again brit tanks twice that of axis?

[Kilemall]

6 hours ago, Bmbm said:

The fundamental difference with this list is that each and every unit has been researched in detail using historical gov’t and manufacturer sources to establish a cost per unit in then-year dollars and all countries have an equal budget to spend, in general accordance with standard national TOE for the tier. Thus, the list reflects design and production factors such as engineering, machining, optics, armor, engines etc, stuff that yields better quality and, in general, better battlefield results. Quality costs, quality kills.

The TOE based brigades also reflect the national doctrine to some degree, eg disposition of infantry tanks, cavalry tanks etc. What we have in game right now is not final but subject to revision. The important thing here is that the list is now, for the first time in the game’s history, scientific and financially balanced - ie fair and fact-based - rather than whimsical or tit-for-tat.

The basic concession for gameplay is to give Germany an equal budget to the Allies, otherwise they’d be pounded into the ground pdq.

I disagree with the economic approach, this one is wrong from a game design perspective.  Different economies, different resource streams, different capabilities that altered the cost of items.

 

The better method is to create a point value system for the weapon's actual capabilities.

[Kilemall]

On 12/10/2018 at 9:58 PM, delems said:

You just don't get it do you?
 

The CS tanks have a KD TWICE as good as any panzer.... TWICE.

 

Numerically that's insignificant given the low CS numbers relative to both panzer and other BEF tank counts.

 

The far larger issue is battlefield effect, as in once that CS is established with supported flanks that thing is going to go through a whole spawnlist.  K/D captures the average player that lopes down the road alone to their death, without considering the actual capability in effective player hands.

 

Spawnlist by potential, not K/D.

[BMBM]

1 hour ago, Kilemall said:

I disagree with the economic approach, this one is wrong from a game design perspective.  Different economies, different resource streams, different capabilities that altered the cost of items.

The better method is to create a point value system for the weapon's actual capabilities.

Slave labor has been accounted for, wrt man-hours. I don't have access to Scotsman's source material but we discussed it at length and what we came up with is as close to accurate and fair as it can get for the game perspective. When looking at the figures the weapons' actual capabilities are very well represented by the cost. For example, the flak30 is considerably less than that of a Mle38 whereas infantry weapons such as rifles cost the same give a few dollars - the Kar98 being slightly pricier.

Old-CRS did try a point value system based on combat effectiveness, however, it was blunt and often subjective in comparison. Again, the important thing here is to base value on scientific factors (more than those I mentioned), not simply anyone's gut-felt idea of which weapon is the killingest or the statistical result of X wildly different situation-based combats. Yet the outcome is surprisingly close to the general appreciation of combat value for any particular unit vs unit matchup.

[imded]

18 hours ago, delems said:

I just don't get why brits get nearly double the tanks every map?  Just a question, enlighten me.

It really comes down to manpower. How many people are there in the game at the time you are complaining about?

If there are 50 per side, Then you can only have 50 tanks running per side at that time. But we all know that not everyone is in a tank.

And in tier 0-1, the Allies are buff, From then on, tier 2-4 the axis are buff.

Its a game and that's the way it was designed. 2 tiers for allied and 3 tiers for axis.

But delem wants it 5 tier axis. OK, CRS it was nice knowing you

imded

signing off, over and out. Elvis has left the building.

Edited December 12, 2018 by imded
added more content

[PITTPETE]

Fellas, lets just give this a chance and see how it all plays out.

Im positive that if things dont work out as planned that the team will adjust and investigate.

[atgman]

 I think the argument of how many can spawn a tank in one particular moment is irrelevant.

What is relevant, is when the AP loaded allied tanks have battled out with the Pz, lets at a 1 to 1 kill ratio,

then the Allies have the whole spawn list left of CS tanks, available to destroy Axis inf as they please.

 

 

 

 

[jwilly]

22 minutes ago, atgman said:

What is relevant, is when the AP loaded allied tanks have battled out with the Pz, lets at a 1 to 1 kill ratio,

then the Allies have the whole spawn list left of CS tanks, available to destroy Axis inf as they please.

Analyses of how things could work, or should work, or may work are only meaningful if that's how things do work.

Recent campaign outcomes indicate how things do work.

Quote

the axis have won 8 out of the last 11 campaigns

I don't see a problem for the Axis. Maybe the Allies have a basis for complaint, though.

[Kilemall]

8 hours ago, Bmbm said:

Slave labor has been accounted for, wrt man-hours. I don't have access to Scotsman's source material but we discussed it at length and what we came up with is as close to accurate and fair as it can get for the game perspective. When looking at the figures the weapons' actual capabilities are very well represented by the cost. For example, the flak30 is considerably less than that of a Mle38 whereas infantry weapons such as rifles cost the same give a few dollars - the Kar98 being slightly pricier.

