Situation:

On My Nation Map, you only see your capital city surrounded by a wide circle known as your country. One can assume that other cities besides your captial exists within your nation, but I have a suggestion that might improve some aesthetics and make your nation more personalized.

Suggestion:

Add the ability to add cities within your nation. You can give it a name and a description and you can put it within your boundaries. You could create a city for every x citizens (the exact number can be discussed). There can also be a population count for each city, where the captial will have x percent of the total number of citizens, while the rest will be given to the cities (for example, if you had 1200 citizens left, and you have four cities, then each city will have a population of 300).

To encourage players to have cities, having a city would earn you bonuses and/or penalties (for example, each city will decrease population density, or increase citizen count, the effects can be discussed). To prevent abuse, a cap on how many cities can you create should exist.

~ Pikachurin

not sure I see the point in this...but combination of this idea with a more defined war system...ie attack this city might be an option....approved for further discussion

I love the idea, I just haven’t a clue how it could be done, along with the Mod's idea, and chances are it'll be to complex.

Well maybe tie it to your capital name that you name upon making your nation. Mayhaps have an option to bomb the capital city or asualt the capital city etc. etc.

Building on BMTH's post, if you choose to bomb the capital, your opponent loses x amount of happiness for y amount of time.

I like and support this idea.

Furthermore, I'd like to add that I think it would be neat and a good addition to take this idea and admin's mars/wonder idea and make it this instead.

coolz
cello approvez!

Bombing the capital should only be allowed if the entire enemy airforce has been decimated, though.

It would also be affected by the wonder, Anti-Air Defense Network. Lets say if they have the wonder you cant bomb the city until all enemey fighters are destroyed. If they dont have the wonder you can directly attack the city. If you can attack the city maybe you can target Guerilla Campsor the pentagon and they lose the bonuses from asid Improvement and or Wonder.

Also if attacking the city my ground you need the Central Intelligence Agency, for the intel to be able to attack the city in a head on assualt. Also if you attack the city on a head on assualt. Maybe there can be an option to disable a wonder like the Strategic Defense Initiative for a night. As your soldiers go into the city and take out the people defending the complex for the wonder.

The number of people lost in an attack you lose happiness.

1k lost = -1 Happiness
5k lost = -2 Happiness
20k lost = -3 Hapiness
30k lost = -4 Happiness
Anything over 50k = -5 Happiness.

BUt say if you have the fallout shelter the loss of happiness would be cut in half as the people would be given a place for refuge.





Just a rough idea. I could put more thought into it if people like the idea.

I believe just for cosmetic reasons, cities may be a fun way of putting in some more creativity. Though the "Attack a City" option is pretty neat too.

On the war screen you can bomb/attack the capital with a chance to do more damage, but the defenses would be higher (Ex. 30 infra for ground attacks per day, but your percentage would go down/or defenses chances goes up ?)

Well to balance it out for defenders not to lose to much in a war. Id say that you forgoe your ground attacks and or air attacks to target a city. And you can only target one city a day. And if the city has already been targeted you cant target it again on the same day.

defendiers would deploy armies to each city. the only way an attacker would know what the defender has would be by spies.

nukes would only affect each city. with the exception of anarcy.

say 1000 citizens per city. each city would hold a percentage of your happyness

so if you had 100 happyness and 5 cities each city is worth 20 happyness points.

something should be made to make sure captials are harder to attack and are worth more then a regular city.


starting to think this won't happen just because of coding issues.

I like all of the suggestions. I have another idea - maybe instead of bonuses you can place wonders such as the Pentagon, Great Monument and Great Wonder in cities. If your opponent hits the right city, the wonder will get disabled for an amount of time. So having several cities will give an advantage because your opponent won't know which to hit.

or keep it simple and just give the option to raid a city or land attack. if someone raids your city you lose more infra and tech but have a higher chance to win the war and if your lands get attacked, you'll lose more money and land but have somewhat lower chances to win.

Allow me to quote myself from a long time ago on another thread in this forum:



And Sargun

That would be pretty neat, not gonna lie. I think it would quite hard to add into the game though.

Maybe each city holds 5 improvments expect for your capital wich holds 10 improvments.

