A city that will have 5 families.. no one else will get their chance to lead a family. The usual people who let leader on nearly every account will continue to do that and no one else will be able to have a turn as leader because they can't auth anyone else due to a limit. We all know that there a multiple people in the game that are preferred leaders and good leaders so EVERY account they get it.

Ok now this is a player controlled issue. The fact is, if leadership is strong enough and has sufficient vision, they can auth new blood and try things out whenever they like. Right now we have one empty city, there is room there for new blood. Each city could have new blood set up. It only requires strong leadership to have a vision of the bigger picture. Its all too easy to run the old boys network and have the same people set up time after time, if there is a strong candidate for auth, let them have a run at it. It is sadly a risk most city leaders seem unwilling to take. Yes I'll grant you it takes balls but what is the point of claiming to be a city leader if you don't employ courage?

You have been a leader so regularly because you are reliable and well connected. What if the leaders did not to auth you and gave that chance to someone else instead? Would you be upset that you were passed over or would you respect them for having a progressive vision? Ultimately this is a player regime issue and as Snip pointed out, the only way to resolve issues like this is to rank up and do something about it.

In relation to your other point about implementing it in the current situation. Yes, it would be difficult. Again, it would require strong leadership to make the decisions and understanding on the part of those being told to close up shop or move their family out of the city. It would not be a straight forward transition for sure but a vital one that needs to take place.

To elaborate briefly on my earlier post.

If we choose to, the vast majority of issues can be interpreted as 'player issues'. It is a shield that can be raised when nearly any aspect of the fundamental 'rules' are questioned; we've seen it used with wacking, we've seen it used with bodyguards and now it can be used here.

Sure, the players could change this and they could enforce a decision on how many crews can be in each city, but very few of them ever will. As Kurtz has already pointed at, the majority of players are selfish and interested in only their own success. That's fine and makes it entirely unsurprising that people insulate themselves as much as possible. It is also this attitude that creates long lulls in activity and those on the top are rarely prepared to risk losing that position by rocking the boat.

The reality therefore, is that unless player hands are forced then nothing is likely to change. Why wouldn't you buy a bazillion BGs if you could? Why wouldn't you kill every inactive under the sun if you could? Equally, why wouldn't you set up 15 crews, even if they are all robots, if that is going to make you stronger? Simply put, you wouldn't.

I've long been an advocate of doing whatever is required to succeed, so I can't criticise anyone for using the tools at their disposal to achieve that goal. However, eventually the game requires either a leader prepared to gamble on changing things despite that change not necessarily being in their best interest, which is rare, or the decision has to be removed from their hands altogether. When it isn't, you are presented with a scenario like we have at the moment, a lot of self preservation and not much communal benefit.

The advantages of limiting the amount of crews are numerous. This would weaken the strongest, which with the monstrous gulf between the new and established widening all the time, is certainly a good thing. It will promote a ruthlessness that is definitely lacking, as with a finite number of positions, a better quality of candidate is necessitated. There will no longer be a case of simply authing for the sake of it, the position will need to be considered and those given it (hopefully) justify their selection. Standing out to those of importance should be difficult, making a name for yourself should take work; it should take effort and it should take skill. At the moment, I really question whether that is the case.

It is a difficult situation and I can understand the reluctance to limit player decisions and game play, especially when they are so uncommon at it is. However, the benefits of doing so are significantly greater than what will be lost.

This suggestion has already been implemented.

http://mafiareturns.com/war/wack.php?ajax=true

http://mafiareturns.com/war/wack.php

Gets funnier a second time.

"Standing out to those of importance should be difficult, making a name for yourself should take work; it should take effort and it should take skill. At the moment, I really question whether that is the case."

So, you're saying you doubt that the current crew leaders have earned their position? As if you can see into a cities' HQs and determine the hard work these individiuals have put into their city and family.

"This would weaken the strongest, which with the monstrous gulf between the new and established widening all the time, is certainly a good thing."

This wouldn't weaken the strongest at all. They would still have a massive amount of bodyguards and a massive amount of guns. It would change nothing.

