quid pro quo with your alliance mate(s) helping you with a city you'd like to take over?

War_Peace · 09-01-2005, 12:56 PM

That is a dilemma, yeah!

Then perhaps, alliance should be included officially and then that kind of "smartness" can be prevented.

partin · 09-03-2005, 01:26 AM

No, I now do not support this, Infact, collect the jewels is a good thing, to learn more about the city. Before playing this, a lot of city I don't know.

rasqual · 09-05-2005, 07:36 AM

Jut got back to the forum after a brief hiatus, so I may have missed where W_P explained how he would implement the COST of occupying cities, along with his suggestion of earning Geos from holding them.

W_P (or anyone else), until you've embraced the realism that responsibility for a city involves costs as well as revenue streams, for my part I resist the "plunder, then tax 'em constantly" mentality that citizens are on an economic par with jewels, cotton, or petrol.

War_Peace · 09-05-2005, 12:05 PM

Occupying cities have a huge COST! That cost is the hard work that you do while collecting those darn jewels!!... More importantly, that ****ing CODE!!!...

rasqual · 09-06-2005, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by War_Peace

Occupying cities have a huge COST! That cost is the hard work that you do while collecting those darn jewels!!... More importantly, that ****ing CODE!!!...

You're not taking this very seriously, W_P. That's the cost of raising the armies to overthrow a city -- not the cost of occupation.

Again, I need to ask -- how can you justify any kind of realism for "plunder 'em till you're rich, then tax 'em every day?"

Lukepuuk · 09-06-2005, 01:23 AM

Probably by thinking of a hand full of blisters and a sore arm from all that jewel hunting.

birq · 09-06-2005, 06:23 AM

Quote:

the COST of occupying cities

I'm still going to keep pushing my idea of paying for improvements to a city. I brought it up last month here: http://www.googleearthhacks.com/foru...ead.php?t=1411.

Since it got so many replies, I can see it made a huge impact

I can see a base maintenance cost for a city, but if you put a lot of money into it, you can make a lot of money by holding it.

I'll make sure I bring this up again next month, too

rasqual · 09-06-2005, 06:54 AM

Yeah, there's been some good suggestions in old posts. I'll reckon Mickey'll parse 'em again whenever he's fishing for ideas.

I'll just go on record and say "dittos" to everything I've said so far, whether it's my own suggestions or me-too'ing others'.

LOL -- late edit, I was just listening to a Beatles tune with cowbell in it, and scrolled up to see your avatar pretty much in time with it. Funny.

birq · 09-06-2005, 06:55 AM

I ditto your dittos. Or would it be "dittoes"?

rasqual · 09-06-2005, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by birq

I ditto your dittos. Or would it be "dittoes"?

If you're Dan Quayle, I guess. ;-)

birq · 09-06-2005, 06:58 AM

Quote:

If you're Dan Quayle

Hmmm... last time I checked, I wasn't. I'm hoping it hasn't changed since then.

Lukepuuk · 09-06-2005, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rasqual

LOL -- late edit, I was just listening to a Beatles tune with cowbell in it, and scrolled up to see your avatar pretty much in time with it. Funny.

Saw that one last week on Saturday Night Live's Best of Will Ferrell.
Fantastic

09-01-2005, 12:24 PM	#1
War_Peace Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 632	Dominating Cities: The Issue The game is getting better every day. Battles occur all over the virtual map. But there is a major problem: Dominating Cities I seem to hear that many people have the same thing in mind: Geos for Cities I want to make a few suggestions here and see what do u guys think. - Geos for holding cities: Periodically (small amount - proportional to the value of the cities) - Geos for repelling attacks: Since they occur (proportional to the number of troops that are being repelled) - Geos for capturing(not occupy) cities: Since they occur (large amount - proportional to the value of the city and the number of troops that are being defeated)

09-01-2005, 12:49 PM	#2
Mick Heaven Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: 38"56'55.66 N; 92"19'30.45 W Posts: 39	Here, here, not The first two sound like great ideas and should be implemented immediately. I don't see why the last one is useful though except in regards to alliances and wouldn't there be quid pro quo with your alliance mate(s) helping you with a city you'd like to take over? __________________ Do unto others as you would want them to do to you. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. How in the hell did this get to google search??? To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

09-05-2005, 12:05 PM	#6
War_Peace Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 632	U just don't get it do you!!? Occupying cities have a huge COST! That cost is the hard work that you do while collecting those darn jewels!!... More importantly, that ****ing CODE!!!...

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

09-01-2005, 12:56 PM	#3
War_Peace Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 632	That is a dilemma, yeah! Then perhaps, alliance should be included officially and then that kind of "smartness" can be prevented.

09-03-2005, 01:26 AM	#4
partin Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 15	No, I now do not support this, Infact, collect the jewels is a good thing, to learn more about the city. Before playing this, a lot of city I don't know.

09-05-2005, 07:36 AM	#5
rasqual Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 459	Jut got back to the forum after a brief hiatus, so I may have missed where W_P explained how he would implement the COST of occupying cities, along with his suggestion of earning Geos from holding them. W_P (or anyone else), until you've embraced the realism that responsibility for a city involves costs as well as revenue streams, for my part I resist the "plunder, then tax 'em constantly" mentality that citizens are on an economic par with jewels, cotton, or petrol.

09-06-2005, 01:23 AM	#8
Lukepuuk Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 847	Probably by thinking of a hand full of blisters and a sore arm from all that jewel hunting.

09-06-2005, 06:54 AM	#10
rasqual Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 459	Yeah, there's been some good suggestions in old posts. I'll reckon Mickey'll parse 'em again whenever he's fishing for ideas. I'll just go on record and say "dittos" to everything I've said so far, whether it's my own suggestions or me-too'ing others'. LOL -- late edit, I was just listening to a Beatles tune with cowbell in it, and scrolled up to see your avatar pretty much in time with it. Funny.

09-06-2005, 06:55 AM	#11
birq Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 296	I ditto your dittos. Or would it be "dittoes"?