Nation starts out only 10 imporvments

One city adds 5 more making it 15 imporvments

Two citys adds 5 more making it 20 imporvments

And so on...

However, there should be a cost for each city.

City

Cost: $10,000 and 5 miles of land.

Because of subpluy and demend the cost of the city increases by 10% each city.

Why charge for cities? Just use itas a way to evenly divide up your military, that way in case of attack you have reserves in say a secondary or tetirary location...

i don't really see the porpoise of that... if towns get added i think, as i said above, that it should be kept simple. maybe an incentive to add them to the map and a nice looking place on your stat page are in order and... maybe even some penalties for not setting them (like every city withholding against a certain number of attacks and losing more infra and tech when your capital gets attacked, after all/half (insert preference here) of your cities fall). but the current improvement system is pretty ok as it is...

bold is my suggestions...

Id like the idea even if the cities were just for show and play.

*bump*

That sounds good lol,would add realism

I would like to see this implemented. I don't care how as long as I get to name my cities

This sounds nice =) Even if it has no actual in-game value (like the current location, currency and capital name) it is a nice touch, makes the game more authentic and fun to play, I say go for it =)

K

This sounds neat, it could also be a possible war option.

A lot of things could be incorperated into this. Things such as abundance of your own resources within the cities, having to put other cities into anarchy before attcking the capital and having certain improvements and/or wonders put in them too. 100% support

Do we still like this idea? Even if having a city won't give you resources, we could somehow implement a war system where you can focus on blitzing cities.

But if that's not possible, I think having cities on the map would be awesome for RPing.

How about we allow you to construct one city per 10,000 citizens and each city allows you to build more improvements. Say, a clinic, a bank, a stadium, etc. A city can also be targeted by war and such. When destroyed, the improvement cap drops, destroying those improvements if they exist.

I think that's too harsh. The improvements should only be disabled when the city falls, and it can be re-enabled by repairing it (x% of the improvement's original price).

I'm not sure if this in particular would work, but I would like more strategy and micromanaging in the game. Uses for the map, or cities that have an in-game effect, etc. Basically, just managing more about your country than just buying infra, tech, and military.

i like the 10,000 citizen per city idea
but Do you mean one extra of each improvement
or just one extra of only one specific improvement.

because one extra of all of them would just be too much
say you had 50,000 citzens and 5 cities, that would mean you coul dhave an extra 5 of each. as compared to 5 total.

new caps for number per city should at least be put in place

as for the idea of cities, i am 100% for it.

Maybe targeting a city in war could result in more civilian casualties, infrastructure destruction and more unhappiness.

On the flip side cities are easier to defend and the chances of attacker being defeated are greater.

How about this:

Its made so that the attacking armies would have to capture the cities surrounding the capital before hitting the capital. The number of cities you have around your capital would depend on your infra level. And each city would contribute X amount of taxes to the country to become to the total collection of the country and in war, for each city that gets taken over the attacker gets to have a portion of that city's contribution to the total collection for the country. For each city that gets taken over, anarchy would last one more day.

this idea is from another game that I play but Im not sure if im allowed to say the name since ill prob get warned for "advertising another game" but in that game it works out perfectly.

If you change it so that each city has its own military/infra levels it will make the game just...ridiculously complicated.

Also you can't really divide military without revamping the current attacking war system..as a whole army against 1/5th of an army would be a bit..unfair.


I do like the idea though that being able to attack a city or a land attack sounds good, with more damage done in cities..but less chance of winning. You could expand it a bit further by adding "attack capital" for further risk but more gain.

Should there be a maximum number of cities so things don't get too cluttered for the bigger nations?

