I propose a few city changes.

While i'm here. A large percentage of cities i think could be interesting because they are on islands/are port cities
cities i added to usa and australia are to fill it out, in the west for both cases.

Japan: add Naha

South Korea: add Jeju City

Indonesia: many possibilities, like: Manado, Manokwari, Ambon

West Australia: Port Headland
Nothern Teritory: Alice Springs

Chille: Iquiue
also, La Serena is not a port city, you are looking for Coquimbo
once again, Conception is not a port, you are looking for Talcahuano

Peru: Cusco

Uruguay: Salto

Texas: add Amarillo, Texas

Mountain: add Boise, Idaho, and Reno, Nevada

Pacific add Spokane, Washington

Midwest: addOmaha, Nebraska

Sweden: add Visby

Denmark: add Ronne Ronne

Ukraine: add Chernivtsi and Donetsk (taken into account that ukraine needs a nerf, hopefully these cities will raise the income enough, i'm thinking it should be around 5.5k.)

possible new New Countries: (all islands, lol)
Bermuda with it's capital as Hamilton
Faroe Island capital as Tórshavn
Tonga capital as Nukuʻalofa
American Samoa capital as Pago Pago
Cook Islands, capital as Avarua
French Polynesia capital as Papeetē
Guam Capital as Hagåtña
Palau capital as Melekeok

I really hope this is a joke, most of these countries honestly don't need anymore cities. Especially Ukraine, if you want the income to be raised, they can do that instead of adding cities. Asia does not need any more cities. Thunder bay? What would be the point, the Great lakes are apparently a barren wasteland of sand and death (hence no boats being able to travel on it, and a thread dedicated to that being ignored). Juneau? I can see it being added, but not as capitol. It would make the North even more useless, as Anchorage is more northern than Juneau, so everyone would skip over it. Rio Gal is fine, take 2 turns to send an air-trans down there and your fine. If Rio Gal is useless, than so would any cities being added in the north, as many would just skip over it and head to Brazil, you can't stop that. Zanzibar can be interpreted as either a country or part of Tanzania, but since the admins wish to stay out of politics, Zanzibar (and the Western Sahara) should be left alone. Cusco? Why Cusco? Because it has important historical significance? Or because it's population is noticeable? No reason to add a city in a country where most of it is crag, and underpopulated! (/sarcasm). Omaha? Lincoln ftw. Texas is fine, no need for more cities. Europe DEFINITELY doesn't need more cities, only ones I could think of would be Straßburg or Kursk, as they could work with many, many, many scenarios. More islands? Don't we have enough? Fine I guess, more countries equals more possibilities. Overall, if you guys were aiming at making areas more like Europe, you're on the right track, but a lot of reasons why Europe is Europe is because it's so diverse, nowhere else in the world is it like Europe. I could see North America (Primarily Canada, Great Lakes, Atlantic and Mountain) being split more, so that it's more "Diverse", but you cannot recreate Europe anywhere else, it just can't work properly. A lot of the cities listed are not needed, but a few gems were in there. Just remember, think of cities for [b]underpopulated[/u] areas, rather than filling an already full land.

Lol i said before it was basically to fill in spaces, yeah india and usa needs a split, this is obvious, i also think china should be better split, a battle in asia is boring. :/

i just threw ukraine out there, didn't really expect anyone to take it seriously rofl.

biggest changes are actually in the americas

"In a 1v1 Asia VS Europe, Asia's at a disadvantage. There's no question. I think Nanning at least would be a good thing, since it has 6 million population and isn't super close to any other city."

This is absolutely the worst way possible to handle the situation.

First off, Asia's easily got a larger income and amount of troops than Europe. (12681 to 8546, last I counted)

So there's no disadvantage to Asia's troops and income...

However, the horrible countries near Europe and how spread out western Asia is causes an easy overrun by Europe, then balancing the sides about equally.

What I propose is a stronger central Russia and Kazakhstan.

Reasons I suggest this:

1) Northern Asia is the weakest area to defend by Asians, giving Europe an easy route in unless troops are launched from extremely long distance to defend it.

2) If central Russia & Kazakhstan were boosted, it wouldn't fuck up Europe or even Europe+ games.

3) Kazakhstan is in the top quarter of GDP in real life but horrible to play in AW, so it could use a boost

Escrito por Stomach Ulcers, 26.05.2012 at 18:17

It's SO much easier to get money quickly in Europe than in Asia. All of Asia's money sources are guarded by 8 stacks of infantry that you HAVE to take to get any money at all, whereas europe has a couple of those and tons of militia cities very tightly packed together. I'm not saying adding Nanning will solve the problem, but it's a start.

Adding Nanning makes yet another Infantry-guarded city in an area already packed with them as well as making it as far as possible from Europe.

Escrito por Stomach Ulcers, 26.05.2012 at 18:17

But, this would just make Europe stronger once they get Russia central, since it's far closer to europe than it is to asia.

Any smart Asian player (Because, you know, Asians are freaking geniuses) could reach Europe fairly quickly, even when starting from China: South. He'd just have to focus his units correctly. Europe generally has a lot more conflict over their countries than Asia, so even if someone there took Central or Kazakhstan it would be able to fall to China. Once that happened, you've got a line of defense that you can actually USE in Asia, that could hold out.

Yes, this could be used by a European player. But that's like saying to nerf India, because a European player could take it and use it to attack China. Granted, India's closer to China's main cities, but Kazakhstan borders the city of Wulumqi, which is a good invasion point from a Chinese standpoint if it's still neutral (Wulumqi should be claimed by week 6 anyways, so it likely will be).

I'm suggesting a big change in Kazakhstan and a slightly smaller one in Central (And possibly moving some cities around in Siberia)

Actually, I have a lot of Asian ideas... I'll give credit to you where due, but I'm going to make a separate thread regarding mine

>asia has more money than europe

nope.

Escrito por nonames, 26.05.2012 at 19:33

>asia has more money than europe

nope.

Are you trying to troll? If you're being serious, please exit your browser and dip your head in battery acid.

Escrito por nonames, 26.05.2012 at 19:33

>asia has more money than europe

nope.

Not sure if troll or ignorant.

Asia total income: Nearly 13000
Europe total income: Under 9000

Escrito por Stomach Ulcers, 26.05.2012 at 22:15

Escrito por Garde, 26.05.2012 at 20:18

Escrito por nonames, 26.05.2012 at 19:33

>asia has more money than europe

nope.

Are you trying to troll? If you're being serious, please exit your browser and dip your head in battery acid.

I'm so glad you're here to derail my thread.

Escrito por goodnames679, 26.05.2012 at 20:58

Escrito por nonames, 26.05.2012 at 19:33

>asia has more money than europe

nope.

Not sure if troll or ignorant.

Asia total income: Nearly 13000
Europe total income: Under 9000

Are you taking into account all of asia (including middle east and siberia etc?) Because I know for sure the cash in hand after taking all of europe compared to having east asia is astronomical. But really, all i suggested was to add another city since it is in fact a giant city, oh well I guess the thread will devolve into big arguments and nitpicking.

No arguments on the horizon. Back to subject, after doing a little testing and thinking, an extra city in Asia like you said would be fair in some regards, I also now find Rio G useless, as I thought the Falklands had a city on them (Don't ask why, i'm never down there), so a more northern city of Argentina might not be a bad idea, but i'd rather have a city in the Falklands, so Rio F has a point, and so do those lonely islands.

I would count north africa, middle east and russia as europe, because it will reach there before asia does.

what i'm saying is it's much easier to accumulate a huge income in europe because all the cities are close together.