what are cities for

[Rakefur]

I'm pretty sure they are 1000 tents and 500 camps. 1500 worth of buildings for the price of 1000

[Durza]

regarless powerful if you can maintait them

[Shadow]

we are going to have to rethink them for 3.0, they are too powerful atm

[Wolf Snare]

I wouldn't say so.

[Shadow]

They're also horrible broken in a number of ways that don't related to game balance anyway. But yes, they are too good for literally every strategy, especially after some of the balances going in.

[cloud]

They're great at low land/low net but become horribly expensive later on. If I wanted to max out cities I'd need over $400 billion. I dont even mess with them now.

[Wolf Snare]

You claim they're too good for every strategy now, but really they only finally serve a function other than save you butt from getting killed. Do elaborate please.

[Shadow]

cities give you the potential for significantly ore workers per acre. This means more cash, more food, or more troops depending on your building spread. It also means faster hut filling. Basically workers are everything, and cities give you a lot more per acre than any other building spread.

It's not that they are a bad idea, they just throw off the initial balance so we need to tweak them to work with the new setup.

Anyway, aren't you on of the ones making heavy us of cities this round? You know how powerful they are.

I've always thought cities were a sort of like a half-finished idea that kinda got abandoned so long ago that everyone forgot it was never done.

[cloud]

I always thought there should be multiple types of "cities". Like fortresses that provide barracks/towers, or plantations that consist of markets/farms.

[Rakefur]

There was a topic about that...

Can't find it, maybe it was in dev.

[Ian2424]

That would be cool.