You guys are acting as if enforcing a crew limit, the game would be more fun. What about sitting at the rank of Don, waiting for months on your chance to step up would be fun? In my opinion, this would make the game even more stagnant. As I stated before, if you implement a crew limit, the bigger cities will start taking over the smaller cities for no other reason than expansion. When they have taken over all the cities, then what? It'll be like the situation with Deimne all over again. You'll have one power sitting on the top and eventually everyone will grow more bored than they currently are. A crew limit is NOT a good idea, no matter how many times you tell yourself it is. You claim it's for the betterment of the game, but everything I see that this will cause will hurt the game. Not only will people stop spending credits because the game is less enjoyable and less people will be setting up auth, buying NPMs, etc, but people will begin to leave the game. It happened when Deimne was in power. Do you think he stopped coming on as much simply because he got busy? This idea is and always will be horrid. If you want to make an idea that will help the game, suggest something to deal with member whoring.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

I don't need to see into a city's HQ to make that determination because if that is the only criteria, then we've already stumbled upon a huge problem and I would feel completely vindicated in my judgement. Auth should be difficult. It should be for the elite, those who regularly demonstrate an understanding of Cosa Nostra and have some semblance of street credibility. How would someone who nobody has ever heard of manage to get people to join them? In a real world, they would not. I don't doubt that some amongst the current crop worked hard and continue to do so, equally I know some happened to just be in the right place at the right time. That is, unfortunately, the state of play.

This suggestion would definitely weaken the strongest and if you can't accept that on face value by using logic, apply basic maths. 9 is greater than 5. Removing 9 crews is significantly more difficult than removing five. Whilst it wouldn't address the obvious underlying problems, it would most assuredly be a step in the right direction.

Similarly this suggestion would enable the players to make the game more fun. If you're at Don and you want to step up, prove you're worth it! What aspect of having to up your game or taking matters into your own hands would increase game stagnancy? I fail to see that. Unless everyone has become so used to the time of plenty that they've forgotten what it means to go a little hungry? Survival of the fittest breeds the highest calibre of competition and thus the best candidates for the roles. This is the Mafia. You want a position? Take it! Scheme to get it! Line the right pockets, make the right connections and work hard. Essentially, be a mobster.

The cities already answer to a select few and if history shows you anything, nobody is untouchable, even Deimne. I also think you're a little late with 'people will begin to leave', I'm fairly sure a good number have already gone and have been supplemented with robots. To me, interaction in a role playing game is vastly superior to the purchase of credits. If that has changed then perhaps it is time to pay subscription upon joining and be done with it.

If crews are limited to 5 per city and every single spot in every city becomes full, how exactly can you prove yourself better? Do you think the Godfather is really going to take a crew leader down, wasting the money they paid for them to get an HQ in the first place, just to give you a shot? As Roman stated in another thread, he would rather auth a bunch of little guys and see their potential than to auth guys he know will succeed in this world. If I am not mistaken, in the real world, mafioso didn't come out in the streets and give speeches, talk about their best heists, etc. So, your points about street credentials is invalid. Mafioso were quiet and did their job. Omerta alone stopped them from talking about what they had accomplished within their family, so when someone tookover, essentially they would be a nobody. The only knowledge of their actions that you would have would be heresay. I am not late in saying that people will leave at all. Just these past few months, we've seen more people walk out the doors. Ex crew leader Cassiopeia for instance, no longer plays. You claim limiting the crews in a city would make stronger cities weaker, but I don't see it. That city will still have the same guns and bodyguards they currently have. With or without crewleader, several of the current auths in each city would be able to hit the same targets they can currently. The only thing this suggestion would cause is more people sitting, waiting for their chance as I have stated multiple times. You can't step up and prove yourself if the positions are already filled. If everything becomes full, there becomes no room for opportunity. Without opportunity, this game becomes less fun. Without being able to move up and have a chance to get to the top, more new players will stop playing. This suggestion WILL hurt the game in the long run. Anyone claiming it won't is blind to anything but their own cause.

If you are better than the competition, you will rise to the top. It is inevitable.

On the basis that we are 100% realistic, our whole genre is flawed. Real mobsters didn't shoot 1000000000000000 people or have an entourage of that size either. They didn't perform millions of jail heists, rob hundreds of old ladies or steal from thousands of post offices every week. If we apply that argument through all the way, we would all be serving maximum life sentences or have been executed for our crimes long ago, wouldn't we? Instead, we have to make allowances for where we are and the medium through which we try to achieve playing our role otherwise any sense of realism is lost and we would have to settle for purely the automated functions. I don't think it is a stretch to expect people to be able to interact in the Streets, demonstrate knowledge, humour, intelligence, etc to the larger populous - bringing validity back to my points.

