Here is an idea that would help noobs get up in the world and would be great for those that take a big fall and lose all of their cities but are with an alliance and want to use the stocks. You could implement a way for two or more people to share a city. The Sharer would start the sharing of the city and could choose to allow a precentage of the city taxes to go to the sharies. This would allow both of the people to use the cities ability to allow for trading and use of stock market. I do know that this would then enable multiple account people to start sharing cities with their other account but I think it would be noticed by one of the admins. That two accounts are sharing a city and sending geos to a same account over and over again. Please tell me what you think of this idea.

Hmmm, interesting concept.. I'm sort of neutral about it, after all it is a wargame, and so if you want a city your allies should help you take one, rather than giving you a % of theirs.. There are enough cities, and more are being added every day... fight for your own ;)

T.

Hmmm, interesting concept.. I'm sort of neutral about it, after all it is a wargame, and so if you want a city your allies should help you take one, rather than giving you a % of theirs.. There are enough cities, and more are being added every day... fight for your own ;)

T.

Easy for you to say ;)

No, actually it's an interesting idea, but araT does have a good point. I'm kinda divided myself at the moment for obvious reasons, but I think that after I reflect on it I'll have to agree with araT on this.

I like the idea, it would help people get on their feet and earn up some geos so they can go take their own cities. But this is what I would call a back burner idea, it could wait til after a lot of better things to do.



*Senior Member!*

But however this doesn't just also allow somebody to receive money it would also allow a secondary defense so you don't just have that defense sitting outside the city instead you could have it inside the city so two users could defend one city.

This was brought up before as the concept of allowing an ally's troops to rest and replenish in your city and offer defense if attacked. Personally, I don't like the idea of splitting the taxes -- it's either your city or not -- and now that investment and money transfers are dependent on city ownership, it is a completely different proposition now.

I love the idea! It has ben brought up before but is one of my favorites! :cheesy

I think that whole little Berlin thing showed us two nations can't control a city simultaneously.

I love the idea! It has ben brought up before but is one of my favorites! :cheesy
It would be.. you lazy sod :nana


I think that whole little Berlin thing showed us two nations can't control a city simultaneously.
Hahahaha, so true.. so true.. :)

T.

But however this doesn't just also allow somebody to receive money it would also allow a secondary defense so you don't just have that defense sitting outside the city instead you could have it inside the city so two users could defend one city.

It works better like that.
Player A owns a city. Player B (who is an ally) enters the city and can replenish troops. The combination of the 2 forces can be used to defend the city. But Player B's army is only allowed in for 5 minutes.

Then again Player B could leave his/her army outside and only enter when an opposing force comes along.

Fees/taxes should not be introduced as they are pointless. The city owner (Player A) will more than likely give it all back anyway (to Player B).

Just something to think about.

I never really liked the idea as it would just make alliances stronger, and I'm more working for the new guys as they need more help.

IF sharing cities is ever done, you couldn't use the stockmarket or save up.
It would only be to replenish armies.
Otherwise big alliances would just use this.

ps: did Risk have the option of sharing cities? :)

This is a similar suggestion to one I made, see: http://www.gewar.net/forums/showthread.php?p=6098

Summary of my suggestion:
Allow an alliance member to add troops to another members armies within a city - The cost of the troops would be paid by the one adding them but the upkeep belongs to the city owner.

I think this is a great idea and i back it entirely, however some rules must be set to control cheating for example;

( Capturer is the owner of the city, Occupier is the one being allowed in )

The Capturer of the city gets 2/3 of the Geos produced.

The Occupier of the city will not be allowed more than two armies in the city.

When being attacked the Occupied troops will be called to the battlefield before the Capturors troops.

The Capturor will only be allowed 2 different people in his city in a lifetime of the city being occupied by him.
( eg. If the Capturor kicks out the Occupier he can choose one more person to be an occupier. After that the city will be his and only his. )

both people must agree to a small contract about abusing the privalige and about I.P banning

Anyway, cant think of any more rules......nope still none

The Capturor will only be allowed 2 different people in his city in a lifetime of the city being occupied by him.
( eg. If the Capturor kicks out the Occupier he can choose one more person to be an occupier. After that the city will be his and only his. )

both people must agree to a small contract about abusing the privalige and about I.P banning


Probably won't work as you could abandon the city and give it to an alliance member or reoccupy it ourself and reset the limit.

The fee/contract probably won't do anything. It will probably just be seen as something that is paid for the privledge of adding troops.

Please add this feature because you are forgetting about us new players. We don't have the military power that these big 100 grand army players have and I need everyone in my alliance to help me maintain my city....

Sharing cities would be the perfect solution.

time newbs.... it took me a while to get my first city. I have been playing for a month, and i managed to get a city nearly 10 days ago.

as for the count of cities and players, right now i count roughly 1200 cities. i counted a total of 1850 players, but only 700 with at least 2 armies. only 400 players have cities.

that means that there are 3 player for every 2 cities right now. however, if you count players with 2 or more armies as active, there are nearly 2 cities for each active player.

Or checking the recent activity (http://www.gewar.net/war/recentactivity.php) ...


Users that have been active in the past ...
... 5 minutes: 36
... 15 minutes: 68
... 1 hour: 170
... 4 hours: 378
... 12 hours: 569
... 1 day: 746
... 1 week: 1,168

Looks like well over 1000 players are active. Around 1 city per active player.

That means we can roughly expect 3 cities per player on the new version of the game - featuring 3 levels. Quite reasonable! :)

It would be.. you lazy sod :nana



Hahahaha, so true.. so true.. :)

T.

what would you know you you..... GIRL ;woop

That's totally outrageous! You know as well as I do that your math is flawed; many big players will end up with around 20 cities with the rest left out to dry.