Realistically a city can only support so much troops before its personal resources become drained.

I say that the larger the army in a city... the less geos can be produced by it...

Realistically a city can only support so much troops before its personal resources become drained.

I say that the larger the army in a city... the less geos can be produced by it...

Isn't that what troop expenses are for?

But I kind of agree with part of that. Wasn't that brought up on the old forum once? Max troops that can occupy a city based on the fact that a city's infrastructure can only support so many. Thus requiring the split army feature first so that you could still attack a city with more troops, and split off an occupying army upon conquering a city.

I think the limit should allow you to go in the red to a certain point, or hot cities like the resource cities would change hands all day long every day. Possibly allow troop expenses up to twice the income of a city?

I think troops should be increasingly expensive to group together in a city. Now, it's a linear thing, but if you make it exponential (or something other than linear), it will more than achieve what this thread is trying to suggest.

this would be insane while troops still kill each other 1 on 1.

attackers would have a HUGE bonus. and cities arn't really making any money as it is.

i'm all for allowing only a certain amount of troops per time period per homebase + cities etc, seeing you don't have infinite population.

but this would be rather stupid as long as attackers can still create troops from thin air, and there is no difference between attacking with 4 10.000 man armies or 1 40.000 man army.