What about if one ownes the capital of a country or a city that has been selected for this purpose, the owner of this city gets to collect taxes from all the homebase owners in a certain country. The holder of the capital can also set the tax at a rate he likes. This could encourage for instance that people move their homebase to countrys with low taxes, or capitals with high tax income will be hotter contested.

EISBEIN

a good idea, random, but makes sense

small problems there, you cant move your homebase, and when you set it, many dont have a clue of what's going on in the game.

secondly, in the real world high tax usually has some advantage, i'm not sure why it would be so here.

This idea might be better if all the cities in the same area were taxed, so people may want to avoid taking a city that isn't a capitol and instead go for the capitol, thus making some big battles over capitols of large countries. (The U.S., Russia, China, etc.)

that's more feasable, and has therefore been proposed already.

heheh TIMMEH! :cool: (every time I see your posts that scene plays in my head)

Sounds good here, but we'll see what the masses think..

T.

Yep, I like it in theory so far. You'd have to break some areas up though and nominate a capitol. For example only have 3 or 4 capitols in Europe covering certain areas.....West, Central and East.

A capitol should control at least 10 other cities.

Tired ramblings...

Blitzkrieg

With this and the "Territories" thread, this game is quickly headed toward turning into web-based Risk with a GE backend. That's not a bad thing; I loves me some Risk. I just think it's interesting because there was so much resistance to that type of direction initially. Maybe it's cause Rasqual is nowhere to be found these days...

Well if something works on another game, why not "be inspired" by it ;)

What about if one ownes the capital of a country or a city that has been selected for this purpose, the owner of this city gets to collect taxes from all the homebase owners in a certain country. The holder of the capital can also set the tax at a rate he likes. This could encourage for instance that people move their homebase to countrys with low taxes, or capitals with high tax income will be hotter contested.

EISBEIN

Frankly, if i owned the capital of a country I'd have the highest tax rate so that I don't have any other players on my turf. Not that I'm anti-social, but more people close to you means that more people competing for the same cities that you are.

also true, i repeat, there is no reason whatsoever to put in low taxes.

id go 100% and keep all the cities myself :), maby even 110%

And i agree with birq here, there's enough online risk going on, and risk with a 1000 people just doest sound like much fun to me..

also, it would be completely wrong in the story line!

Hmm... if the game has the teature of moving homebases to another coordinates, the taxes to the capitol makes some sense
otherwise not...
but is just my opinion :cool:

khmm.. i just thinking...
What, if in GeWar world randomly appears some cathastrophies, or diseases etc, events that causes some deficit in players taxes, for a certain period.
Say: cholera in Balkan--> al the cities in Balkan lost -10% of city taxes for mmm...mmm...1day? 1/2day? and so.
Maybe some earthquakes in Oil Area and bang--> all oil dwells production loses ..mmm..mm..say -5 to -15 % of production for 1day? 1/2day?
(fire in cotton fields, something else in diamond mines)
mmmm.... thinking stopping.
Your opinions?

seriously, look 5 posts down.

http://www.gewar.net/forums/showthread.php?t=55

go nuts.

Yeah, the movable homebase idea is a better subject to think about in this thread, this would bring along with it a form of GEwar politics, and the decision of do I stay to be near the city I want, or do I move away from the taxes?

jesus people, taxes are not going to work, why would anyone want to "atract" other players? i want to repel them.

the only thing that might work, is a bonus when you have all cities in a region.
this is an egocentric game, remember that.

Yeah, the movable homebase idea is a better subject to think about in this thread, this would bring along with it a form of GEwar politics, and the decision of do I stay to be near the city I want, or do I move away from the taxes?


Thanks

Thats exactly what I had in mind! Finally somebody understands me!

Eisbein

It could work that the owner of a regional "capital" draws tax at a set rate from the surrounding cities. A player would still want to keep these taxed cities as they give more than they lose. But this would create more smaller "bonus cities" and promote more violence across the world - surely a good thing :)

The capital would not necessarily be every capital city in real life - like I said before, 3 to 4 capitals for the whole of Europe.

* Madrid to be Capital of West Europe incorporating Portugal, Spain and France.
* Berlin to be capital of Central Europe incorporating Italy, Germany, England, Austria, Switzerland, Netherlands, etc.
* Minsk to be capital of North East Europe incorporating All other North Eastern European countries to the bottom of maybe Ukraine.
* Istanbul to be capital of South East Europe from Hungary, Romania and Moldova at the top of zone and Including Greece and Turkey at the bottom.

Maybe 10% of city taxes for each area goes to the owner of the capital

Example: The owner of Madrid would receive 33.2 geos per day bonus. Being 10% of the total areas daily geo value of 332.4 geos/day. Also this might not have to be out of the pocket of the owner - just an extra skim off the top. Therefore Madrid would pay out 61.6/day plus 6.2 as 10% for being the capital.

Not huge is this example (easiest for me to work out as it has the least cities) but think what the owner of Beijing or New Delhi could get......

Of course I also believe taxes should go up more....... Incentive to own cities over save money in the bank. Then the Bonuses would also be greater.

I'd still tax the homebase owners rather than city owners! Kind of an IncomeTax. Why is it every body with money want's to live in Monaco??

Eisbein

i'm agreeing with blitz here, that's the only thing that's going to work i guess, with set taxes.

eisbein, its a dumb idea, get over it, taxes are to support the government, we have no government, everyone would just raise their taxes to the max and take all cities themselves, or to the minimum to support alliance members or such.

i'm agreeing with blitz here, that's the only thing that's going to work i guess, with set taxes.

eisbein, its a dumb idea, get over it, taxes are to support the government, we have no government, everyone would just raise their taxes to the max and take all cities themselves, or to the minimum to support alliance members or such.

