Cities

[Retto]

 I've heard a bunch of different ideas on the directions cities can go to be a more useful part of the game.

Juska - Cities - make cities jsut that, CITIES, give cities 250 huts 250 camps 500 barracks 500 foragers 700 markets and 300 tents, and maybe some towers aswell.
Gen Volkov YES! Make cities, cities! That's a great idea! *Totally serious* I've thought that from the beginning. And you should leave the take city option, but have it reduce the numbers of tents etc. that are in it just like when they took a real city, they would burn a part of it. And then later you can rebuild those parts of the city. But you need a certain amount of loyalty to do so.
nevadacowCities- Perhaps make a few diffrent types of cities. Each with a diffrent specality, like perhaps defence, troop production, leadership production, or food production. The idea of "burning down" a city is also doable... Simply rember that a city is treated like just another type of building under the code. Simply add more for diffrent levels of degridation or for diffrent classes of city. Also, troop defence of cities should be higher. An all leader attack should fail aginst a similar networth horde with an even spread of trooptypes.
nevadacow It is (or at the very least should be) much harder to take a city.
Peace Alliance cities are fine, if you want them to be powerfull, then more powerfull workers will do that. if we were to make cities a complicated part of the game, then a) nobody would use them sept for those who are really good and that would create a bigger higharchy(sp?) cool.gif it would make the game more complex, which may be wonderfull for us who've been playing for years, but what about the newbies?
Juska If we down sized cities so that they only took 200 land, gave you 600 useful buildings and decreased the cost to 1/5 of it's current rate then more people would build them aswell.

Right now, cities are either not helpful enough or too costly to build and use. We did a turbo round where cities were practically free to build, and very very few people built them. I think they're too costly, but I'm still not sure what would be a better cost - I think something which is less generally expensive - it's a pain to gather up all the troops you need.

So, a brainstorm of continued ideas:

• Make cities the same as they are now, just less expensive.
  
• Make cities practically impossible to take without being 10-20x more powerful
  
• Make cities have a different configuration of buildings
  
• Make cities have no different configuration of buildings, just add 500 extra free land.
  [/list:u]
  
  What do you think of them?

[Vengerak]

 I like the last one, as it reflects a city's built-up nature and is nice and simple.  However, they also need to be harder to take--and I don't think it should be Leaders that you use to capture them.

[Nohcnonk]

 You should need to use military and break by at least twice as much to take a city.

[Peace Alliance]

 I agree, with them, you should be able to capture cities with military.

if you really wanted to make it cool, you could set it up so that to specificly attack a city you attack using a different hut. the attacking system would be the same, but instead of the 4 angles of the regular battle field, there is only because its a well fortified city and you can only attack it from one side. then you could make it so that the citys defense is boosted by towers. so each tower can be woth tripple the normal amount when attacking a city... that would be cool!

adding 500 more land to it would be cool too. i've never found them to cost too much, since at the moment its not profitable to have more then 1 or 2 in a regular sized account. perhaps if they were worth more and had more profits, people would want to build more of them in which case they might want them to be cheaper.  

[wolf bite]

 Cities should be hard to take.

Also I think Juska is on the right tract. The cost of the land in a city is not up to where it gives the value back fast enough. A few extra tents on less land does not give that much more money.

But juska included barriack. Many stratagies don't use them, so would not use the city, so that has to be excluded. Plus it would be cool to have huts because even if all your other land is taken, you still keep a leader defence and Leader players will use them to suplument the cost of taking turns form the markets and foragers without sacufising the needed huts.

On 1,000 land a city would be:
500 huts
200 camps
300 foragers
700 markets  
300 tents


Wolf Bite

[Juska]

 Ya, but that many huts brings me down and I don't use them so I think huts should be excluded  :P

+ Leaders masser have the edge already anyway, give the indy a break.