Actually, within the community, someone making a name for themselves would undoubtedly be known. They wouldn't go from nobody to Don like we do here, but they would first work the streets, then run the guys who work the streets and so on. If you believe that they wouldn't be known to those around then, I don't really know what to tell you - you're wrong.

Again, I can only ask that mathematics is applied. 9 crewleaders are stronger than 5. Removing 9 crews is significantly more difficult. I don't propose that this is the final solution, but I do believe it is a step in the right direction.

The bit you aren't getting is that you don't just have to sit and wait. You can use the non-automated elements of the game to progress further. Some of the very best players did far more damage with their words than they did with their guns and that is what I personally feel is being lost with the current system. If you can't see that, I can't make you and I accept perhaps I am out of touch with the aim of the game now, but to me it was always that interaction took precedent over everything else.

If people have already left, saying people will leave is actually being late, but there we go.

If you asked me what I think would be a better system, I would suggest adoption of the original 'Captain' idea that I suggested. That is very much in line with Roman's views of giving many people the opportunity, without compromising either realism or gameplay as significantly as the current method does.

I have no cause and I can see that this is a move in the right direction. If this is implemented or it isn't has no effect upon me whatsoever. I suggested, to other players then, in limiting the amount of HQs when I was at the top, I still think it makes sense at the bottom.

Would you be upset that you were passed over or would you respect them for having a progressive vision?

I wouldn't be upset at all. Being a leader isn't everything to me, all that I care about is being alive and working for my city and doing my best. If the option to become leader crops up along the way I will take it.

Now as your point Kurtz about leaders grabbing the courage to set up new people to the CL role.. I completely agree with you. If I recall.. my ancestor has a complete new set of leaders when he took a city and only about a month or so into that leadership one of the old guys came in to become a leader too. So as you can tell I am a VERY firm believer in giving the new people a chance.

More power to you then mate. Good on you for being brave enough to do that and provide some much needed variety.

Ok to Phreaking_Panda's points:

What about sitting at the rank of Don, waiting for months on your chance to step up would be fun? In my opinion, this would make the game even more stagnant.

I would think it would make the Don frustrated. With that frustration I would expect him to do one of a few things. Be more active in the streets*, in his creative ideas for his own crew, in his work for his city or his activity in businesses. If his attempts to provide greater service to him family and his city went unnoticed or unrewarded, I would expect him to get annoyed and do something about it. Break the rules, try and remove his own leader, help another city attack his own (there are countless cases of all of these things happening in the past). If he was noble and loyal to the end, maybe hew would suicide and start a new life with a family he saw more opportunity in. There are many things that could or might happen. The point is that it forces activity in the game. Knowing that such opportunities were limited would force the Don to make a decision and take action. Rather than just sitting there knowing that eventually it might be possible for his city Godfather to auth the 14th crew in that town. That would not be an option. Once he had evaluated his chances he would have to make a decision. That would cause action. And by default action is more interesting than non action.

As I stated before, if you implement a crew limit, the bigger cities will start taking over the smaller cities for no other reason than expansion. When they have taken over all the cities, then what? It'll be like the situation with Deimne all over again. You'll have one power sitting on the top and eventually everyone will grow more bored than they currently are.

And eventually if any of them are worth their salt as mobsters, they will do what they did to Deimne, get together and take him out. The fact is, this is an inevitable cycle for any massively powerful regime. If you restrict the number of crews available, it just happens faster. There is less room to keep impatient people placated with CL roles and promises. There are less excuses for inaction. Frustration builds much faster and in turn takeovers and take downs happen with far more frequency. If you can not see the obviousness in that then I suggest you might not have been around or paying much attention back in the old days when such limits existed. There were constant wars.

A crew limit is NOT a good idea, no matter how many times you tell yourself it is. You claim it's for the betterment of the game, but everything I see that this will cause will hurt the game. Not only will people stop spending credits because the game is less enjoyable and less people will be setting up auth, buying NPMs, etc, but people will begin to leave the game.

It is not me telling myself anything. It is an easily observed comparison between two points. One where fewer crews existed and one where such restrictions do not exist. The resulting patterns of life and flow in the game are hugely different. It is not a matter of opinion.

Before NPMs were installed, the largest expenditure of credits always happened after wars. Wars generate fevered enthusiasm from players to get back where they were and masses of credits get spent on jails etc.

People leave games because they are not entertained by them. No other reason. If you were around when there were wars every week, you would have been easily able to observe just how feverish the enthusiasm for the game was. Even from the players who were getting taken down. It was vastly more entertaining than sitting and clicking and doing whatever else it is people do to pass the time while nothing happens.

