I haven't had too much time to think this through but the amount of bodyguards in the game has annoyed me for quite some time. Therefore I've tried to come up with a solution. I have come up with something that I would like to get people's opinions on :

Only a certain number of bodyguards (e.g. 30) should boost your defence. If you have more than that and one of them gets shot, another BG takes its place. That way people with tons of BGs will still have an advantage but it will not get out of hand like it has. This would also be more realistic, as no one has 80 BGs around them all the time. I can see the complaint being brought up that this will screw up the defence-wack balance, but in my opinion rich people are too powerful at the moment (especially leaders with all their boosts etc.), therefore it would bring an even better balance.

Any input will be appreciated.

Sherminator

Good idea chief, It does make it a little more realistic. Like you said how often do you see 80 odd bodyguards following about 1 person. 

"as no one has 80 BGs around them all the time"

What about you have your full amount of BGs while in home city, and a max amount while you are traveling?

Sounds like a brilliant compromise to me. It would also give home cities their value back.

Yeah but just wait til your a crew leader, and you are thinking why did i think of this? I think its not realistic but it keeps you safe

I am a crew leader. I have over 30 bg's.

I am 'safer' under the current system (although, happy to admit I'm far from 'safe'), but.. love the idea of the new 'home city boost'. It brings a whole new strategy into war and makes choosing when and where to fly a whole lot more interesting. It also means that pro shots for those with a huge number of bg's also once again become part of a war plan.

I can see far more positives than negatives here, so look forward to see how this one might pan out in the future.

While this idea is certainly interesting, there could be some potential downsides, such as exponentially drawing out wars.

I don't see an issue with the way things are at the moment. Sure, it may be a little unrealistic for a Godfather to fly to another city with 80 bodyguards... but "more realistic" doesn't mean better. It's not realistic that people can only shoot once every hour, after all. Unless we're using antique muskets, which would be a whole other story.

Anyways, I'm just not sure this is a perfect idea. You could have people buying HQ's left and right... changing their home city during a war for the sake of their bodyguards when "realistically" no one could just change the city they're based out of during a war. It's certainly an interesting idea, but I hope that it would be extensively discussed and possible consequences would be reflected on before implementation.

Personally, I think it'd be better to just cap the number at 50 or 60.

Personally, I love this idea. And I think it's perfect the way Sherminator has suggested it.

I can see where Izzy is coming from in terms of limiting the amount of BG's away from home but not in the home city, but despite it bringing back some importance to home city and strategy, I have two main problems with this:

1. As an example, Capone probably had around 50 guys in Chicago whom he absolutely trusted, but cities are big places - how many of those guys would have been on hand to immediately protect him? Not many, maybe 10 or so. If we're talking about realism, it really doesn't make much sense to me, although a home city has many advantages, the proximity of your bodyguards shouldn't really be one in my opinion.

2. As Kates mentioned, it would be easy to exploit and you'd have people changing HQ location every 5 minutes in war time, unless you put a time limit on HQ moving, which seems an unnecessary extravagence in my opinion!

In terms of realism, I think it's a much needed change. Sure, there are lots of things which don't really make sense, but in my opinion the things which are crucial to the game mechanics, i.e the factors that contribute to wars, should largely reflect reality. Kates brought up the once per hour shooting thing, I think that's realistc on the basis that after shooting at someone, the odds are you've got to lie low for a while to escape unwanted police/rival syndicate attention - so if some sort of limit/cap has been placed on the offensive side of wars, I think this would be a great addition for the defensive side.

I'm trying to think of any downsides, and I'm really drawing blanks in all honesty. If implemented, the 'active bodyguard' cap is something that would both level the playing fields between the uber-rich established families and the new crews, whilst the reserve of bodyguards ensures that the older families still gain an advantage for their hard work and longevity.

Sorry if that wasn't too coherent there, and I've no fucking idea where the italics came from btw.

as no one has 80 BGs around them all the time"

What about you have your full amount of BGs while in home city, and a max amount while you are traveling? Reply by: TopHatTerri at Jul 03, '09 20:49

Not to be nit picky, but wouldn't it be the other way around?

I know as a mob boss, I'm taking as many men I've got with me when I travel to other cities. I'm not going to have 80 guys sitting around me while I'm doing paperwork in my office.

If you're going to change it, then swap what you're thinking. If you do it the other way I can see people camping out their entire lives at home.

I also feel like a cap on BG's is smart.  

The thing is Kendra, you fly around all the time - you simply shouldn't be able to take as many people with you. In your home city on the other hand, it is quite normal to be surrounded by people that protect you. Also I do not really see anyone hiding in their home cities, probably only over night. Thinking of it this will give wars another perspective because it may be smarter to attack at daytime while the opposite leader is online and not in their home city. If people decide to stay in their cities all the time, then they will miss out on drug deals, inactives etc. etc.

Oh and I should probably add that I have spoken to izzy and he suggested to put a percentage cap on bodyguards, so this is kind of an update to the thread. The idea is to only allow people to take a certain percentage of their bodyguards with them outside their home cities.

I feel like a majority of the people who give opinions on this are going to be those who do not currently possess large amounts of bodyguards and I worry that they really shouldn't be making the decisions for those who will be affected most by this idea. In theory, anyone frustrated with either the current GFs or older rulers in place would support anything that makes them weaker than they currently are so I personally get a bit skeptical when presented with these sorts of situations. I mean, the idea of "weakening those in power" was even clearly laid out in the main topic of the thread:

but in my opinion rich people are too powerful at the moment (especially leaders with all their boosts etc.)

