Ok so I came up with this Idea in another thread and after some good reviews -Glaurung- suggested I give it a thread of its own.

The idea is to limit the number of HQ's in each city, just like with DFP's. This would mean that when a city becomes fully populated by familes,

the only way for someone to get their own, when authed, is to take out a rival family and set up shop in their ready furnished HQ.

I think that implementing this would add a dynamic to the game, that will make authing someone much more of a tactical decision,

not to mention adding an air of excitement and a greater sense of achievement if your campaign is sucessfull.   

"It would certainly prevent uninhibited expansion and would give leaders incentive to take action against one another--the entire purpose of the game."

- TWENTYCHARACTERLIMIT

Let me know what you think..

Great idea, I'm surprised it's not like that anyway.

As I said in the other thread, wonderful idea. Wars would be more common and we may even see a few aggressive take overs from within, when a consigliere gets fed up with no chance of his own crew. Might even see useless/feckless cls taken out in short order the way it used to be.

A great idea. When I first started playing a while back, I thought it WAS like this.

I heard you could do this by working your way into power and instituting it as policy instead of relying on coding away perceived problems.

Thats a well made point Inobusesacho, could have done with some additional explanation but it follows what i suspect the coders would initially think of it. 

Admittedly a CL or GF could implement these kind of changes to a degree, but it's unlike they'll start asking families to fight each other to the death and give the winner auth.                  (As fun as that might be).

In all realism the drugs we buy and sell would have been limited in both there supply and demand, as well as the area a family controls for such things as extorting protection money etc.  The addition of a limit on HQ would simply be reinforcing the rivalry between families for somthing that is in short supply. 

War is never good for buisness thats my opinion.

Our bussiness is war, thats why we save for BG's, we rank up for protection, we PP for defense and have thugs train up to become hitters.

I guess i'm of the newer generation of players that want more action, too might time spent on COD but maybe thats not such a bad thing?  

Take Philly for example...Ever since the eradication of the royal league philly hasnt been the same. its been months and theres only one crew in all of philly. It takes along time for the community to recover from a war. When war happens, theres no money available for fun events and things like that. The community gets to serious and theres waves of rogue attacks afterwards from pissed off ancestors and friends. I personally enjoy the peace that we are enjoying at the momment. War wlll eventually happen again, its the nature of the beast, but for right now i think its safe to say, that no one wants war. I have goals and ambitions and hope to live a very long life this time around.

Even as a fresh auth, in a city where maybe this said limit would be past limit, I would still have to say that I love this idea. I must agree that it brings much more of dynamic approach to the way cities are handled.

HOWEVER, the one con that keeps taunting me and taunting me again, is the loss of control. I honestly don't feel putting restrictions on how anyone in power on what they can or cannot do, is positive for the community and overall concept of the world itself. By achieving the ranks (in which we have already put a damage too the overall nobility in which the Rank Made and up should carry by the somewhat ease of it takes of achieving), one of the honors of doing so is to have that control of how we do things. That is what makes each and every new Godfather and or Leader unique in their own right, regardless of how much you agree or disagree.

With all this being said, I would have to say, leave it up to the policy makers to implement such actions. I like the idea, however, as much as I may like or love it, it would be my own wants therefore giving me motivation to put myself in the position where I could have the power to make a change. Yet another aspect I wouldn't want to handicap, motivation. Something I preach in the streets continually.

I applaud your thoughts and creativity. You would make a fine Consigliere for any leader if not a leader yourself one day. Creativity is what this world needs.

wow that person you quoted was a genius in his wording!

I know, TCL, however did he come up with that?

Brick, as I've said to you in private I LOVE this idea. I would love to see it be implemented and cannot wait for an Admins response.

So, what did you have in Mind, Brick? I think a GF crew and two(three) captains would be a good number...

A very good idea, it adds dynamic to the game.

A horrible idea that restricts choice.  If someone wants to run a city with 100 2 man crews, let 'em.

Your completely right Jhon, this idea is down there with communism, the nazi regime and selling drugs to small children.

I never considered selling drugs to small children that bad... :/

This would limit a city becoming a fortress, I hope TheDean doesn't take offense at all. But New York at the moment is bloody fort knox, 6 crews under him and 5 of them are nearly full, and they are probably armed to the teeth. I think this idea would make the game more interesting as where loyalties lie after one leaves their city?

TheDean and Roman sent their cls to other cities before this thread (Ragnarok,Captain_Stubing,Magua,Falcao,DavyJones and Joey_Cesari) and i am sure they will send someone to fill empty spot in NO and DET again when they deciede who deserved that. 

As I've expressed in Private, I honestly love the idea, and would love even more to see it added to the game.