Old-CRS did try a point value system based on combat effectiveness, however, it was blunt and often subjective in comparison. Again, the important thing here is to base value on scientific factors (more than those I mentioned), not simply anyone's gut-felt idea of which weapon is the killingest or the statistical result of X wildly different situation-based combats. Yet the outcome is surprisingly close to the general appreciation of combat value for any particular unit vs unit matchup.

I was familiar with Rats 1.0 point values and found it highly subjective, not to mention absolutely no valuation of infantry units, a huge component of army 'buys'.

 

Nonetheless, while it is gratifying to read that adjustments were made in terms of normalizing values, again that measures what it cost to make and not it's actual combat value, not to mention our gameworld not being an exact match for 'reality'.  I still think an 'as modelled' valuation is more accurate then industrial stats.

 

Example that comes to mind- the T-34 was a cheap tank to make relative to Shermans or Panzers- but they were just as effective if not moreso due to their design and actual capability.  An industrial point value system won't capture that and may lead to spawnlist error.  The reliability of the US tank's mechanical plant vs. the cheap breakdown nature of the real T-34 whereas we don't model breakdown rates, would give the T-34 a cheapness/numbers advantage because the performance output of the cheap industrial input is not modelled.

 

Thompson SMGs vs. the 'cheapness' of Sten guns comes to mind too.

Edited December 13, 2018 by Kilemall

[BMBM]

The values we came up with - Scotsman’s work thru and thru - follow very closely the perceived combat value of units, perception naturally being subjective. Eg Shermans and PzIVG being near equal and the Tiger costing nearly thrice as much. 

The equal budget approach naturally benefits Germany and is completely ahistorical, that country being outspent 1:5 iirc by the Allies. We’re also making other amends for gameplay such as the armor balance in FR1940 where the Pz I and Pz II made up the vast bulk of Germany’s tank force. We can’t of course pursue historical accuracy in that regard.

Using this formula we determined that the axis had been significantly overstrength throughout the tiered game history, especially against the Brits, sometimes by as much as 140-150%. Which tallies rather well with perception, and this is in equipment only - if you add population disparity it gets rather grotesque.

[Blkhwk8]

On 12/12/2018 at 2:51 AM, mrgarand2 said:

No allies on to use them so what could have 3x the tanks 100 axis vs 5 allies ?

Actually the numbers have been balanced for most of this new campaign

[mrgarand2]

Try after 10 on allied

[Scotsman]

Just stopping in for a quick visit - Bmbm has it right. When I did the TOE and database work I looked at what is (the 'current spawn lists') and what that cost in then year dollars. This was compared to a master database I generated that listed the the then year dollar cost for all weapons (infantry, artillery, armor, aircraft etc...the whole ball of wax). I calculated that database for every weapon by year and side in the war (to include the Italian equipment) and I then further balanced that by deleting the cost of 'no-cost' slave labor and equating that to the normal then year 'paid' man hours necessary to manufacture said item. That changed during the course of the war as Germany became steadily more reliant on zero cost labor. The long and short of it is that the equipment cost for -everything- was calculated in then year dollars with similar economic assumptions applied to all nations. 

Items that cost more (Thompson vs Sten being a good example there) cost more in the database. The thompson needed many more machined parts. I cost a great deal more to make. The Sten relied on stampings and was much cheaper to produce. That is reflected in the data for all the nations. Bolt action rifle cost was pretty similar among the nations. The cost of machine guns was not. The entire reason there WAS an MG42 was to reduce the manufacturing cost associated with the MG34. If it cost more in history you can rest assured it cost more in the database. Bmbm mentioned the Sherman vs Tiger. These costs changed every year dependent on where something was in its design life and production learning curve...but heavier tanks cost more than lighter tanks. Count on it. 'Armor' is not free and reflected in higher gross vehicle weight...and the entire database is sensitive to the amount of armor, the gun carried and its optics...whether a turret is present...etc. SPs are cheaper to manufacture because they have no turret...and that too is in the database calculations. 

Once all that was done - I set the annual budget for each nation at the largest budget of any of the nations in that year. This was typically the Axis, and it grows as the war progresses and production is economized. All sides got that budget, and traded for their weapons in that budget. If it's too large or too small then CRS now has the ability to slide that total budget up for down and trade equipment with documented  researched data inside that then year dollar cap. ANY ECONOMIC BIAS WAS ELIMINATED by the use of a common annual budget to all nations.