I think this is an idea that would be better consulted with those who are Obscenely Well Protected ie: ThomasRourke, Odd, or LuckyNellerie rather than a smattering of folks with a few bodyguards to their name. Obviously I work for Marietta and I'm clearly Extremely Well Protected at the moment so my opinion will be taken with a grain of salt, but I don't feel that a concept like this can be introduced "fairly" into the game at this current point in time.

One main question I have:

Will those people directly affected by this receive some sort of "restitution" for the decrease in defense or will this just result in an "oh sorry, you're too strong" for people?

Another bodyguard for me currently costs $3,750,000. Let's say I buy this BG today and tomorrow a cap is introduced saying that my new bodyguard "Camazotz" is unable to travel with me to the far away land of Los Angeles during my voyages there. I sure as hell wouldn't have bought this BG if I had known his usefulness is massively decreased over the span of 24 hours. If you further factor in the cost of training all of these bodyguards over the lifespan of others purchasing them, there could be some hefty amounts given back to those affected by this. I can't imagine most people with BG's would be happy about the idea of decreasing their defense without getting anything in return.

I will admit it's a very intriguing idea in theory, but in my opinion it's an idea that would best be served as something that would affect "all bodyguards purchased after this point" or an introduction into the new game.

I actually agree with Marietta here with the thought that if I'm travelling to another city, despite the jungle atmosphere 50+ bgs would entail, I don't think I would LESSEN my protection... Either way, it's an interesting idea, and in fact I think there could be change done to the wack code as well, where we make it so you get less of a gun off of IA hunting to balance it out... This might work out quite well!

When I make a suggestion, I don't think about how it will benefit me, I think about how to improve the game. I am not sure if you missed out Deimne's post saying he likes the idea despite him being extremely well protected. Also when did thugs in this world have a say in making bodyguards more expensive? Sure, the existing bodyguards had to be repaired but rich folks are easily able to afford this while a thug will not be able to cope with the higher prices as easily.

This is not going to be introduced for quite some time (IF it ever does), therefore this may concern another group of people rather than the ones you have mentioned.

I can see where you are coming from saying people with many bodyguards will lose something without getting anything in return, but that is pretty much the point of it. In long episodes of peace, the unlimited BGs do unbalance the game in my opinion.

With Izzy's percentage idea, someone who has 100 BGs will still be able to carry alot more BGs around than someone who has 50. But again, I doubt we will see this for a long long time, there are other things that need coding first and wack data has to be collected in order for this to happen.

"and in fact I think there could be change done to the wack code as well, where we make it so you get less of a gun off of IA hunting to balance it out... This might work out quite well!"

It appears to me that you did not quite grasp the purpose of the suggestion. In my opinion, this change does not need additional balancing because I think the unlimited BGs do give rich people too much of an advantage.

I reckon not everyone will agree with this so I guess it is up to the admins to decide whats best here. But yea, those are also the people who have the most BGs in the game and seem to be disagreeing, therefore I doubt this change will ever be made. Sorry for trying to change things around here.

I am not sure if you missed out Deimne's post saying he likes the idea despite him being extremely well protected.

I didn't. I noticed Deimne and Kates (both EWP) give their opinions, but without knowing how many bodyguards each has, it's safe to assume that they are not at that "Obscenely Well Protected" level and therefore are affected less than those who currently swan about with their OWP statuses. While I like and respect both of them, I would put more weight on the opinion of someone like LuckyNellerie who has a minimum of 50 bodyguards who WILL be affected by this even if it's only slightly more than people who are EWP like myself. If I said "I think this idea is a good one" and PedroRourke says "Hey, I'm OWP, I think this idea is a good one," whose opinion would carry more weight?

This is not going to be introduced for quite some time (IF it ever does), therefore this may concern another group of people rather than the ones you have mentioned.

I offer my apologies for not understanding that we're talking weeks/months/years in the future, but when I saw that girl TopHatTerri come in and ask questions on behalf of an Administrator as well as an update of your conversation with Izzy, I assumed this was an idea that could possibly come into play very quickly. As I tried to make clear in my point, I don't think this is something feasible at the moment BUT would be a very interesting idea in a later "new game" situation. I don't really care who is in power whether it is myself, you, Clipper, or BrianRourke, I just want to make sure that people's hard work and status isn't essentially being "punished" through a "late game" introduction.

Also when did thugs in this world have a say in making bodyguards more expensive? Sure, the existing bodyguards had to be repaired but rich folks are easily able to afford this while a thug will not be able to cope with the higher prices as easily.

Very honestly, I don't remember the situation surrounding the increase in bodyguard price change coupled with the "BG weakening" and loss of HP for bodyguards other than it happened to me on a previous account and I wasn't too pleased with it. Under the same general idea I thought it should again have been one of those "every BG purchased after this point is more expensive" placements, but I have no say when the Administration brings down the hammer.

Sorry for trying to change things around here.

I like the idea in theory and think it would be a good "realistic" introduction in a world where people aren't already Obscenely Well Protected. I think it would be a perfect start as one of the new concepts for Mafia Returns v 3.14159.

As I didn't get very many responses to my idea in another thread, I agree with this one. I like the idea as its realistic. It gives a more meaning to home city advantage as it was stated before. 

I just think something needs to be done to over come the unbalance.

That and the fact that a thug can purchase a massive amount of BGs for a lower cost, is just nonsense.