All right then!

Never mind, I'm just gonna think up something else stupid.

i'm agreeing with blitz here, that's the only thing that's going to work i guess, with set taxes.

eisbein, its a dumb idea, get over it, taxes are to support the government, we have no government, everyone would just raise their taxes to the max and take all cities themselves, or to the minimum to support alliance members or such.

Harsh as usual (well not to me) :)

Timme is correct that the obvious strategy would be to incease taxes on HBs to the max. Sure, most people would just move away, but in a war game where everyone is going after your cities, the more space between me and everyone else the better. There are no stupid suggestions, only stupid people, right timme?

Keep suggesting Eisbein, the idea itself, though flawed is probably not too far from a workable proposal. Think and tweak and resuggest or as Timme "advised", get over it and think up another enhancement. Sometimes the sound of silence on my suggestions is deafening!

Diplomatic Blitz :cool:

he, im sorry but i believe i already said this in about 5 replies in this thread :D

and also encouraged there to find other things, because ofcourse we all want somthing of an economy in this game.

there's no such thing as a stupid idea, believe me, i have tons of em, but going on about them when they are definitly not feasable (not just a matter of opinion) is a bit lame :)

Yep i'm look there you have right Tim. Sorry about that :o
another> what about taxes in your own city?
If you keep low the population grow, if taxes high the population migrate somewhere else (maybe in the nearest city with taxes lower than their homecity)... it is stupid idea to?

Yep i'm look there you have right Tim. Sorry about that :o
another> what about taxes in your own city?
If you keep low the population grow, if taxes high the population migrate somewhere else (maybe in the nearest city with taxes lower than their homecity)... it is stupid idea to?

Not to bad.

To paraphrase. "You can set the tax rate in a city, the lower it is the more the population grows but you receive less geos. The higher it is the less the population grows but you receive more geos in the short term."

I like it. You need to add the feature of the variable city size first, then this is a good feature to try to build up a city faster for long term gain over short term profit. I wonder what most people would choose to do.

Could you perhaps suggest this as a new feature suggestion, it is starting to move away from the original suggestion too much though.

he, im sorry but i believe i already said this in about 5 replies in this thread :D

and also encouraged there to find other things, because ofcourse we all want somthing of an economy in this game.

there's no such thing as a stupid idea, believe me, i have tons of em, but going on about them when they are definitly not feasable (not just a matter of opinion) is a bit lame :)

Don't worry, I'm not that serious about it. I understand of course that it is much easier to suggest things than to do the actual changes.As for myself, I haven't got a clue how to programm or code anything.So my respect goes out for those people that can and spend hours maintaining and upgrading this game.

I have to say that it is difficult for a newbie that wasn't there from the beginning and hav'nt read all the posts and threads to know wether a certain subject has been discussed before! Therefore you have to say things over and over again even if it anoys you. However it is appreciated!

Eisbein

I'm not really for changing the city population.
I'm for keeping that the way it is, as that makes it realistic.
The rest you can build on is it's infrastructure and there you can perhaps do something with the taxes in the future.
With infrastructure your city can grow in a different way and bring in more money.

I'm not really for changing the city population.
I'm for keeping that the way it is, as that makes it realistic.
The rest you can build on is it's infrastructure and there you can perhaps do something with the taxes in the future.
With infrastructure your city can grow in a different way and bring in more money.

ok, low taxes encourage industry which can give a city an industry score which then affects tax input (tax from population and from industry).

New suggestion coming - too tired for me to go deeper into it though... I'll pass the baton for now. (Or eveyone can wait for a typically long winded suggestion from me tomorrow some time)

Blitzkrieg

ok, low taxes encourage industry which can give a city an industry score which then affects tax input (tax from population and from industry).

New suggestion coming - too tired for me to go deeper into it though... I'll pass the baton for now. (Or eveyone can wait for a typically long winded suggestion from me tomorrow some time)

Blitzkrieg

That already sounds better to me.

al take the baton then :)

say you have your population, they give a certain percentage in city tax.

you also have an "industry factor", the longer you keep the city, this goes up, so a city which should give 100 geo's a day, would get 200 with an industry factor of 2.

raising taxes would slow down the growth, but give you an inmediat benefit, whilst lowering taxes would speed up the growth and in the end give you a large benefit.

ofcourse for this to work, cities have to be way less easy to overtake, we'd need defensive bonusses, and a raise of city tax (or lower the passive income). maby some city upgrades etc.

Cities will be less easy to overtake.
Firstly city taxes will really be going up soon, and the jewel limit will make jewelling then only for newbies.
So the good thing for citykeepers is they get more money from the cities, but the bad thing is that they'll soon not be able to jewelhunt while newbies can.
But to make up for that, there will be a stockmarket where they can invest and some other fun stuff.

I know there are some people who like jewelling, but 95% doesn't.
Ok, then after that you can invest in your city, and because the city gives more money, you can defend it better also.
Perhaps upgrades like a defense wall or something?
If you can invest in your city, then you must also do everything you can to make sure it doesn't get taken(with some of your infrastructure).

Sounds great to me look, looks like you've put alot of thought into it :)

T.

Mmmm a sleep over night. May i come with a siggestion?
I think there be nice to be a lottery in a game.
Players can buy a ticket for ..mmm..say... 10geos, every day at 00:00 hour, comes out the numbers. And the winner or winners take all the geos.
a small percentage mmm, may come to my account. ;)
Its a stupid one too? :p

Come on Tim, at least you make a comment on this ;)
or that is so stupi idea? :D

no, brodie did it once, start one at the jewel games forum.

go for it.

I will.
But Tim you forgot to give me the link...
:D