Unit Cost

[mosborne]

Hi:
I have a question on the cost system.
Does the cost vary by the people (level of training) instead of the whole weapon system?

I think already all the weapons are individually costed, including infantry rifles, grenades, etc. So these should be the same cost for the same weapon regardless of country. I suspect that this is how it is now. Likewise similar weapons are costed likewise.

Is the cost only applied to the people and then added to the cost of the weapon itself.

I think in this way, if a poor country wants to buy M1A1, it pays the same price that US would pay for that same hardware. The cost difference will be in the amount of training that goes into the crew that mans that weapon. So if M1A1 cost 200 units, the average crew (70 rating) may cost 100 units, the crew that is 60 rating would cost 80 units, (just for example, I don't know if these are the real numbers). So the price of the tank and crew for Average would be 300. The price for the poor country would be 280.

If poor country wants to use higher experience crew which are the same as average, then they pay 300 for the tank.

I think that regardless of who operates the weapon, it is still capable of doing the same damage. The only thing that has changed is the crew that operates it and from a simplistic point of view the only difference in the crew is the amount of experience they have and level of morale, neither of which is a characteristic of any hardware. So a poor country should not get a discount on the hardware. In fact, the hardware probably cost a poor country more than a developed country, since no country wants to sell its equipment to another country at a cheaper price than what its own military pays.

Thanks

[RERomine]

I can answer part of this. Experience does impact the cost of the weapon system. The more experienced the crew is, the more the weapon system will cost. The reverse is true as well.

As for just the hardware, I'm not sure. A rarity factor might be incorporated into the code somewhere for standard types of equipment. Country A has 1000 tanks of a certain type, while country B has only 20. Being rare, one might conclude that country B would have to pay more. This would be more specific to the OOB for the various countries. There is a rarity value used, but by the AI when determining it's force composition and not adjusting unit cost.

[Griefbringer]

Notice that the points value reflects (or tries to) only in-game effectiveness, not the real-world expenses of a given weapon system.

And a better trained crew (higher experience and morale) makes any weapon system proportionately more effective. If the crew experience would be costed flat, regardless of the hardware, you would get into odd situations eg. when placing an experienced crew to cheap hardware.

Griefbringer

[Imp]

As Griefbringer says the cost is a rough representation of the units combat capability so the level of training is an important factor.

If it was based on cost even taking training costs into account a normal squad is chump change compared to say modern MBT or SAM systems that can cost US$5 & 15million respectivly. Thats without taking the cost of ammo into account.
War is a very expensive game half a mill for a missile is not uncommon & some cost more. If you factored in R&D costs to the money is stagering which is probably why the cold war ended.

[mosborne]

Exactly my point. Equipment is expensive and deadly. Surely, a more experience crew makes the weapon more effective, but even with a less experience crew, high tech weaponry can almost think for itself. So if a weapon (tank for example) can kill you on its first shot at 1000 yards (even with low exp). Why allow 3rd rate country to buy it at a great discount compare to 1st rate country? I've come across this several times where country x has lower morale then country y, yet country x can get more sophisticated weapons because they are cheaper than country y. Country Y shouldn't be penalized on its hardware because it has better trained people.

[Mobhack]

Originally Posted by mosborne

Exactly my point. Equipment is expensive and deadly. Surely, a more experience crew makes the weapon more effective, but even with a less experience crew, high tech weaponry can almost think for itself. So if a weapon (tank for example) can kill you on its first shot at 1000 yards (even with low exp). Why allow 3rd rate country to buy it at a great discount compare to 1st rate country? I've come across this several times where country x has lower morale then country y, yet country x can get more sophisticated weapons because they are cheaper than country y. Country Y shouldn't be penalized on its hardware because it has better trained people.

A weapon system is a counter or chit. The game counter is more useful if experienced or higher morale etc, and less if not. It is based on the game counter play value, not crew or dollar cost or any such.

A T55 used by say Finland with very good exp/training and morale will therefore cost more game buy points (which have absolutely zero to do with dollars) than one in Soviet hands, and far more than one in some third-world state like Somalia. Overall, the Finnish T55 is going to be more effective (more likely to hit, to spot, to dodge ATGM, to have crew survivors bail out if penetrated, to rally in bad circumstances etc) than the Soviet one and that more effective in game terms than the Somali one.

And that is why in campaigns, as experience and morale accrues that your surviving core troops become more expensive in buy points terms as the campaign progresses. The kit has not gained any mythical "dollar value" but the game counter has increased in terms of game effectiveness, hence points value. The game cost is a basic value for the kit multiplied (pos or neg) by variation from the default 70 exp/mor level for quality. That system is not going to change, either.

Andy

[mosborne]

Ok. Thanks.