This idea is and always will be horrid. If you want to make an idea that will help the game, suggest something to deal with member whoring.

Ok If you wish to present a proposal regarding member whoring, do it. I'd be interested to hear it. I have an opinion on that but it is not what we are discussing here.

If you believe this idea to be 'horrid' fair enough. If I can not make you see why you are so obviously wrong then I will resign myself to that and leave you to your strangely vitriolic short sightedness.

I have always been a fan of limiting the number of crews. Whilst lets face it, the Godfather technically could have as many subcrews as he wished, the basic tennents of Economics would suggest the laws of diminishing returns here. There is only a finite amount of business in each city. Only so many businesses that can pay protection, only so many punters looking loans, only so many johns looking hookers and so on, I hope you see mmy point. Not to mention the crack down by federal Law enforcement if a city where completely overrun with gangsters and crime.

Having 6 crews of 40-50 people in each city (4 or 5 of them even) is stupid if the user base is not big enough to allow this in each city. I like the suggestion of a set number of crews per city. 4 including GF crew is a good number. I would agree that this should be offset with an additional HQ size category, of say 51-75 members, but this should be substantially more expensive than the 50 member HQ, say treble the price at least. 75 member crews should not be the norm and should only be available for the most succesful cities.

I further agree that this should help redress the balance when it comes to who becomes a CL, because lets face it, we have seen some totally retarded CLs out there in the past. I also agree that this would introduce a whole new element to the game as well, with our very own hostile take overs and takedowns as people who feel they deserve a chance are overlooked and attempt to sieze power as well as other CLs looking to expand their spheres of influence into new cities in order to give their most trusted allies a chance at leadership.

On this last point, lets face it, this already happens to a limited degree when GFs in the past have waded into a city and levelled it wholesale. I don't see this having any major negative impact to the game.

These changes would be fairly easy to impliament as well. A simple 30 day notice period, allowing for a GF to decide which crews he wishes to do away with, and also attack other cities in order to expand if necessary. After the 15 days, the larger HQs would become available. After 30 days the Feds would come in and close down any HQs above and beyond the 4 (including GF HQ) starting with the smallest. In a situation where the smallest HQs are the same size, they are both (or all 3 etc) closed down, and the quickest to rebuy their HQ are the ones who survive.

I also feel that the excitement in these 30 days in the run up to the Feds coming in would be one of the most exciting and unpredictable of the last 5 years, and a very uncertain period to live through.

And eventually if any of them are worth their salt as mobsters, they will do what they did to Deimne, get together and take him out. The fact is, this is an inevitable cycle for any massively powerful regime. If you restrict the number of crews available, it just happens faster. There is less room to keep impatient people placated with CL roles and promises. There are less excuses for inaction. Frustration builds much faster and in turn takeovers and take downs happen with far more frequency. If you can not see the obviousness in that then I suggest you might not have been around or paying much attention back in the old days when such limits existed. There were constant wars.

If I recall, Deimne had been inactive and couldn't get to his computer at the time of the attack that took him out. Thus, such a takedown would have failed had he been around. While, I feel the people involved had good planning and completed the task they set forth, this wouldn't happen all of the time. Constant wars to take out the same entity will be worse than no wars at all. I was around when, as you claim, wars happened very often. I remember the days of CP. However, those were not wars. Up until the CP were taken out, they were takedowns. They would auth someone, simply to take them out a few weeks later. I am quite sure that is what you will begin to see when one regime holds all of the power in the game. Currently, it's a battle of politics and will to stay afloat and if you fail, you die. However, if this change is implemented it will be a battle of who has more bodyguards and who has more guns. And what of rogues? If every city is at it's maximum capacity, you can say goodbye to our beloved rogues because they will no longer be able to setup a crew. Without a crew, their chances of success are even smaller. You want a person to rise up and take their position as CL from their leader? Good luck. As we have seen with rogues lately, they live for maybe one shot. Everything you are using to support this idea is on chance. Chance, that a Don would be so unloyal he would attempt to take out his leader. Chance, that wars would occur more frequently. Chance, that people would spend more credits to get back to their rank. You bring up that a Don would suicide to find better opportunities? This would lead to everyone flooding to the same city, simply to get auth which I think is horrible. We see enough suicides in the game already, we don't need another reason for high ranking members of our society to kill themselves.

