SirSebstar wrote:Conquerman and hive use a simmular arrangement where you get less armies per country when you have reached a certain amount of countries.
So this suggestion would be based on the amount of troops instead of countries availiable?
Yes. It is completely different. Conquerman's approach you could say it's upkeep per territories. But this suggestion is about upkeep per army. Your soliders is the real stuff you have to pay for, and not having more or less territories.
SirSebstar wrote:it would certainly make stackking less attractive.
It would. But the goal is to make the game more strategic and interesting. A side effect is that stacking is less atractive, and in my opinion is a good side effect.
SirSebstar wrote:playing on huge maps or small maps should get a different upkeep number. placing 30 on doodle earth is an accomplishment in itself. getting 30 troops total on world 2.1 .. well you'd better! or you loose right away.
This should be controlled by the mapmaker. The values I suggested are standard values. But in a second phase an XML tag could be added for the mapmaker to specify the upkeep multiplier. Something like <UpkeepMultiplier> of similar. The standard values would be multiplied by this number.
SirSebstar wrote:strategies that would go boom.
it does mean you need the bonussess of countries more then the amount of countries.
That is what already happens. Isn't it? You need the bonuses of countries in order to have a good income.
SirSebstar wrote:So if you get a lucky drop. its better to stay relativly small and gather forces then to keep whacking and winning the game more quickly.
Again, in my opinion that's also the current situation. Take the classic map. It's better to secure yourself in Africa or even Australia than try to get all the Asia territories.
SirSebstar wrote:I would like to see the proposal amended so that if you have a lot of countries, you do not also loose your income...,
I am not sure I understand what you mean, so if I misunderstood it, my apologies. I understand you want the upkeep limit to be bigger the more countries you have. That is the way it would be. Taking a standard map as an example, you get 1 additional reinforcement each 3 countries, which also means higher upkeep limit.
The proper way to do it would be to assign different bonuses (a reinforcement bonus and an upkeep bonus) to each territory. But I chose not to do that way because as I said I want to keep things simple. The more complicated are things the less likely is that people will accept them, and also the more difficult it will be to implement them.
Sumarizing, each threee countries increase your upkeep limit. So the more countries the more income you have.
SirSebstar wrote:if that defeats the purpose (and i can see how that could be) then I would vote against this proposal
Excuse me again. I don't understand what it means "if that defeats the purpose". Could you please explain it again? Thanks!