Hereno Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 does the natural population growth of cities reset when they're blown up? how exactly does the mechanic for this work? i think it would be amusing if every time your city got bombed to hell and back, you actually rebuilt it and had less people at the same infra level. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atzuya Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Nope. The natural population growth is tied directly to your city's age regardless of its history or current state. It'll always stay the same whether your city is constantly under attack or kept pristine forever. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omnipotent Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 (edited) does the natural population growth of cities reset when they're blown up? how exactly does the mechanic for this work? i think it would be amusing if every time your city got bombed to hell and back, you actually rebuilt it and had less people at the same infra level. You referring to simply a reduction on the actual bonus or a bonus that goes into negatives? If the bonus goes into negatives, Sheepy will have to cap it or we could have a situation in where nations are literally rolled and attacked until they can't rebuild. This will effectively result in driving these people from the game and stopping them playing. Don't get me wrong here, I do like this idea in some ways. You could implement a system like this, but in order to avoid the pitfalls the of the current one suggested, it could be capped at maybe 80% of the base infra population. That way we can have a system where damage as such is done, but at the same time, nations cannot be rolled from the game. Nope. The natural population growth is tied directly to your city's age regardless of its history or current state. It'll always stay the same whether your city is constantly under attack or kept pristine forever. I see nothing wrong with this system either, as at the current rate, it feels far to small to result in any game breaking advantage for the older nations. Edited January 22, 2016 by Omnipotent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted January 23, 2016 Author Share Posted January 23, 2016 no i was just saying it would be cool if the bonus got put down to 0%, i didn't think it should go negative i was just thinking "well over time that bonus is gonna get really large after years and years" this prevents that by turning it into a feature can this thread be in suggestions now since i know it can be one? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.