Ok, here is the problem: Say you save up all your geos and finally get enough to attack a large city. Say you spend 2500 to obtain it. And then you spend another 1000 to bulk up defenses. You jusy spent 3500 geos to get a city that will NEVER give you that much back. The only way to make money off cities is to hold them for a long time. Even so, troop upkeep is sooooo costly. After all this you could get beaten and loose your city to someone who has been saving for a long time!!! Not to mention how random the battles are! You could be defending with as many troops as you can without haveing troop upkeep higher than city tax, and still, SOMEONE will attack with there life savings and completely destroy you!!!! My point is that cities need some other benifit, something other than crappy revenue. At the moment the only good aspects of owning a city are that you can access the stockmarket and you get your name on a list titled "TOP PLAYERS" I've been playing GEwar since the last reset, and the above situation always happens... I get some good city, 5-10 million value, then I end up losing tons of geos and the city to some noob who has been hoarding geos FOREVER!!! someone please make some suggestions to improve cities and make this game more fun. Im fed up with GEwar, it just getting pointless. :sad

Well...if you looked around a little you would've found several threads about it, and that we currently ARE working on it.
Just be a little patient.
Actually, the ones without a city are the poorest players also because they can't save up.
You NEED a city.
And the other thread stated that smaller cities would be giving more soon, and that infrastructure would perfect all of it.
Still...when I was a player I had no trouble at all getting rich from a few cities and keeping others from taking it.
I'm even glad when I get attacked as otherwise it would get pretty boring soon.
And now when I look at statistics and how people are doing it, I see that a lot of people are making a lot of money from it.

Even though...we are working on making it better if you invest in your own city(dont want people to just be able to occupy a city and earn too much, as it wouldn't be fun anymore to newbies).

I agree, cities don't really give you much. Right now the game revolves around other methods of holding cities rather than simply relying on their income.

The way I see it, GEwar is a counter-intuitive game. You can't just attack, and expect to make money. A lot of it has to do with not attacking, and strategy.

Most players actually don't know that cities used to give NOTHING.

The city tax you receive is actually relatively new.
Also...the city tax is supposed to cover your troop upkeep and leave you a little extra. Not to make you rich.
Thats what the resources are for.
Cities were for the top players statistics.
As said, with the infrastructure coming, cities will be paying more then enough if you invest in them.
And being able to invest in defenses like a city wall.

I agree, cities don't really give you much. Right now the game revolves around other methods of holding cities rather than simply relying on their income.

The way I see it, GEwar is a counter-intuitive game. You can't just attack, and expect to make money. A lot of it has to do with not attacking, and strategy.
True. But if the point of the game is to take cities, shouldn't there be a bit more benefit of some sort to holding them? I have no idea really, except a much better 'entrenchment' bonus.

True. But if the point of the game is to take cities, shouldn't there be a bit more benefit of some sort to holding them? I have no idea really, except a much better 'entrenchment' bonus.

Infrastructure makes sense, much more than increasing the city income. You don't want to make the game too linear so that anyone can do well.

Thanks for the replies, and yeah, cities would be MUCH better with infrastructure and upgrades such as "city wall". Hope stuff like this is incorperated soon.

What if you gave the person who wins a city .0001 x the worth of the city up front and after that just collect the tax, that could would add a little incentive to cities and prove they are not pointless.

What would be nice is for the city to produce more and more money over time in taxes proportional to the duration it's been owned by one player (peace time for the citizens). So if you just capture the city it will produce little tax money, but if you manage to keep it for a week, then it will start producing some serious cash...

what do you think?

Own Time: This city has had the same owner for 7 hours, 32 minutes and 39 seconds.
own time is already there, it's only a matter of making a fair formula and applying it... what do you think?

What would be nice is for the city to produce more and more money over time in taxes proportional to the duration it's been owned by one player (peace time for the citizens). So if you just capture the city it will produce little tax money, but if you manage to keep it for a week, then it will start producing some serious cash...

what do you think?


own time is already there, it's only a matter of making a fair formula and applying it... what do you think?

cosign..also options of capturing soldiers would be nice.

e.g if my army is 7 times larger than yours when we battle, I have the option of capturing your army or just killing it off. if i capture then i can sell to slavery and earn geos :evil or convert to my own....well just a suggestion...makes it more interesting...maybe even the option to rescue can also be implemented.

another idea would be to have injured soldiers after a battle.....which will give rise to the option for a military mobile medic and building a hospital in the city.
specifications can be discussed later broadly if the idea is approved.

implementing this specific features prevents players from getting bored n is also instrumental in making this game an advanced n complete game which i believe is the long term goal for the developers.

At the moment the only good aspects of owning a city are that you can access the stockmarket and you get your name on a list titled "TOP PLAYERS"And why are you playing this game, if not to be among top players?

having more than one city is a luxury.
I think that by now, any powerful city you capture will be more expensive to maintain that money it earns you.
you have to understand cause and effect; if cities earn more money then people will attack it more, therefore making the extra geos worthless.
it is inflation. Pump more money into the economy and noone will benefit. The average war will go from 1000 troops to 10000 troops.

Morgenson - Australia is not the best of places to get rich off cities, most are 5-ish geos a day and the ratio of Australian/NZ players to Australian cities in gewar is quite high at the moment.

So I make my riches by other means, not from unpopulated Australian cities.

(edit does anyone in TWA or someone joining TWA want a free 5 geo city??)

having more than one city is a luxury.
I think that by now, any powerful city you capture will be more expensive to maintain that money it earns you.
you have to understand cause and effect; if cities earn more money then people will attack it more, therefore making the extra geos worthless.
it is inflation. Pump more money into the economy and noone will benefit. The average war will go from 1000 troops to 10000 troops.

Example for infrastructure:

A small 5 geo-ish town can give you like a 500 geos a day when you invest in infrastructure.
But your infrastructure is worthless to the next guy because if he takes over, the infrastructure will be gone and the city will be worth 5 geos to him until he takes the time to invest in it again.
Also investing in a city wall will mean it becomes harder to throw you out

That sounds better, how long untill infrastructure would be implemented?