Cities -- Message Board / Global Triumph -- Too Much Stupid

Hey Johnny,

I was thinking cities would be a cool feature to add to GT.

Here is how I would do it. You could allow cities to be built by Construction trucks. When you build them, or take over them from another country, they add a significant amount to your daily income. Then they should be able to grow in size in one of two ways.

1) They Grow over time

2) You can pay money to make them bigger

These would add two things to the game.

1) They would allow nations to increase through economic growth rather than always having to increase in territory. this would make the game more interesting in non war periods. On the flip side it might limit wars, but I think if there is more build up to wars, diplomacy and politics will be more epic.

2) During wars these cities would make strategically important targets. They could be bombed to lower tiers and cut the economy. Or they could be taken to increase you own economy.

Now one thing that would make this unrealistic, is that players would just make all their cities packed together around their capital. To prevent this there should be a limit to how close one city may be placed to another one.

this would increase the incomes in the game, but if you plan on adding upkeep they should offset, and a little more income means more money for bigger wars!

supercoolyellow wrote on :

Hey Johnny,

I was thinking cities would be a cool feature to add to GT.

Here is how I would do it. You could allow cities to be built by Construction trucks. When you build them, or take over them from another country, they add a significant amount to your daily income. Then they should be able to grow in size in one of two ways.

1) They Grow over time

2) You can pay money to make them bigger

These would add two things to the game.

1) They would allow nations to increase through economic growth rather than always having to increase in territory. this would make the game more interesting in non war periods. On the flip side it might limit wars, but I think if there is more build up to wars, diplomacy and politics will be more epic.

2) During wars these cities would make strategically important targets. They could be bombed to lower tiers and cut the economy. Or they could be taken to increase you own economy.

Now one thing that would make this unrealistic, is that players would just make all their cities packed together around their capital. To prevent this there should be a limit to how close one city may be placed to another one.

this would increase the incomes in the game, but if you plan on adding upkeep they should offset, and a little more income means more money for bigger wars!

That is a good idea but I think it could be abbused. Like someone might put 10 cities in ten squares right next to eachother so it would be easy to defend them instead of actually spreading them over their nation. But I really want to have cities too! Maybe J could add a feature to where they have to be X amount of sectors away from eachother. But I think this is a good idea :].
~Hath Said The King~

This does seem like a really good idea. It would allow some of the nations who have less room to expand early on to build up their resources in a different way so that they would actually stand a chance against a larger nation and allow them the chance to expand. You would have to have limits, of course, but if done right it could be a very interesting addition to the game.

Cities could be randomly spawned?

Gopherbashi wrote on :

Cities could be randomly spawned?

I was thinking built by construction trucks, and they would be expensive.

Do you have an idea for them randomly spawning though?

Gopherbashi wrote on :

Cities could be randomly spawned?

random spawns could end up growing a city on a single square that a jeep takes over right next to a larger nation that would just run in and grab it. i'd much rather see people make their own cities where they want.

this idea could go hand in hand with a railway system. cities connected by rail would get higher income bonus, and you could move units on the rail system as fast as the transport ships move, thus killing two birds with one stone. i figure the cost for a section of rail would be far less than a bridge- say 50/square.

I agree, especially with a minimum distance, but they should not be sellable.

to prevent players from abusing such a system by cramming all their cities together you could perhaps use a system similar to the one used in Civilization. A city would need a certain amount of space around it to be built, and then it would take up more space every time it grew. If the city has no room then it wouldn't be able to grow any larger.

They should have some kind of special defensive power, with like infantry and aircraft have a bonus when attacking a city (like infantry have the strength of jeeps, or a little stronger then regular infantry) and vehicles made weaker. To reflect urban combat and house to house fighting.

making cities would be a great thing to add to the game, especially for small countries like me, i personally would set distance at 5 spaces apart for cities

Razatron1 wrote on :

making cities would be a great thing to add to the game, especially for small countries like me, i personally would set distance at 5 spaces apart for cities

For some city ideas, look into an old game named "Empire Deluxe". Very similar offline game to this one, except you capture pre-existing cities, not territory.

This won't help with a small countries economy against a large country though. Whether the cities are random or built. Big countries will always have an economic advantage, plus they'll have more room for large cities and (if implemented) could build them much faster than small cities.

