What about a way to destroy home bases, I dont really like the idea of if an alliance owns a country or continent a rival alliance can spawn armys right beside them. Mabye something to think about for the new version?

Now, THERE'S an idea that hasn't been though of for the homebases.

They get destroyed if you're defeated...and cost you...oh, 500 geos to set up again...I love it! Finally, the homebases have more meaning.
By morning, Luke! :love

And where do you get the money?
You can't jewelhunt until you place a homebase, but you can't place a homebase if you don't have the money?

You can't do anything in the game if you haven't placed your homebase.

hmm u could make it so that your homebase is still there until a ransom is payed, but you (the player) have been captured by the attacking army and their ransom for your life is that you abandon your homebase and give them lots of geos depending how much you have.

e.g. if a poor persons homebase (under 2500 geos) is attacked and taken for ransom they would only have to pay around 50 geos to get a new homebase and the price for ransom would increase depending how much the player is worth. and once you have payed the ransom you cannot place your homebase for 24 - 36 hours due to you being on the run...

whatcha think???

What if you just lose it and have to wait 6 hours to replace it? And mabye let you jewel hunt without a base.

It would be kind of like everyone has 1 free city... mabye earn 5 geos a day from your home base <------ http://www.surromomsonline.com/support/images/smilies/xyxthumbs.gif

BTW it would have to be you can't take a homebase just pillage it.

Also the FAQ link on the gewar.net/war site is broken.

Where's Timmetie? :D

And where do you get the money?
You can't jewelhunt until you place a homebase, but you can't place a homebase if you don't have the money?

You can't do anything in the game if you haven't placed your homebase.
Oh, for pete's sake. Fix it so you can jewel-hunt, collect resources, etc. without a base. Is it really that difficult?

This is a great idea! But how do you determine the homebase's strength?

It's gotta be tough :rock

This is a great idea! But how do you determine the homebase's strength?

It's gotta be tough :rock

Just have it defended by armys like cities now. Better not piss off everyone or else you'll have to spawn in antartica.

We cant allow jewel-hunting without a homebase or users would sit there collecting as much money as possible without being attacked..

I think homebases should be pillaged for 10% of the geos they have in the bank... that would do nicely, the big users would be worthier targets than the newbies..

T.

Why don't you just make it so you can't attack newly constructed homebases? It would give them time to jewel some money. But then if you have to pay 500 geos to build another homebase, people are just going to make a game out of destroying homebases and making sure people can't get around to doing anything.

I like the idea of getting rid of pesky homebases located close to your cities, but I don't like the idea of them inturn being able to place the homebase next to another big city.

Why don't you just make it so you can't attack newly constructed homebases? It would give them time to jewel some money. But then if you have to pay 500 geos to build another homebase, people are just going to make a game out of destroying homebases and making sure people can't get around to doing anything.

I like the idea of getting rid of pesky homebases located close to your cities, but I don't like the idea of them inturn being able to place the homebase next to another big city.


Well, thinking about that then settlers would make since, but the then game would pratically become a high resolution Civilization.

Well, thinking about that then settlers would make since, but the then game would pratically become a high resolution Civilization.

If I had a dollar for everytime someone complained about the game becoming like Civ. There's a reason why Civ sold so many copies...

About the settlers, how would it work, would they build cities or build homebases?

Didn't say that was bad, I love civ.

Why don't you just make it so you can't attack newly constructed homebases? It would give them time to jewel some money. But then if you have to pay 500 geos to build another homebase, people are just going to make a game out of destroying homebases and making sure people can't get around to doing anything.

I like the idea of getting rid of pesky homebases located close to your cities, but I don't like the idea of them inturn being able to place the homebase next to another big city.

The only reason for home bases is to keep people from being completely destroyed, so the bases should disappear as soon as a first city is taken. Then you should be able to to anything in any of your cities that you could have done in a home base.

