View Full Version : Armies now really die from starvation
Be carefull...you might wake up one day and see all your armies have but 1 troop.
The payment for your armies is done in the Geo's you have in hand, NOT the bank.
Like Mickey programmed it to a while back, it is meant so people would always have to make sure they have enough there.
It's no new function as it was there for a while, but we just fixed it again now.
Some people didn't know this yet so here it is again:
DON'T put all your geo's in the bank when you have armies to pay!
aravan 12-19-2005, 09:54 PM Luke - Can you make it so it takes from existing funds first and then when those run out take from the bank, then when the bank runs out take away from army size?
Aodhan 12-20-2005, 03:29 PM I would definately like to see the armies dip into the bank. That is where I keep all of my money because of the obvious benefit.
WaywardTraveller 12-20-2005, 03:37 PM I would definately like to see the armies dip into the bank. That is where I keep all of my money because of the obvious benefit.
These are both reasons why this _isn't_ the case.
Not much of a game if you don't have to manage anything at all.
This has been discussed a bunch elsewhere already, so I'll just say "see my sig".
These are both reasons why this _isn't_ the case.
Not much of a game if you don't have to manage anything at all.
This has been discussed a bunch elsewhere already, so I'll just say "see my sig".
I thought it, he said it.
Puts strategy and management into the game.
aravan 12-20-2005, 04:01 PM I agree but there is a difference between strategy and management and making the game more difficult to play. The more difficult the game is to play the fewer players you are going to have. I dont think this one falls into the making the game more difficult category but I wouldnt want things to get carried away.
WaywardTraveller 12-20-2005, 04:06 PM I agree but there is a difference between strategy and management and making the game more difficult to play. The more difficult the game is to play the fewer players you are going to have. I dont think this one falls into the making the game more difficult category but I wouldnt want things to get carried away.
Are you honestly worried about that?
It's not exactly a hard game to play in any way at this point. (Mechanically speaking that is)
Timmetie 12-20-2005, 04:23 PM lol the problem is there isnt enough to do.
aravan 12-20-2005, 04:36 PM Are you honestly worried about that?
It's not exactly a hard game to play in any way at this point. (Mechanically speaking that is)
Not really. Just offering a different opinion.
dreadpr 12-20-2005, 08:54 PM I've said something similar elsewhere but I'm too lazy to find it...
I agree with the MANAGE-IT-YOURSELF-AND-DON'T-BE-LAZY clique (it's a management game after all) however I can offer an alternative that might appease both sides: if you have no money it DOES dip into your bank account but it also takes out a hefty bank fee so you are still penalised for inefficient management.
This will stop your troops dwindling because of an oversight but still exact a penalty.
And bank fees (and any excuse for them) are a harsh reality anyway.
Timmetie 12-20-2005, 09:10 PM I've said something similar elsewhere but I'm too lazy to find it...
I agree with the MANAGE-IT-YOURSELF-AND-DON'T-BE-LAZY clique (it's a management game after all) however I can offer an alternative that might appease both sides: if you have no money it DOES dip into your bank account but it also takes out a hefty bank fee so you are still penalised for inefficient management.
This will stop your troops dwindling because of an oversight but still exact a penalty.
And bank fees (and any excuse for them) are a harsh reality anyway.
me likes. me needs to have a 10 letter message.
Ekoe10 12-21-2005, 04:17 AM I'd propose the fee to be less than twenty geos though.
palau 12-21-2005, 07:18 AM i'd vote no to have the bank pay for troops, for different reasons...
anyway i think there is no point in discussing and implementing this: we were planning to finance the troop upkeep with resources (fishing?) and maybe troop movements with oil ;)
dreadpr 12-21-2005, 12:20 PM I'd propose the fee to be less than twenty geos though.
I reckon 20%/25% of the upkeep cost of the army (ie the amount being forcibly withdrawn). In most cases it would be relatively small amounts - for around 16000 troops it'd be 20/25 geos for example.
Or do we have a smaller fee that comes out regularly?
p0wderfinger 12-22-2005, 03:14 AM Let the troops starve. Management is important, plus this brings in some interesting aspects into the game. (ie: attacking weakly defended cities meant as mere "support" cities and sabotage their army!)
|