The only way to keep small countries competitive with large countries is an increase in the maintenance fees.

I don't think that this game is so much about the economy, except as a way to build units. This is a war game, not an E^4.

That being said, for a future product, I would like to see objectives implemented. These could be used to make for shorter games and make the victory conditions such that smaller newer countries might have a chance (not a high one, but maybe). Some conditions might be, occupy x number of sectors, control sector x.y for 4 turns, eliminate player x, take over x number of players capitals. Things like that to give the game some flavor.

I think that if the size of the city were somehow tied to its environment it would prevent unnatural clumping: perhaps a city would have a certain resource cost each turn, which is needs from the immediately surrounding territory--drawing from a larger and larger area as the city grows. There would be a natural limit to the size, wealth, and distribution of the city.

Of course that would suggest all sorts of other new possibilities: perhaps an island city could continue to grow with shipping of mainland resources; perhaps highways could be built that would, as they do in real life, funnel resources into cities that have grown far too large to support themselves on the surrounding land areas.

I think that these considerations would add great depth to the strategy of the game, a depth suited to its long-term nature. In history, empires grow by the road as well as the sword, and wealth has always been something more than a claim on territory.

I think that adding cities somehow as strategic points would be interesting and a net benefit to Global Triumph. However, GT is clearly a war game focused on war, not on building. Having a building game that is an offshoot of GT might be interesting, but I do not think that substantial building or economic management is appropriate to GT as the game design stands at present.

Another thing to consider is that people who spend a lot of time building something might be less interested in starting all over again on a new map and might be more likely to simply quit entirely if they start losing substantially (heck, they haven't really built anything and people already do this...).

I'll say here what I said in another thread.

Perhaps if there were several multi-sector cities scattered throughout the world and each of those cities gave a bonus to your income each month, then they would make interesting strategic points.

They should not be user buildable. They should be able to be destroyed, but will regrow on their own. Until they completely rebuild, then they do not provide the income bonus.

I can see that making for some pretty interesting game play.

I'd also like to a see a map that's all small islands, so it's mostly naval battles and amphibious invasions.

If you really want to help smaller nations, simply going up the size list from smallest to largest, give them graduated income bonus's. Possibly limiting the "networth" list to the top 3 largest nations might create a sort of king of the hill culture. Also, creating a worker unit (each city or land base only creating one at a time) that could improve each tile once to increase output by 50% would also help the smaller guy. The larger ones would tend to expand too quickly to effectively utilize the worker.

Getting back to the city idea. I like OgreMkV's idea of a bunch of strategic cities that can be damaged, but grow back to usable condition over time. The one big thing in this game that needs attention, however, is to find acceptable was of limiting the larger nations. Once you are on a roll, it makes it difficult to turn the tide. Perhaps the largest 4 nations cannot be part of an alliance or treaty?

Blackthorne wrote on :

The one big thing in this game that needs attention, however, is to find acceptable was of limiting the larger nations. Once you are on a roll, it makes it difficult to turn the tide. Perhaps the largest 4 nations cannot be part of an alliance or treaty?

this game is called "global triumph" not "global crybaby".

the object isn't to stalemate the game. people don't need to have a treaty or shared alliance to cooperate with each other. on cerato, i have over a million sectors right now, but when the map started, i was in second place. my nearest ally, dman, was in third place. and we had under 5000 sectors apiece. at the start of the map, your idea will make it nearly impossible to have an alliance or treaty.

and what if the largest nations are deleted, and #5-9 get moved to the top nations? what if they had a treaty before the deletions, and now they are magically not allowed to be friends?

i seriously think this is a bad idea. on cerato, if this was in effect, i would simply work around it and continue working with my partners to dominate the map- to fulfill the title of the game.

I'm probably going off on a tangent here but..

In my opinion you want the game to go one of 2 ways:

1) Faster games: Make it so big countries can win faster so they game can end we can start up a new game quicker.
2) Longer games: Make it so small countries have a fighting chance.

If you look at the current active games, there is really no good spot for any new player to start where they won't get obliterated by a huge player (Sandbox does not count). What do you do to fix that?

Sorry for the derail. Maybe this topic needs a different thread.

Global Triumph

Thread

Messages / 1 to 18 of 18

Message Board

Categories

Search