Supply chains

[dillbilly]

Had this idea while defending my Midway Atoll city suggestion:
What if troop upkeep increased the farther your cities are from your base? This makes sense on several levels. Firstly it gives your home base a purpose other than just a troop spawn point, and secondly that's how it is in reality. Keeping far flung armies is expensive.
It would probably be a nightmare to code, but I also thought that if you were able to maintain a chain of cities that were a certain distance apart the upkeep cost would change less. This would also bring another aspect to the game since breaking someone's chain of cities would greatly increase the cost of holding cities at the fringes of your territory.

[bulletcrazy]

A nightmare to code indeed. Though its would be reaslistic, I for one wouldn't want it in the game. Troop upkeep cost is a killer as it is, we don't need it to be increasing even more. At this point, unless you own a huge metropolis, you barely make a profit of off cities because of the upkeep cost(this I'm ok with sort of), but increasing it even more would be overkill. It's a realistic idea, but I'm afraid it wouldn't be worth it to put it in, both for the players and the coders.

[Blitzkrieg]

It would be an "anti-monopolistic" feature. If you helped an ally with troops on the other side of the world, you would then want them to take the city and move your armies back quick smart because they'd cost too much to hold whichever city is in question.

But............ I think I prefer it the way it is. Just that I would like moving troops to cost double upkeep. Oh yeah and you need oil to move aswell....

[dillbilly]

Glad no one liked my idea. With armies in Alaska and Brazil and a base in Ohio I'd be in a bind.

[Luke]

Glad no one liked my idea. With armies in Alaska and Brazil and a base in Ohio I'd be in a bind.

LMAO. Now nobody expected that reply. :D