If a last city is destroyed, the base should be automatically established a short distance outside that fallen city. It just like the cowardly politicians and accountants that take the money and run just as their last brave soldier dies. This lets you move a homebase, but it isn't without cost and it isn't sneaky.

There might also be a rule that someone without a city must take a city of <1m before attacking a larger city. This gets people back in the game with the need to defend something before launcing a kamikaze attack on a city they can't hope to defend.

The only reason for home bases is to keep people from being completely destroyed, so the bases should disappear as soon as a first city is taken. Then you should be able to to anything in any of your cities that you could have done in a home base.

If a last city is destroyed, the base should be automatically established a short distance outside that fallen city. It just like the cowardly politicians and accountants that take the money and run just as their last brave soldier dies. This lets you move a homebase, but it isn't without cost and it isn't sneaky.

There might also be a rule that someone without a city must take a city of <1m before attacking a larger city. This gets people back in the game with the need to defend something before launcing a kamikaze attack on a city they can't hope to defend.

I like it!

but is the coding do-able?

This is all interesting but keep in mind that when the game started it was quiet basic and everyone who has joined has come around to being able to play it... The more suggestions that come up, more people are drawn away from it...

I mean my dad plays GEwar but let him try and play Civ or Settlers or something like that... NO WAY! He gives up instantly...

I think we should leave the homebases as is because otherwise it will be come to complicated for the n00bs (excluding me) and they won't play anymore because let's face it, not everyone out of the 3800 accounts play every 5 minutes like we do...

well u could exclude n00bs with under 2500 geos from losing their homebases. that will get them interested in the game as its fairly easy to understand and once they reach the 2500 geos mark they could have an option that they could choose whether they wanna take part in the homebase destroying, and if they choose "yes" they can attack other ppls homebases and make geos through this. whereas if they chose "no" their homebase cant be attacked and they cannot attack unless they change the option.:666

Oh, for pete's sake. Fix it so you can jewel-hunt, collect resources, etc. without a base. Is it really that difficult?

Yes, for several reasons.
Some coded, and some anti cheating.

Oh, for pete's sake. Fix it so you can jewel-hunt, collect resources, etc. without a base. Is it really that difficult?
Who is pete? And why hast though forsaken him?

We cant allow jewel-hunting without a homebase or users would sit there collecting as much money as possible without being attacked..

I think homebases should be pillaged for 10% of the geos they have in the bank... that would do nicely, the big users would be worthier targets than the newbies..

T.

The whole point of this, my reasons atleast, were to be able to destroy someones home base and therefore make him move it away from a city. 10% would be very hard to get right so people dont exploit it.

The only way to know which percentage works I guess is to test it, and gauge based on community whining level.

The only way to know which percentage works I guess is to test it, and gauge based on community whining level.
That I like.

So, it may not work to charge money to replace a homebase, but I still think the idea of 'destroying' a homebase is teh 4w3s0^^3nE$$

I dont.
Most people would love to see their homebase getting destroyed.
You should know how much PM's I get each day from people asking me to replace their homebase.
They would just all move it right next to a bonus city or other big city.
Imagine a whole alliance placing their homebase next to a city after they have destroyed eachothers homebase(and don't say that alliances can't attack eachother because there are alliances who haven't formed an OFFICIAL alliance).
Just stealing out of a homebase is then even a better idea.

I dont.
Most people would love to see their homebase getting destroyed.
You should know how much PM's I get each day from people asking me to replace their homebase.
They would just all move it right next to a bonus city or other big city.
Imagine a whole alliance placing their homebase next to a city after they have destroyed eachothers homebase(and don't say that alliances can't attack eachother because there are alliances who haven't formed an OFFICIAL alliance).
Just stealing out of a homebase is then even a better idea.

so are there any plans to change the homebase situation then or is it all just talk right now?

speedfreak227

I dont.
Most people would love to see their homebase getting destroyed.
You should know how much PM's I get each day from people asking me to replace their homebase.
They would just all move it right next to a bonus city or other big city.
Imagine a whole alliance placing their homebase next to a city after they have destroyed eachothers homebase(and don't say that alliances can't attack eachother because there are alliances who haven't formed an OFFICIAL alliance).
Just stealing out of a homebase is then even a better idea.
Ok...revise.