I remember the days of CP. However, those were not wars. Up until the CP were taken out, they were takedowns. They would auth someone, simply to take them out a few weeks later.

False.

Your memory is obviously skipping over facts. :)

If I recall, Deimne had been inactive and couldn't get to his computer at the time of the attack that took him out. Thus, such a takedown would have failed had he been around. While, I feel the people involved had good planning and completed the task they set forth, this wouldn't happen all of the time

Ok Deimne would have gone down whether he was able to attend the battle or not. Granted, he may have taken a few with him but the weight and strategy of the attacking forces was such that his demise was inevitable.

Constant wars to take out the same entity will be worse than no wars at all.

That is just wildly inaccurate. Wildly.

And what of rogues? If every city is at it's maximum capacity, you can say goodbye to our beloved rogues because they will no longer be able to setup a crew. Without a crew, their chances of success are even smaller. You want a person to rise up and take their position as CL from their leader? Good luck. As we have seen with rogues lately, they live for maybe one shot.

Your point about rogues is actually valid! One I had not considered. It is a shame that would be the case but it would have to be. Rogues have been pretty pointless for quite some time now as you pointed out. Hardly any have done anything of real note past the one shot mark. As such I can't see crew restriction having much of an impact on an already dead practice. They will still happen as recent ones have happened, a buy out and shoot, without even bothering with the HQ purchase etc.

Everything you are using to support this idea is on chance. Chance, that a Don would be so unloyal he would attempt to take out his leader. Chance, that wars would occur more frequently. Chance, that people would spend more credits to get back to their rank

Those are not chances, those are observed facts. Those things do happen. Not a hunch, an easily observed fact.

You bring up that a Don would suicide to find better opportunities? This would lead to everyone flooding to the same city, simply to get auth which I think is horrible. We see enough suicides in the game already, we don't need another reason for high ranking members of our society to kill themselves.

Dons might suicide, people might flood from one city to another, this would only serve to contribute to the swing of powers from city to city. This is never a bad thing when it comes to the healthy cycle of life and death. People suiciding is only bad if they do so to leave the game. If they do so in order to reposition themselves in another city, that's up to them.

And what of rogues? If every city is at it's maximum capacity, you can say goodbye to our beloved rogues because they will no longer be able to setup a crew. Without a crew, their chances of success are even smaller. You want a person to rise up and take their position as CL from their leader? Good luck. As we have seen with rogues lately, they live for maybe one shot.

As Kurtz has mentioned, Rogues now are just a joke. they pop up, take a few ill aimed shots, and die as a result not long after. However Kurtz suggestions would not eliminate Rogues. There is nothing to stop someone ranking up, training their gun, taking out a leader, and setting up in his place to continue the war. All it would eliminate is people buying out and imediately setting up before taking their shots.

Likewise, there is nothing to stop a high ranker killing his own leader and taking his place.

This would lead to everyone flooding to the same city, simply to get auth which I think is horrible.

The current system does not prevent that from happening, just look at NY, Chi and to a lesser extent Detroit. Most of the current CLs and GFs originated in Chi or NY or where authed by someone who orgiginated there.

Your memory is obviously skipping over facts. :)

Your memory, as someone of zero importance at that time, has seemingly led you into false beliefs.

I just read this thread all at once and it was a lot to take in, so pardon me for taking bits and pieces of everyone's points collectively here.

I don't believe the number of crews should be capped. That's a decision that should be left up to the city leader. It would be one thing if entire HQs could be stacked with NPMs but there has already been a real player to NPM ratio implemented that prevents CLs from doing so. A city with 9 CLs (consisting of crews made up of more NPMs than real players) going against a city with far less crews stacked with real players, the outcome could go either way. In fact it could be argued that the city with the fewer crews/more real members would have the advantage with the right firepower and strategy, no?

I was always on the fence about NPMs and still am to an extent, even though I admittedly am loving reaping their advantages. But many of the real-players appearing at the bottom of the 60-sec list are not new, and many have a good idea of what city/crew they are going to ahead of time before even getting 'whored', if not to only return to the crew they just came from (as a result of WB for instance). This may not be the right thread to go on an NPM or whoring tangent, but the recent complaints of 'whoring' going on now is more of a 'desperate' (for lack of a better term) attempt to put real players in a CL's HQ, which would indicate that CLs are still far more interested in filling their HQs with real players as opposed to stacking them with NPMs. There just aren't as many to recruit at the present time.

