One aspect we are ignoring is the continual cost to feed and fuel an army.  I am currently in one of those battles were some members are simply amassing a large army to attack with.  If there was a cost to maintain this army, it may limit the size of the amassed army.

I know what you mean, you get in some games where their army is so big and full of artilery there is no point going near them

I've mentioned this elsewhere, and I think upkeep cost would be worth putting into beta testing.

I don't like the idea of upkeep...it defeats the fun of REALLY big battles. Skirmishes are fun, but big battles are also fun. One of the keys to winning in WeeWar is bulding your own army up while wearing your opponent's down. Upkeep I believe would draw out games into lastily a whole lot longer than they are now. In the end, if you let your opponent amass a huge army without amassing an equally big army yourself, that is an issue of tactics, not gameplay.

solution as always:

• optional
• amount of upkeep can be set at the game creation process

Instead of upkeep. What about somekind of cap(40 units per color for small maps) based on the size of map. If you throw in a way to keep track of  unit cost. Like berzerkers are worth 20 soliders or something like that. Am I making any sense?

I'm not sure we should make actual upkeep figures user-controlled, but having upkeep cost as a boolean flag on games would definitely be a good option.  +1.

Not sure I could go for a unit count cap, or even value cap.

i am not much of a upkeep or cap fan too. I must say. Big and Huge armies are fun!

I dunno.  I sort of liken it to "big and huge chess games".  64 pawns, 16 bishops, 16 knights, 4 queens, 16 rooks... would just not be my idea of a fun game. 

ok suggestion, but we have to watch out for "feature creep", i wouldn't want this game to get so complex that anyone starting felt overwhelmed.

Can I copyright that idea and sell it to a manufacturer? I would call it mega-chess and it would make me rich, rich!!

Ok, maybe not, but that actually sounds sort of fun to me - less worrying about losing the one and only bishop that can move on the black squares or whatever 

SunTzu: witth careful design and a good ear turned towards user feedback, these things can be avoided.  The very best games are easy for noobs to get comfortable with, but can be deep and complex enough that intense players can be rewarded.

This is something I think nearly every game should aim for, weewar not excluded.

The guy responsible for me knowing about weewar told me in the game i've made against him. Weewar is chess with guns!

that reminds me... is a map without bases possible? If i give one army to player red and another army for player blue. no bases on map. First guy exterminating the enemy wons. Is that possible? 

Sounds totally possible to me?  And I'd be interested in playing such a map/game.

hows about  for so many units you have on the board  it simply starts to lower your credits per turn little by little

dj: That is effectively an upkeep cost. 

ok i wasnt sure

there could be a different set of units to the credits for upkeep

Huh? 

I am not going near the upkeep discussion tonight (nice idea though) - but re map with no bases: that should be totally possible. Winner is who has not lost all units.