YOU CAN NOT AND SHOULD NOT USE ARBITRARY EFFECTIVENESS NUMBERS THAT RELY ON PLAYER SKILL TO BALANCE ANY GAME. Player talent varies and some people are simply 'better' with certain equipment types. You can not and should not use K/D ratios for that reason -- especially so as the data behind those ratios has changed with time. Its arbitrary and capricious...and it wouldn't be recognized as valid technique by any good analyst because of the variance in human effects. A common economic basis is as fair to everyone as can ever be made...and setting the budgets equivalent is as fair to a 'what if' game as can be done for the moment. Ultimately it would be nice to see the spawn list budget automatically reduced with factory capture. Not up to me...I'm no longer a Rat. 

With fairtest possible balance determined...the rest is up to you the players.  How well you employ it is up to you. The overall national budget determines what can be made. (ultimately allow HCs to trade again in a budget? Yeah that can be done now with researched and accurate unbiased numbers....have to ask Hatch about that...its up to them as to what they do with all the data) 

The old spawn lists were a best guess and not balanced in any fashion. There were SIGNIFICANT advantages bakes into the spawn lists in some cases, with the worst imbalance being in tiers 1 and 2. THOSE WERE ALL ELIMINATED IN THIS WORK. Everyone gets the same dollar amounts which to be honest, greatly improves the axis over what they could manage historically early in the war. ANY PRE-EXISTING BIAS WAS RUTHLESSLY ELIMINATED. You all know I wouldn't stand for it. 

Having said all that...what Bmbm has aid is correct. Quality is not free. Matilda and Tiger weigh more, and cost more. There is no free lunch and it's no longer a chassis for chassis thing. For every heavy weight vehicle regardless of side or size, is will cost more. If it has a larger caliber main gun it will cost more. 

On the aircraft side if it used fabric skin instead of an aluminum skin it will be cheaper. A hurricane cost less to make than a spitfire. It's why the hurricane numbers were greater during the battle of britain. It was cheaper to make. If it has more engines it will cost more....and so it goes.

It took months to do all the research and eliminate all the baked in bias. I can only tell you where I parked it...not where CRS will go with it....but you can rest assured I'm still around and watching. If I see any prospective bias issue I will say something. I was utterly committed to a well researched and balanced game when I was there... I bruised some egos and probably ticked off fellow rats doing that...but that's ok. The price of doing business the right way. 

So don't complain about the 'cost' of a vickers being cheaper than the cost of a Pz-II. It was cheaper. Don't complain about thecost of the Mp-38 being cheaper than than the thompson. It was cheaper. Don't complain about the hurricane being cheaper than a spit, or a 110 being more expensive than a 109. They are ALL well researched and cost what they should inthat production year vs anything else made in the same year. 

As a preview of an announced coming attractions...yes...I poured the same effort into the aircraft damage side (no surprise..hatch has already mentioned an aircraft audit publically) ...when CRS will do something with documented data I don't know. All that work was based on live fire testing against target aircraft at various aspect angles and ranges. That will increase cannon effectiveness vs aircraft...as a cannon round delivers both its explosive content and KE against an airframe as long as the round is fused right. 

It really pains me to no longer be part of the team...as I enjoyed doing all the work immensely...but there are reasons for everything. Much remains to be done to get the game to where we would all like it to be. Its completely acceptable and fair to hold the Rats accountable for delivering quality product. I demand nothing less of that from myself or anyone else. If you have concerns voice them...if you can think of better ways to do something...talk about them...and by all means take the game where you all want it to go. 

 

 

airson na cluicheadairean

(for the players) 

[jwilly]

Scotsman presumably is gone again so I'm not sure to whom I'm directing these questions, but:

1. A fair amount of historical WWII heavy weaponry...most especially for the Germans...was created by re-using existing equipment. Some of that equipment was originally manufactured by an opponent, and re-used after capture or newly manufactured after the factories were captured. How are/will be those items manufacturing-costed?

2, Per old-CRS's original rules for game eligibility (i.e. eligible if significantly used in combat during any part of WWII or if contracted for purchase or manufacturing, even if not received and used), various weapons are eligible for the game even though they historically were not manufactured, or were not manufactured in the time period when they'd be introduced in-game. This concern mostly would apply to the French and British in T0 and 1, and the Germans and Italians in later tiers. How will such weapons' manufacturing costs be determined?

