Food supplying

[Igor]

There is something that makes to think that the game doesn't look like realistic war company.
Having read much about ancient wars, I think that greatest problem of ancient war company was in supplying of food and carrying it to army.
There were war companies where big army having no food was beaten by small army having good food supplying.
Other case, when attackers block defenders in a city and cut all ways to carry food into the city, then in some time defenders, having no food at all, are forced to open gates and to surrender even if they have good weapon and fortifications.
Food supplying meant so much in ancient wars, and we don't use it in the game. We pay no attention to one of mainest factor of win.

I would offer to use food supplying in the game.
Supposably details are: All units have money upkeep and food upkeep as well per each turn. Food sites are like money income buildings, they produce some ammount of food every turn. Cities have start ammount of food but they can't produce it. Special units, peasants, can carry food to armies in city or in field.
Every unit has own food fund, and when this fund has become empty, such unit can't fight (but probably can move toward peasants) until he will get food.

Such changes, at my look, can give to the game more reality and to make the game more popular in the strategy games community

[magian]

I think something like this could be fun as an option (can be turned off like fog of war). But, it really makes more sense in a historical setting than it does in a high fantasy setting like that of Warbarons. What do ghosts eat for breakfast? What do demons dine on? A wizard can probably pull a roast beef dinner out of his hat.

Supply lines would add a whole other layer of complexity, and your proposed implementation sounds fiddly to me. Warlords games have always been 'war games lite', rather than high complexity, realistic war games. I don't think that is a bad thing at all. Too much complexity scares away some people, too little complexity scares away others. I don't think there is a perfect solution. All you can do is try to make your game as sleek as possible while retaining enough depth to hold players' interest.

[Igor]

I wouldn't to differentiate kinds of food, just 'food' without details. Let's think that peasants can carry all types of food for each kind of units, which every of them need.
What about difficulties, I am sure that game with using food supplying is more difficult, of course. And I think that this 'difficulty' is very interesting. Unreal types of units, such as dragons and demons, may be looked like very strong parts of army, no more. Having high war abilities, they exist in the same conditiones like real infantry and cavalry, they have definite strength, they have limited move points and they need something to eat.
Of course, some types of units couldn't exist in ancient reality. It's like modern novelty. No airplanes or submarines exists in ancient times. But they let to combine encient game with modern time. Dragons and sea serpents is looked very good in the game. But they also need some food to be alive.

[tabanli]

When we were playing warcraft, the first buildings that we attack was farms. I remember training 2-3 goblins just for destroying the farms (the only problem was that you can't make them invisible, invisible goblins would be too powerfull so they removed the option for them), also the Orcs with bloodlust destroying the farms was very effective. Be cause each farm sustaining certain number of people, if you have no farm than you cannot build more troops. So it was a key factor in warcraft. Age of empires the same. However I don't know a game where food transportation is an issue or farms having a radius. All the food was supposed to arrive to the center and distributed to the troops and peasants.