As my other posts can attest to, I'm working on a turn based strategy game which uses carved out regions on a map (similar to Risk, diplomacy,axis & allies).

Since I have a lot of freedom here I began by identifying problems I saw with games I'd played and thought of some options to fix them. These decisions are a lot harder to make then I thought.

The goals
---------

*Keep micromanagement of unit & building production to a minimum to prevent end-game stalls and tedium.

*Similarly unit movement micromanagement, especially frequent unit "shuttling" from their creation location to their first target should be minimized.

*Prevent economics that encourage players to only build the most advanced unit they have.

*Prevent resorting to "gamey" or artificial methods of correction, that are not intuitive to the player.

*Don't make players feel that they need to be building units every single turn.


The options
-----------

In all proposed options, regions can have different buildings that provide different effects for the province. Some or all provinces can also build units. The cost for units is not a concern for most of these methods. These methods focus on how units are built and deployed after costs are paid.

1. The Relatively Standard Method

-Units are built in factories and take X amount of turns.
-Factories have a limited amount of production slots.
-Most factories add more production slots instead of reducing time.
-Factories are very expensive and cannot be built in great numbers
-Factories are discouraged from being built decentralized (either with bonuses for putting more than one in a province or from harvesting penalties from having them in a province).


2. Industrial Capacity Method
-Industrial capacity (IC) is produced by generic industry districts you build in regions.
-IC is shared along supply chains with adjacent provinces. X-Y-Z connected provinces all share the same IC.
-Any region with a recruitment camp or similar can have units built there (these will be rare among regions)
-Units are each given a total IC amount that determines how long they take to build.
-Each recruitment center typically makes one unit at a time (might be some exceptions).
-Each recruitment camp can only apply so much IC per turn to a unit. [Maybe a lowly barracks might only do 100IC per turn, while some super factory does 500IC per turn].
-IC not consumed by recruitment centers is turned into money. [In this way, units 'cost' money indirectly, by diverting you from producing it]
-Advanced units can only be built at more advanced versions of the recruitment camps.


When you boil it down what are the different impacts on gameplay the two methods have.

Both
===
+Reduce micromanagement and provide clear military targets by centralizing where units are created
+Prevent only building the best type of unit available
-Require some form of unit shuttling or rally pointing, as units are produced at the few regions that have the facilities.


The IC idea
=========
+Gives the player a choice between unit production and money. You aren't punished for not building units all the time.

The Standard Idea
==============
+Less complicated and doesn't involve another separate stat.

I really don't know if there's a clear benefit to a flat "turns to completion" system over a building system similar to the Civilization series "shields" or vice versa.

I've had a few suggestions that are based on systems similar to the IC option, but more decentralized, with units being able to be built in almost any connected province. These methods reduce the micromanagement of having to move units from their source of production, but can also be endlessly annoying for attackers if units are popping up all over the place with little way to predict their appearance.

Any comments on these systems? Do you have alternative systems you'd like to suggest?

S3 Logistics: The logistics office is responsible for managing logistical support and providing all manner of supplies and services such as ammunition, fuel, food, water, maintenance, materials, engineering, and transportation.

I like logistics in the form of planning and bringing together the right assets at the right time, along with the necessary support train to keep it live. Without that second part, missions become a shallow one-shot affairs instead of self-supporting extensions of the military base.

There's a place for single strike missions, and that is to cut off the enemy's supply lines and pathways of economic flow.

my 0.02

What about abstracting away the production side of things? Each region has tech level and an Industrial Production Capacity. All units have a cost and a region can spend up to its IPC each turn on any number of units. High cost units might roll over from turn to turn if the region has a low IPC. The player can redirect any used IPC in a region to infrastructure improvements, tech upgrades or redirect to the central bank assuming you have some form of currency in the game.

Infrastructure improvements would increase the regions IPC so it might take 9 points to increase a region’s IPC from 3 to 4. While tech upgrades work in the same way but are used to determine the most advanced level of units that can built in a region.

You might even consider having tech ranges rather then a tech cap. So increasing the tech level of region means you can no longer produce units below a certain level. So a level 10 tech region might be able to produce atom bombs and stealth fighters but not infantry because infantry are level 1 tech units. This would lead to a few specialized high tech regions that would be key strategic targets.

This system would mean the player has to choose between unit production, increasing their production capabilities, and improving the tech level in a region. Players might find it advantageous to continually pump out units, while other might spend their turns increasing their production capability to across the board or in a few key regions.