How about the base isn't destroyed, but you lose possession of it? No, scratch that, if we let them buy/have a new one, we'll have the same problems. And having to capture them back will make things insanely hard for the n00bs.

Darn it! There's a great idea in this theory somewhere, help me out!

so are there any plans to change the homebase situation then or is it all just talk right now?

speedfreak227

Until now its just talk. But talk can lead to a good idea.
Something we haven't thought of yet.
Timmetie was the one who came with the idea of being able to steal from someone.
After all, that may still be the best one, even though I was against it at first.

how about being able to steal investments? as if they home base owner left the paperwork on the kitchen table and you grab it.

speedfreak227

Until now its just talk. But talk can lead to a good idea.
Something we haven't thought of yet.
Timmetie was the one who came with the idea of being able to steal from someone.
After all, that may still be the best one, even though I was against it at first.

I dont.
Most people would love to see their homebase getting destroyed.
You should know how much PM's I get each day from people asking me to replace their homebase.
They would just all move it right next to a bonus city or other big city.
Imagine a whole alliance placing their homebase next to a city after they have destroyed eachothers homebase(and don't say that alliances can't attack eachother because there are alliances who haven't formed an OFFICIAL alliance).
Just stealing out of a homebase is then even a better idea.

The problem with stealing is that it makes it harder on those just wiped out. These people need to get back in the game.

Stealing only makes sense when applied to the rich, who should all have cities. Rich players do not need and should not have protected areas, which is why I think getting rid of the homebase when you take your first city makes sense.

A homebase should not be used to launch an attack on a big/bonus city, which was the reason for the suggestion to require taking a small city before being able to attack a big city.

How about the limit on geo's will be at 200geo's until u paid out 100geos after your homebase is attacked? So noob's like me who lost their home base can start over again.. and the richer guys will pay the 100geos as they will not be able to generate anymore income until they pay the "fine"

The coders have to be very, very careful if we're going to do homebase pillaging.

What could result - is that if a hostile army breaks into a homebase holding 5000 geos. Let's put the pillage rate at 10%.

They then get 500 geos. They leave the homebase, go back in 2 seconds later. Another 450 geo.

Leave, go back in - another 405. Again: 364.50. Again: 328. Again: 295.2

What I'm saying here is that a person could lose ALL his income pretty quickly.

In those six "attacks" on the now-empty homebase, the person with 5000 geos just lost 2342.5 of them.

I reckon you should be able to nuke homebases to stop people spawning new armies for a while in a counterattack.

I think you should have the option of creating some sort of destruction when attacking a home base. One idea could be that if a homebase is attacked and looses the battle, then all armies away from the home base will be lost unless they are inside a city. This will add a new dimention to the game and make players aware of guarding their homebase if they have many troops outside of their homebase (but not in cities)...

Back to the original argument, that armies can spawn next to cities is pretty realistic in a global environment where terrorism thrives. Outside support (e.g. an alliance paying a member to raise an army from their homebase) is also realistic.

Under the current setup, it costs a player 5,000 :geo to move your homebase - which keeps a player from spontaneously setting up his/her homebase next to your city. If homebases were able to be destroyed, this cost would go out the window. I may as well ask an alliance member to destroy my homebase in order to cut the cost of relocation.

Personally, I think the current setup works well because there is some element of protection for those just entering the war.

This is over a year old... it's been suggested many, many times and still hasn't been implemented, maybe just let it rest?

Besides, Lib has a good point, easy to exploit if they were fully destructible.

Then you should just be able to pillage a homebase for any geos that aren't safely banked.

Let's say (amount of troops left in attacking army + amount of unbanked geos) * 10%

Maximum geos that can be taken will obviously be how much geos a player has unbanked.