3. What will be done when historically there were large differences in manufacturing (and thus field-use) volume and thus economies of scale, but gameplay instead is structured to provide each side with average-equal quantities of a weapon class? Certainly this applies to most heavy weapons in comparing the historical Axis and Allies, but as a prominent example, German naval destroyers were built in tiny numbers compared to those of the British and Americans.

[Scotsman]

15 minutes ago, jwilly said:

Scotsman presumably is gone again so I'm not sure to whom I'm directing these questions, but:

1. A fair amount of historical WWII heavy weaponry...most especially for the Germans...was created by re-using existing equipment. Some of that equipment was originally manufactured by an opponent, and re-used after capture or newly manufactured after the factories were captured. How are/will be those items manufacturing-costed?

2, Per old-CRS's original rules for game eligibility (i.e. eligible if significantly used in combat during any part of WWII or if contracted for purchase or manufacturing, even if not received and used), various weapons are eligible for the game even though they historically were not manufactured, or were not manufactured in the time period when they'd be introduced in-game. This concern mostly would apply to the French and British in T0 and 1, and the Germans and Italians in later tiers. How will such weapons' manufacturing costs be determined?

3. What will be done when historically there were large differences in manufacturing (and thus field-use) volume and thus economies of scale, but gameplay instead is structured to provide each side with average-equal quantities of a weapon class? Certainly this applies to most heavy weapons in comparing the historical Axis and Allies, but as a prominent example, German naval destroyers were built in tiny numbers compared to those of the British and Americans.

I'm here - just doing other stuff - conversions included the cost of the base equipment plus the added equipment. You can't calculate costs based on arbitrary data like assuming X number of chassis Y were captured prior to conversion - game results and history may not be the same. As most of the older chassis are quite cheap (think Panzerjaeger I for example) it's probably fine to assume this cost basis for game purposes. It's not like we keep a running list of produced equipment by chassis number. Would have made my life easier for sure if we had. 

The database can calculate 'should cost' based on any vehicle, cannon, or plane based on characteristics so anything not in the database as turned over can be added simply by specifying the design data and year of introduction. It will then calculate equipment cost for that equipment in that year (well - all years from intro to end of war actually) 

I balanced that as best I could by using an average price as an entry into the cost calculation in generating the formula(s) if multiple annual prices were available. The price of the Char B was at 3 levels within a year for example...with immense downward pressure being exerted by the french government. In the case of that year (1940) the average of all three contract prices was used as the input for the formula derivation. CRS can use the derived cost...or the actual cost by month. Its all there.  I had to do the same thing later on with Panther on the German side...as the often quoted prices in public did not include many necessary items. 

Additionally - acceptance testing was different among all nations. The brits extensively tested aircraft before delivery which added to their cost. The germans did not...and in fact some aircraft were delivered in an unacceptable (and frequently non-combat ready) state. No penalties there...but the pre-flight testing was included in the British pricing because the data was available. 

I did my level best to equalize it all in the initial generation of the should cost formulas...which derives cost for anything when cost is not publically available.

I even went so far as to have the RAF send me the original production contracts for aircraft by lot to determine what was in and or not included in the contracted price. 

If anyone can do better - have at it.

[bmw]

4 minutes ago, scotsman said:

If anyone can do better - have at it.

Sounds like you were Da' Man!.............but it is what it is now I guess.

[Scotsman]

Well they can try and do better - but given the amount of work and research I put into - I seriously doubt they can. Hatch commented that I should have published a book on it - but my only interest was making this game all it can and should be. It's too bad it wasn't done before the game opened....then many of the problems that I uncovered in doing all that wouldn't have been inflicted on the player base for years. Hard research is always preferable to opinion in my book. Even if its a CRS opinion...its still just an opinion.

Physics, chemistry and weight are the same for everyone...and so is economics in this database.  

You could ask them to publish the prices in the interest of transparency...but given its likely going to be held proprietary to the game...I doubt they would do that 

Also - be advised - I only know what I did and turned in - I don't know what they will do as the end result.

[ZEBBEEE]

@scotsmanwhat about that total budget of nations?

Should it be historically accurate? Or perfectly balanced? Or artificially balanced considering population and actual K/D? 

Even when you respect the cost per unit you could still make assumptions, or make it vary with in-game events. Anything remains possible while respecting your work, no?

[Scotsman]

The total budget of each nation was made equal by unit type in what I turned in - you would end up with a very different game in which the Axis wouldn't stand a prayer if you used the actual industrial power of the Allies vs Axis. So - the budget for an armored brigade is the same across all nations. We aren't talking a national budget which would be the sum of all the individual TOEs but rather a national TOE budget by type for an infantry brigade, armored brigade etc. All equipment within the TOE is accounted for. 

