Passed City Governments

Status
Not open for further replies.

DeletedUser

Guest
VisionarySine said:
Proposal: My idea is for players to choose a specific type of government, each government type with its own set of bonuses.

Reason: I think this feature can give players a new way of strategizing and make cities more customizable. It will also give players a reason to keep Senate level high instead of demolishing it for farm space.

Details: This feature will be accessed via the Senate when it reaches level 25. Bonuses from governments will include resource production, to military bonuses, or building production, or more. Only cities with a Senate level 25 can receive the benefits of the government. If the Senate is bolted, for each level lost, the 10% bonus decreases by 2% until it reaches 0% at level 20. The player can build the Senate back up receiving 2% bonus for each level until the 10% at level 25. If a player decides to change a government, a penalty is enforced where all resource, troop, building, and favor production is halted for a certain time in all cities. This is not the final product, but here is the government list and bonuses so far:

Monarchy- 10% Faster Naval Production
Theocracy- 10% More Favor Production
Tyranny- 10% Faster Land Troop Production
Oligarchy- 10% More Resource Production
Democracy- 10% Faster Troop and Navy Speed




Visual Aids: None


Abuse Prevention: The only possible way to abuse this feature I think is by constantly switching governments. A possible fix for this could be a waiting period after switching governments. The player can not switch governments until the waiting period is over. The waiting period can be like 2-3 days.
Click to expand...

i like the idea of using the 25th level of the senate (since no one builds it) . . . however i do not like a couple things

1) if someone bolts the senate, it should take away the bonus regardless, the whole 2% level thing is an abuse in itself . . . if it needs 25th level to be active than it should stop if it falls under that

2) i like the city government change, but i also think that needs to be changed . . . instead of having a period of time, it should be that they have to demolish it to lvl 24 and build it back to lvl 25 to change it, also it should not be something that u can click to get immediately, but an x # of hours depending on the speed settings before the bonus starts

3) i also dont like the penalty for changing ur gvm't type
 

DeletedUser

Guest
i like the city government change, but i also think that needs to be changed . . . instead of having a period of time, it should be that they have to demolish it to lvl 24 and build it back to lvl 25 to change it, also it should not be something that u can click to get immediately, but an x # of hours depending on the speed settings before the bonus starts
Click to expand...

Hmm the wise old man speaks! :p I agree, demolishing and building up again is a good idea, but it leaves the window open for gold abusers to quickly change governments if they come under attack etc.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I don't know if you skipped through the discussion we had on why losing one level and your subsequent government is a bad idea, among other things, but it is ridiculous to even consider that a government change can only take effect by removing 5 farm space, or 1 level off your senate building. Without sidetracking and going into instances of terrorism; changes to government have historically happened without the need to alter or damage a building, and since you are the unquestioned* ruler of your empire, you should have more flexibility in changing governments in each city. The 24 hour period of no resource/favor/troop/ship production seems more than enough for an abuse coverage.

If we're going to regress the idea back into a more overly-simplistic state that has its own unavoidable abuses, and keep it that way; then I hope this doesn't pass.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
I agree with Horus. Changing governments shouldn't be that simple and easy. It should be a very big decision that requires planning and risk.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I as per usual agree with -Horus-.

This idea has the potential to have a large positive impact on the game, and for that it needs to be an ambitious idea with great content. I would not support this idea unless it was that, as I feel changing the game dramatically like we are proposing to do, for a minor change would defeat the purpose of the implementation.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
This would be super useful because it would help me specailize much more effectively.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
no these were voted on already i believe (think)

and had passed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top