ComradeMilton Posted December 27, 2016 Share Posted December 27, 2016 So if/when you have too many you can reduce the count without losing your nation, It'd be really helpful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apeman Posted December 27, 2016 Share Posted December 27, 2016 Go away Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted December 27, 2016 Author Share Posted December 27, 2016 No, I'm good thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mageofpie Posted December 27, 2016 Share Posted December 27, 2016 Expensive decision to make, but I've considered it. More targets at those lower scores and the loot doesn't really change all that much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted December 27, 2016 Author Share Posted December 27, 2016 Nothing to do with that. I'd like to be able to fit my nation more usefully into our alliance and cities being stuck kind of makes it impossible to do Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted December 30, 2016 Author Share Posted December 30, 2016 So is the absence of an official response a no or what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted January 11, 2017 Author Share Posted January 11, 2017 BUMP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PackAnimal Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 Sheepy doesn't love you Quote Mans two modes of existence can be thought of as his light and dark side. He is either the Protector or the Ravager. The Immovable Object or the Unstoppable Force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princess Bubblegum Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 While I would be for this, I think one consequence is that winning alliances may force city deletions upon losing alliances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Wally Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 While I would be for this, I think one consequence is that winning alliances may force city deletions upon losing alliances. Which is exactly what would happen. It would only take one or two coalition beatdowns that end in surrender city deletion terms for the game to split into a super-untouchable tier and a bottom beatdown tier. I've seen it in other games and while people initially think its great to be "winning" it very quickly kills the "fun" in playing. You need a certain base level of protection for loosing factions so they can eventually rebuild and stir up trouble again to keep things interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted January 13, 2017 Author Share Posted January 13, 2017 Which is exactly what would happen. It would only take one or two coalition beatdowns that end in surrender city deletion terms for the game to split into a super-untouchable tier and a bottom beatdown tier. I've seen it in other games and while people initially think its great to be "winning" it very quickly kills the "fun" in playing. You need a certain base level of protection for loosing factions so they can eventually rebuild and stir up trouble again to keep things interesting. It doesn't need to be. Just say no and give me the ability to control my city count. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antonzepro Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 It doesn't need to be. Just say no and give me the ability to control my city count. or get eternally raided Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted January 14, 2017 Author Share Posted January 14, 2017 So fight back. Removing everything from the game that might have military consequences is p. dumb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jawa Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 While I would be for this, I think one consequence is that winning alliances may force city deletions upon losing alliances. I don't that would really be an issue since the same thing can be done with land, but I've never seen that happen. (correct me if I'm wrong). Even though I can't really see it being useful, it should be an option. Freedom of choice is an important aspect of PW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted January 14, 2017 Author Share Posted January 14, 2017 It's useful to be able to shrink a little to undo when everything was about growth to better fit into NPO's tiering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samwise Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 I don't that would really be an issue since the same thing can be done with land, but I've never seen that happen. (correct me if I'm wrong). Even though I can't really see it being useful, it should be an option. Freedom of choice is an important aspect of PW. Land doesn't really do all that much aside from boosting food production. However, military units are directly tied to city counts. And generally, those with more cities can rebuild quicker, meaning if you imposed city deletion surrender terms on an alliance, it would delay them becoming a threat for longer whereas if you forced them to delete land, it doesn't really benefit you. You could make a case that people don't normally impose project deletion surrender terms though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jawa Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 Land doesn't really do all that much aside from boosting food production. However, military units are directly tied to city counts. And generally, those with more cities can rebuild quicker, meaning if you imposed city deletion surrender terms on an alliance, it would delay them becoming a threat for longer whereas if you forced them to delete land, it doesn't really benefit you. You could make a case that people don't normally impose project deletion surrender terms though. You can delete projects? I didn't know that. If you have 0 land you also have 100% disease rate. But it's an example that applies with quite a few other things like improvement or projects as you said, which significantly affect economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.