To my knowledge, there are some new advertising initiatives going into effect soon that could potentially bring a lot of new blood into the game. If so, would that justify cities with say 9 crews in it? I think it would and hopefully for the good of the game could prompt cities with far less crews to expand. To cap the number of crews a city could have based on the current state of the game and user-base is short-sighted in my opinion. Izzy stated earlier he doesn't like putting a lot of restrictions into the code which is one of the elements of this game that makes it great. If cities are stacked with crews that are deemed excessive by the userbase, that is something that could be governed by the players with strategy and planning.

I have to say I dislike Kurtz's idea of expanding HQ size, even though I see where he is coming from in theory. I cringed when I saw the HQ sizes increase after the drabble contest (my own HQ included), but that is personal preference and opinion. That's not to take away from the validity of Kurtz's points either because as usual I found them to be well thought-out and well presented. But I think Kurtz's idea of larger HQ sizes to force players to work harder in order to be noticed is based on the assumption that everyone plays with the same level of dedication, which I think is unrealistic for any online game. There will always be people who play occasionally without much commitment that would get lost in the shuffle, along with veteran players who may need to step back from the game a bit to care to RL issues. I don't believe it would prevent repetitive bloodline promotion either and would limit newer blood from getting top spots like we are seeing now. I'm not even complaining about seeing the same bloodlines given auth account after account because I believe that is human nature and personal perogative of the people who consistantly find themselves in top-tier positions to promote their IG friends. Would it bring back the good ol days where becoming a CL was more of a highly coveted position than it appears to be now? Probably, but it would be at the sacrifice of the players who do not have the time available to commit to the game, and for better or worse I think that's something that should be taken into consideration. The end result may indeed be seeing people in bold-suits that are ill-equipped to hold that position, but those people generally don't last very long anyways so that is not always a negative and still contributes to game dynamic, even if for all the wrong reasons. (And for the record Kurtz, your last point in your OP regarding a more forced distribution of power across the cities is an excellent one, and one I can't really argue thus my lack of addressing it here)

Regarding opportunity for those who work hard/make a street presense/etc in a larger HQ, as a CL, if I have a 100 person HQ and an RHM for instance that I trust, I will be more apt to keep that person in his/her position even if that person cannot commit a great deal of time to the position, even if I have 50 members more active. Maybe that's just me but I'd be willing to bet that it's what a lot fo CLs would do if they were faced with the same circumstances.

To Roman's point in another thread, smaller crews build more of an intimacy (despite my own desire to have a much larger crew for obvious reasons). That's not to say he is right and those who disagree are wrong but it is still a valid point. If that's Roman's preference, then by all means he should be able to put 20 crews in his city if he chooses. A city leader who disagrees and feels he'd rather have less crews with overflowing HQs then have at it. But at least the option is there for both sides of the argument. Smaller crews even in cities that are perceived as powerhouses are still forced to work hard, so I'm not entirely certain if larger HQs would encourage effort, and could potentially discourage it. Just because a city is stacked with crews doesn't mean it will be stacked with real members, or even decent/hard working ones for that matter.

Given the current state of things, I think the cap/ratio applied to NPMs, the labeling of NPMs, along with the new advertising initiatives are a step in the right direction. I'm of the opinion that limiting the crews is a step in the wrong. Limiting crews is restrictive, even if limiting them appears to be more fair at the moment. Personally I don't believe that is the reason for any perceived stagnacy and I don't feel limiting crews would help correct it. But who knows maybe it would. If the change were to take place tomorrow, I'd probably just do what I've done with all the recent game changes and what I would suggest everybody do. Adapt.

Granted, I have not been playing as long as many of you and don't have the same comparisons or frame of references many of you have to the 'days of old' so I'm basing a lot of my thoughts on the state of the game in the past 2 years. I've probably missed the mark completely here and have derailed Kurtz's point entirely. If so, please pardon my long drawn-out post. It's what I do. Blame it on sleep deprivation and a self-serving need to ramble on incoherently.

Quick note, I just reread my mess above and noticed that the way I structured and inserted some of my points could be perceived that I was implying they were points that Kurtz was trying to make, even though he made no such points. That wasn't my intent when I wrote it. I had a whole mish-mosh of ideas I was trying to cram into what turned out to be a big steaming pile of crap. Please consider it a failure on my part to properly organize my thoughts. My ramblings included points I saw being made in this thread and other threads that I felt kind of tied into this subject

agree with every comment on the first post. Limitations on amount of crews per city would certainly enrich game play and interaction