I think this is a pretty good idea. It works well with the RP of starting a crew and growing. My only consern that comes to my mind right away is what if say your CL becomes godfather and has a full 50 man crew. Then whomever is appointed to take the 40 extra must start with the 50 man HQ and is sort of screwed because they can't buy a bigger one.

That isn't nessarly a problem though it can just be an accepted burden.

The more I think about it the more I like this Idea.

... A good way to get more money out of the game.

I think it should be added in that once you contain the biggest HQ, you can pay to keep it maintained. Otherwise, it may resort to a tactic to drop an entire crew, buy a new HQ, then invite everyone back in so that the crew can remain together.

This allows Leaders to give someone a small HQ, in order to test and gauge how successful their earnings will be, letting them build up on their own. Successful crews are able to grow larger. Failures need to be replaced.

Having now understood exactly what the idea is, I do have some concerns.

I'm not sure that I think it is necessarily a good idea to hinder those families who survive the longest and are therefore, most likely (but not always), the best. It seems a little unfair that they, by being the best, are the ones who are made weaker when they should get stronger.

Equally, this will probably serve to reduce the amount of NPMs that a family could use in the long run, especially those who are oldest and shouldn't be using them anyway. I like that aspect a lot.

I think what you're trying to do though, in making sure that a leader is dependent upon their direct families over the long term, could be better achieved by limiting the amount of families in any one city at any time. This would mean that a Godfather would have to keep his most capable, trusted and intelligent leaders around him and move others on, choosing who to depend upon. It would also ensure that the strongest families still succeed and they will have to fill their ranks with capable, trusted and intelligent people, rather than NPMs, to continue to be the best.

Conversely, it would mean that by only having a finite number of positions with which to fill, only the best candidates are chosen, a sense of entitlement to auth is gone, forcing people to improve, shine or take what the want. For leaders, it would be necessary to diversify and branch out, ensuring a more even spread of power and more likely increase the activity in any one era.

These are my preliminary thoughts and I know there was a suggestion about this not too long ago.

~C~

I share Squishys concern with that Chuckle, however, overall I do feel Chuckles point sounds like a better option.

A limit of crews per city, or perhaps citizens per city (i.e. allowing for more, smaller crews, as opposed to allowing everyone to get a 50 man HQ) could be a better answer than to enforce down sizing with age.

Could you imagine you are one of the stronger members of a family, fantastic earner, but due to a gun malfunction you end up dead, suddenly there is no space for you to return? I know this touches on the point of only keeping your strongest members, but I feel and have always felt that everyone in my family is as important as the next and would never welcome having to sacrifice someone to make room for someone else (unless IA, which obviously would be fine).

Just my initial thoughts on first look.

I have to say I do rather enjoy this idea. I may be the only one who looks at it this way, though I'm not the brightest do it's doubtful, but it adds a sense of realism to being a crewleader. Having to spend money on the space you rent out for your hq each month. You can think of it as far as a property tax type thing, or maintenance on your building. The list goes on.

The only question I have, is will it be the same for Godfathers? Or will they continue to have the smaller hqs of the city? Doesn't make much of a difference just curious.

What happens if you are at the largest HQ? How will you reset the timer?

What does diversify mean? Smart fuckers always using fancy words, making me feel stupid.

So what happens if the said crew leader ends up disbanding for... a few weeks, then starts back up again?

I'd rather not see a hard cap on city size. A soft cap would be interesting to me though. The luxury tax in that situation could be an incrementing city hall tax based on population of a city. (ie. A tax per crime on profits to keep a large criminal organization under wraps? maybe 5% decrease in profits over 25% of total population, 10% profit decrease over 30% population,... etc.)

This shrinking of HQ size over time seems to be something that could be easily avoided if its an option to drop an HQ and then buy a new one. I just don't know if it necessarily is a good idea to limit people who get slow starts in recruiting due to when they were authed or whatever other circumstances they have.

It sounds like an unecessary tax on Crew Leaders.  And, it would hardly seem realistic that my walls shrink after buying an HQ.  If they do, the architect needs to be WACKED!

I find the idea interesting, in no way realistic, but a way to create some ebb and flow in the game. I have no doubt that it will be countered in all well organised citys but then atleast it will take some money out and make some changes necesary that migth still stir the top3 post up abit.