Stratocracy error.

[Prefontaine]

Stratocracy gov type states: Military Upkeep cost 5% less

 

The food upkeep is not reduced by 5%

[Ayayay]

It only effects money. Look in the "military upkeep" column. 

[Tenages]

It only effects money. Look in the "military upkeep" column. 

 

I think he's saying that's the problem. Military costs food as well as money.

[Ayayay]

I think he's saying that's the problem. Military costs food as well as money.

I'm aware. I'm pointing out that there is a specific column labeled "Military Upkeep" in the revenue tab though 

[Prefontaine]

I'm aware. I'm pointing out that there is a specific column labeled "Military Upkeep" in the revenue tab though 

 

[Ayayay]

I'm aware. I'm pointing out that there is a specific column labeled "Military Upkeep" in the revenue tab though 

can you not into read?

[Dwynn]

can you not into read?

Are you intentionally being obtuse?

 

Obviously Pre is saying that as Food is part of the upkeep costs, it should receive a 5% reduction when the appropriate government choice is made.

[Ayayay]

Are you intentionally being obtuse?

I'd never.

 

I'm saying that it exactly says "Military Upkeep cost 5% less" and that in the revenue tab it says exactly "Military Upkeep"

[Pwnius Scrubius]

I'd never.

 

I'm saying that it exactly says "Military Upkeep cost 5% less" and that in the revenue tab it says exactly "Military Upkeep"

The upkeep includes money and food

[Greatnate]

Stratocracy gov type states: Military Upkeep cost 5% less

 

The food upkeep is not reduced by 5%

 

Military upkeep only refers to the "Military Upkeep" category in your budget, not sure why government type would put your soldiers on a diet.

[Alataq]

Republic for the win!

[Dwynn]

Military upkeep only refers to the "Military Upkeep" category in your budget, not sure why government type would put your soldiers on a diet.

 

I think you guys are missing the point that Prefontaine is making. The government states that it's bonus is for military upkeep.

 

Military upkeep is not clearly defined. As has been pointed out time and again, on revenue page it's simply money. On military pages, upkeep includes resources.

 

Therefore, Prefontaine is suggesting that it's erroneous to not include a discount on food used.

[Greatnate]

I think you guys are missing the point that Prefontaine is making. The government states that it's bonus is for military upkeep.

 

Military upkeep is not clearly defined. As has been pointed out time and again, on revenue page it's simply money. On military pages, upkeep includes resources.

 

Therefore, Prefontaine is suggesting that it's erroneous to not include a discount on food used.

 

I get what he's saying, but soldiers have to consume the same number of calories regardless of government type. There is an in-game value called military upkeep, it doesn't include resource costs, when an in-game government says it reduces the military upkeep that is clearly wages only. Should it also reduce the per battle expenditures for all these units? Then everyone would be stratocracies.

[Alex]

I'm not sure how to go about dealing with this. I think the Stratocracy shouldn't effect food upkeep, but I'm not sure how to display the information in a manner that won't convey that idea.

[Dwynn]

I'm not sure how to go about dealing with this. I think the Stratocracy shouldn't effect food upkeep, but I'm not sure how to display the information in a manner that won't convey that idea.

 

You could change:

 

Stratocracy: Military Upkeep cost 5% less

 

to:

 

Stratocracy: Financial Military Upkeep cost 5% less

Edited December 10, 2014 by Micheal Malone

[Greatnate]

You could change:

 

Stratocracy: Military Upkeep cost 5% less

 

to:

 

Stratocracy: Financial Military Upkeep cost 5% less

 

But military upkeep is already a financial only revenue line item. It is pretty blatant.

[Dwynn]

But military upkeep is already a financial only revenue line item. It is pretty blatant.

No. It's not. That's what you're failing to grasp.

 

In order to upkeep soldiers, you have to have both food and money to pay for them at upkeep. Therefore food is part of soldier's upkeep costs. Hence why the entire thread was started.

[naTia]

You may ask why having a stratocracy would cause less food consumption, but you have to remember that during war, a soldier uses .002 food, which to say is twice the average citizen. What I think this suggests is that rations are less effectively distributed in a war than when soldiers are just at home. Technically, we can assume that soldiers would eat more food than an average citizen because of the demographics of both, however, we cannot assume that it would be too far off considering every citizen listed in the population is subject to tax and makes an income, suggesting that every person is of working eligibility. So, I think that having food usage subject to decrease when under a stratocracy makes perfect sense due to the nation being headed, by definition, by military chiefs. This would suggest that there would be an increases focus on military, and therefor an increases focus on every aspect, including something like how rations are handed out.

 

But those are game mechanics, so it's up to Sheepy.

[Alataq]

Why the need to add food upkeep?

[Greatnate]

You may ask why having a stratocracy would cause less food consumption, but you have to remember that during war, a soldier uses .002 food, which to say is twice the average citizen. What I think this suggests is that rations are less effectively distributed in a war than when soldiers are just at home. Technically, we can assume that soldiers would eat more food than an average citizen because of the demographics of both, however, we cannot assume that it would be too far off considering every citizen listed in the population is subject to tax and makes an income, suggesting that every person is of working eligibility. So, I think that having food usage subject to decrease when under a stratocracy makes perfect sense due to the nation being headed, by definition, by military chiefs. This would suggest that there would be an increases focus on military, and therefor an increases focus on every aspect, including something like how rations are handed out.

 

But those are game mechanics, so it's up to Sheepy.

 

A 50% logistics trail when deployed sounds pretty reasonable. It's not like this is a 18th century war simulator and that your armies can expect to forage for their food. IIRC, the logistical tail on the modern american army is roughly 60%, but that includes vehicle maintenance. While stratocracy makes sense in streamline wages by 5%, does it really make sense that either 50% of your military is missing significant meals, or all of your military is starving by 5%?

[naTia]

Why the need to add food upkeep?

Because you are adding people without adding population

 

 

A 50% logistics trail when deployed sounds pretty reasonable. It's not like this is a 18th century war simulator and that your armies can expect to forage for their food. IIRC, the logistical tail on the modern american army is roughly 60%, but that includes vehicle maintenance. While stratocracy makes sense in streamline wages by 5%, does it really make sense that either 50% of your military is missing significant meals, or all of your military is starving by 5%?

 

I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at. What I'm saying is that a stratocracy is an increase in efficiency due to the leaders being ex-military personnel themselves. You are not cutting rations to soldiers, but rather increasing the amount of food that gets to soldiers. A single soldier would not consume any less.