For now you could just add an "attack capitol city" option to the ground attack screen that would have the effects discussed above.

how about adding only a capital that changes your entire country. what i mean is at the one month anniversary, you can choose what kind of capital you can have. a diplomatic capital, a military capital or a industrial capital. the nations should not be balanced between themselves, they should be necessary for the good of the entire alliance.

for instance, diplomatic players would get a increased number of slots and a increased quantity of money and tech they can send and decreased peace mode penalties for the price of decreased military efficiency and decreased happiness for war.

militaristic players would get increased battle effectiveness for ground attacks (double the damage they do, the money they can plunder as well as a chance to commit atrocities that lower the happiness in the nation they are fighting and reduces their population) but not so good aircraft, cruise missiles, nukes and spies (although their spy defense should be increased).

and industrial players would just have normal ground attack effectiveness but do increased damage with CM's, nukes, planes and increased chances of spying others (save for militaristic nations).

anyone feel like doing tweaks, please do.

I agree that there should be a cap on cities. Maybe around 20?

As for the war system, maybe your whole army can still defend a city. You can't attack three nations with the same army in RL, right?

How about this

Militarist players get increased military stats, like you said.

And Industrial players get Military (but espcially tanks, CMs, Aircraft)and Infra at a cheaper price

Maybe you could have the country divided into cities, and you can edit each city seperately, buy infra or land. but tech counts for the whole nation. You have military bases in each city and you can attack each city seperately, when your chances of battle are over 80%, you occupy the city, wen they exceed 95% you take over the city. Wiping out all forms of military in the city will make it automatically yours, but if you 1-5%, the remaining military act as rebels that continue decrease your population happiness in that city, and cause small battles for two days.

That would make the game more realistic, but too complicated.

In terms of cities, I agree with this, with the exception that industrical and economic bonuses are changed to having more varied bonuses and consequences:

Per city, each open for purchase for every 1000 land:

Tourist = +1 Happiness, -2% soldier efficiency, +2% infra cost
Industrial (Weapons) = -10% soldier cost and upkeep, +5% soldier efficiency, +2% infra upkeep
Industrial (Machinery) = -10% tank cost and upkeep, -5% aircraft and naval cost and upkeep, +4% infra upkeep
Industrial (Services) = -3% infra upkeep, +3% infra cost
Agricultural = +2% population bonus, +4% infra cost
Financial = + $2 to citizen earnings, +2% infra upkeep and cost, -3% soldier efficiency


Something to that effect. There would be a mix of economic cities (tourism, industrial services, agricultural, financial) that'd bring positive economic effects, but'd bring infra costs up and make it harder for the military to defend. What's easier to hold: a high-rise financial district filled with civilians and billions in economic assests, or an industrial zone making weapons, and built securely to defend those weapons?

Shouldn't a city require a certain number of people as well as land?

Also, why would a tourist city affect soldier efficiency?

Tourists do not like soldiers walking around beaches, gift shops and streets. So there would be less forces in that city.

hmm... i like it. but there has to be something more in it that's for the good of the alliance.

Cities
Every 1000 miles of land a nation has opens up 1 city slot.
A nation with open city slots may found 1 city every 30 days for a cost of say 3m.
each city increases that nations base income by 5% at the cost of an increase in base infra upkeep of 5%

Cities in war.
When a nation looses enough land that it has negative city slots, there will be a 5% chance per negative slot that a succesful enemy ground attack will result in 1 city being 'captured' by that enemy and a 5% chance per negative slot that a defeat alert will destroy 1 city

Captured cities are transfered to the enemy nation, no matter how many slots that nation has open. (wonnder if this would lead to city raids)



Fortress Citys,
A nation in war should have the oportunity to declare it's cities fortress's,
This would
1) Increase the defenders ground odds by 25%,
2) Reduce the chance of a city being captured to 1% per negative slot (destroyed in DA remains at 5% per negative slot)
Penalties
Each successful enemy GA captures double the standard land area
Declaring Cities fortress's removes the income bonus from selection of that staus until 30 days after that status is set to normal (upkeep penalty remains the same)

Capital Cities nuked should result in a prolonged period of Anarchy, say 1 day longer or so.

I like this idea.

sounds good, but i'd make it infra with a slider on the GA screen that, when it reaches a certain level, the player doing the GA then would get the city the slider is on right now. the player who defends fights to protect it's cities and the one who attacks fights to raid/steal the defenders cities. if the aggressor is getting whooped, the defender should be given the option to continue into offense or secure borders, giving defense for the duration of the war a big bonus (only one choice/war).

also, naval fortresses could be cool