I'm thinking there's a flaw somewhere in GEWar - problem is I do not know the answer.

As GEWar becomes more and more popular - its not keeping up with the demand for cities. Therefore, cities are becoming (obviously) a highly sought after commodity (well DOH I hear you say).

Anyway - more and more troops are being required to stave off attacks - so many troops in fact, that it outweights what Tax you earn from the city itself - making the City a loss earner. Whats the point in capturing a city, if your only going to loose by having to spend so much on troops (upkeep and replacements - although upkeep itself outwieghts alot of the time) ?

I'm not sure what the answer is really though.

That is coming.
Firstly: we are adding cities every day(while at the moment nobody can join the game)

Secondly: Infrastructure...being able to invest in your city to defend it better and make it more valuable.

ps: did you see what new york city and tokyo give already? That's already a lot of troops every day.

But some of the smaller cities are attacked just as hard but pay out so little, the tax is based on the pop. of the city right? If that's the case then small cities need more cause a city that pays out 22 geos is attacked just as hard as one paying 8. I know from experience...

But some of the smaller cities are attacked just as hard but pay out so little, the tax is based on the pop. of the city right? If that's the case then small cities need more cause a city that pays out 22 geos is attacked just as hard as one paying 8. I know from experience...
So what can we do? Well, we could (a) stop letting people join or (b) set up multiple games, so that 10,000 people (eventually ;)) aren't fighting over 600 cities. But neither of these seem very feasible at the moment.

So what can we do? Well, we could (a) stop letting people join or (b) set up multiple games, so that 10,000 people (eventually ;)) aren't fighting over 600 cities. But neither of these seem very feasible at the moment.

It makes me wonder how the billions of people in the world can live on one planet, here in GEwar we have under 4,000 and it's chaos :p

Exactly ... a quick scan through latest history shows many examples.

eg .. Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
"The city of Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina was attacked by TapiocaMan. 1 defending army (4,458 troops) was killed in the battle. 9,115 attacking troops were killed. thatguy88 retained control of the city."

So more than 9k troops (about 52/53 Geos a day in upkeep??) were required to keep a city that pays less than 17 Geos a day. Those stats clearly dont make sence to attack or defend that city.

Tokyo etc are more inline with reasonable. Your looking at 30k+ troops in order to reasonably try and defend Tokyo - costing around 170Geos a day - but this city pays back some 600 Geos a day. Clearly thats a city worth having.

There's a cross-over somewhere - but at the moment, the payback of the smaller cities - and the demand, makes them simply not worth going for - and too costly to defend. Your probably better off just mining and jeweling until you have around 20k troops and then looking at the 10million Geo cities.

Exactly ... a quick scan through latest history shows many examples.

eg .. Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
"The city of Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina was attacked by TapiocaMan. 1 defending army (4,458 troops) was killed in the battle. 9,115 attacking troops were killed. thatguy88 retained control of the city."

So more than 9k troops (about 52/53 Geos a day in upkeep??) were required to keep a city that pays less than 17 Geos a day. Those stats clearly dont make sence to attack or defend that city.



Actually, there were decidedly less than that there @ the time of attack (a victim of bad "army luck" though I'm not going to go in too much detail for the defender's sake) but it was still enough that it was costing more to defend it than to not have it.

However, having just one city is worth defending for reasons besides taxes (geo limit and stockmarket)

I'm thinking there's a flaw somewhere in GEWar - problem is I do not know the answer.

As GEWar becomes more and more popular - its not keeping up with the demand for cities. Therefore, cities are becoming (obviously) a highly sought after commodity (well DOH I hear you say).

Anyway - more and more troops are being required to stave off attacks - so many troops in fact, that it outweights what Tax you earn from the city itself - making the City a loss earner. Whats the point in capturing a city, if your only going to loose by having to spend so much on troops (upkeep and replacements - although upkeep itself outwieghts alot of the time) ?

I'm not sure what the answer is really though.

I was just discussing this in the chatroom. Problem is there's no difference in attacking a city and defending it. It's easier to take a city than defending it without any way to multiply defence effectiveness. Not only is army upkeep making defending difficult, but the fact that you have to buy new troops frequently just to replace the ones you lose defending your city. Definately city infrastructure is needed.

How about we do this. You guys who feel it is not worth playing this game just quick therefor eliminating the population and opening the game up to those who really want to play.

But the ones who don't play wont be here to read this. ;)

The main income should be from resources.
The city tax is to give a little for your armies, especially for the smaller cities.
Now with extra's coming soon, that will be more worthwile.
But till then you're gonna need cities to grow anyway.
So they have their value in that.