Upkeep has been suggested to improve the game, and make it more challenging for larger players, as well as being fairer for the smaller players (and less exponential growth).

Several ideas have been suggested, and here is one that I am thinking could work well here.


For every 10 stacks you have deployed, troop costs increase by +25%.

eg, Spearmen cost 20 gold. So when you have say 20-29 total stacks deployed (of any type), buying more Spearmen would cost 30 gold each (+50%).

The actual % is just a suggestion can be changed to be higher or lower.


Other ideas include an ongoing upkeep cost.
Eg, Spearmen cost 20g to deploy, and a further 5g per turn.


Any thoughts?

well the vets wouldn't have much problem with it but the newer players would. I don't see the challenge, vets would just find it easier to roll over players who haven't learned the economy as well yet.

at the moment req i think this idea would work for the vets but it wont work for players like me i've been playing waronline for about 3 months and i still havent gotten use to this game yet its just a challenge getting your elite troops on the field well thats in duels anyway bro but in camps its alot easier i've notice bro but anyway my suggestion would be this how about making the troops cheaper because of the fact that there is not enough gold around to deploy your elite troops sometimes you got relie on your advance troops to hopefully destroy your enemy thats in duels i got no complaints about it in campaigns though bro

Req, however you do it, I think it should be based on the troops collective power, not how many units there are.

a person with twenty spear troops has less power than somebody with 2 mace, 2 knights, 3 marks, a comm and 3 spears - yet the second person only has 9 units - he could afford another without incurring upkeep in this theoretical 10 units before upkeep system. The other guy is already on the second tier of upkeep probably.
Not balanced IMO.
base upkeep on power.

who the **** gets up at 3 in the morning to talk about a stupid ass game?

Not that I want to ruin the idea, but I'm kind of new to campaigns, and this would complicate my game a bit...

If you add it though, I'm fine with it, I will figure it out.

well i've got no problem now because i've gotten better as i've played this game now i still think the troops should be cheaper or there should be more gold mines on the maps or make the gold mines that you take over produce more gold out of them as of now i think they are only producing 750 gold how about boosting them to produce 1500 gold what do you guys think

Upkeep is a great idea.

I agree with ^actor - it needs to be done in such a way that the upkeep is proportional to the cost of the unit.

Eg, each unit of spearman,archers etc costs 2/turn, comms 3/turn, faclh,pike etc 5/turn, mace/knight cav 12/turn, ballis/cats 14/turn marksmen 30/turn.
A full stack obviously costs 10x more, so an army of 30 full stacks of mace-level troops would cost approx 3600-4000/turn.

If you want to reduce the exponential growth effect more, change the castle income so your home castle is worth more to the player that starts with it than to other players that take it over later (esp if they grab it in 1st 10 turns).

You could also make the first 270 of upkeep free (this is the cost of maintaining the starting forces).

Also get rid of the taxes/government/empire techs and increase a players base income automatically - this removes the bias against new players that haven't read the manual fully and done the maths...

We have to remember that the game should be accessible to new players, so that they don't play a game, get thrashed by a player that seems to be able to build loads more forces from the same resources and give up and not play again (and yes, I know users should RTFM, but you have to assume they won't).

PS While you're in the military report page putting the unit upkeeps there, please fix the incorrect level.

PPS Off topic, but I think resources other than gold should give income. - it makes the decisions of what to go for and deals with other players more interesting.

The upkeep idea is not a good one in any shape or form.Unfair to newer players,and players on a tight budget.Please don't add it.

why would it be unfair to newer players?

Because I think that it takes at least10 camps, to really understand the full dynamics of the game.5 camps to learn & gain experience in troop buildup & movement,attack & defend strategies & resource management.Another 5 to learn how to use the market & trade skills & tech/upgrade management.It's hard enough trying to save up enough gold & wait for the troops to accumilate in the barracks,then have to pay upkeep costs later.It almost punishes you for having a large & strong military.Maybe Req could restrict what camps you can join based on your EXP with this new upgrade.This new system may work for more seasoned players with a lot of camps under their belts,but the younger and newer players will be at an obvious disadvantage.

Last Edited : Sunday, 5 April 2009 - 13:29

Camps can be made with various level restrictions, for instance, 100-999 games don't allow total newbs to enter.

Upkeep would be a great element to add to the game, id like to see this come into p lay at some time.

just my 2 cents

doodoomite: Wow 10 campaigns to learn all that... Wow. er hang on, I've only played 2 camps (OK 4 if you count training & proving grounds) - there must be so much more to learn...

Seriously though simplifying tech and upgrades by removing those that don't work and updating the online manual to reflect changes that have been made since it was written would address what you're on about here.

Upkeep is about helping the less successful players relative to those that have built up a large army (whether because they are good diplomats, excellent tacticians or just been lucky and started next to players that went inactive straight after emptying their castle).