Quote Originally Posted by RedKnight
Thanking you kindly for your reply, therother -

Interestingly, it just occurred to me that no one had a problem with population being unexpectedly used up in MTW, just money -

And here we are saying we don't have a problem with money being unexpectedly overextended, just population, laugh.

Anyway,

Perhaps the difference in what I propose is that it's not only simple, but also more "real world" - money or men don't get used, until the time they are needed. In real life, a quartermaster would say "we want to train 4 cavalry as fast as we can", but they wouldn't lock the riders up in a room for 4 turns until they got around to them. And, complications such as exponential implications etc. are avoided.

But there are a number of ways it could be implemented.

Oi, I almost feel like I'm chasing my tail on this one, laugh... in truth, they can work it any number of ways, but I'd like it to be simple and straightforward. A simple warning system as of the current turn would take care of a whole lot of alternate ramifications.

Back to the game
Just FYI.. there is no 'loss on investment' in RTW. That requires a fluctuating cost environment, which RTW does not have. All investment is about choices.. do I spend here, there, where? In the real world net future value has real meaning, because the costs are always changing, and there is generally a minimum standard percentage rate you can make on your money.. so if an investment can't beat that rate, it sucks. You ain't 'losing money' with the current RTW system. You are just choosing how to spend it.

On the issue of 'more micro vs. less', I could argue on both sides (just as others have). It all depends on playing style. I personally prefer RTW style over MTW. I agree with some of the posters above. It drove me nuts in MTW that I didn't know if some buildings would start or not in MTW. In RTW either I have the cash or I don't (this actually matches real life.. in MTW you had a credit card.. in RTW its cash transactions only, baby!).