If you alter the unit price on an equipment type then its an opinion of your own with no basis in fact for the cost of materials, labor, etc for that given year. 

CRS can alter it for an in game event or do what they want with it...but if its materially different from the calculated prices...then its CRS playing with the numbers again to do with what they want...and that has no factual basis. 

You can alter the total budget by type at will - that way you can scale equipment pool to player population. Or - you can set a budget for an event and play with different TOE mixes in the event...the only thing that's sacrosanct is the cost of the individual item. 

Theoretically this also gives the server the basis to calculate a dynamic equipment pool based on server population if they ever wanted to go that route. More players equals bigger budget and more equipment...fewer players would automatically shrink the budget and available spawn pools. All they have to do is define 'normal population' and let the server do the rest 

[ZEBBEEE]

 

12 minutes ago, scotsman said:

The total budget of each nation was made equal by unit type in what I turned in - you would end up with a very different game in which the Axis wouldn't stand a prayer if you used the actual industrial power of the Allies vs Axis. 

That was precisely my point. It's an arbitrary choice to balance supplies based on the production costs only. It could be maybe have been much more relevant to base it on its dependency to materials and equipment availability, or factory production capacity, available manpower, etc. Money wasn't the real limiting factor.

Also if you expect the game to be balanced just on total money per branch, we still don't know how what will define the balance between chosing 10 tigers vs 100 pzII. You succesfully fixed one variable but there are still a lot out there that makes it complex to judge the result IMHO

[Scotsman]

32 minutes ago, Zebbeee said:

 

That was precisely my point. It's an arbitrary choice to balance supplies based on the production costs only. It could be maybe have been much more relevant to base it on its dependency to materials and equipment availability, or factory production capacity, available manpower, etc. Money wasn't the real limiting factor.

Also if you expect the game to be balanced just on total money per branch, we still don't know how what will define the balance between chosing 10 tigers vs 100 pzII. You succesfully fixed one variable but there are still a lot out there that makes it complex to judge the result IMHO

There is no other path possible that won't include bias, opinion or both....which invariably will make for a biased result. And no - you introduce an entirely different set of problems doing what you suggest. If I based it on materials that would mean the Axis will lose their tungsten supplies and specialty ammo by definition. Do you really want that? You want to assume the Allies are winning and force historic materials issues on the Axis? I don't think so...I doubt the Axis player base would agree to that sort of thing...especially if they were winning the map. We aren't tracking raw materials or the old supply points in any case...so that line of reasoning is moot. Maybe someday when you have real logistics but not now. 

The statement that money wasn't a limiting factor is really hard to figure. It all comes down to GDP in the end. What you use it on or if the desired material is available is a totally is a different matter. 

Again it's all independent of any player combat use...it has to be. If you go that route you are by definition pursuing an analysis path that would not stand muster with anyone in the private market or DOD...as it includes human effects which are highly variable. The balance equation has to be completely divorced from player effectiveness, human effects, or tactical scenario. A tiger properly supported in one scenario performs very differently from a tiger facing a dozen sherman firefly elsewhere. Same vehicle...but the scenario and player skill will dictate entirely different outcomes. 

You would be nuts to base things on analytical insanity...there is no need to consider -any- human skill, effect, or tactical scenario unless you want your answer biased by definition. If CRS were to try to use the data in that fashion I would call them out on it...as you are driving things back into the court of opinion rather than statistical science. 

I have always insisted on analytical, scientific and factual integrity. What you would suggest violates them all. 

In summary - whenever possible in military analysis of weapons - YOU NEVER INCLUDE HUMAN EFFECTS. The equipment balance in an armored brigade for example was the cost of the equipment in that year and what was being produced in that year. If you want to trade in that budget in the available equipment pool you can. (if you are CRS) 

What you can not do is have one side with a 60% larger equipment budget and call that 'balanced'....

I guess the best example of this I can give are the various arab israeli conflicts. The soviets were big on battlefeld calculus...to them a soldier was a soldier, a pilot was a pilot, and moral and individual skill never enter into the equation. Alas thats not true in the real world...everyone knows that. Not all pilots or soldiers are equal...but quantifying that difference ALWAYS puts you in the position of determining what that difference might be and that judgement is always subjective. It's why you avoid it in military procurement. 

By soviet calculation the Arab states win every time...we all know what the real outcomes were. 

None of that alters the fact a JS-III weighs more than an AMX-13...the effectiveness of those systems is a function of the crew..and that variable (is probably impossible) to calculate as its also dependent on tactical scenario and a multitudeof other factors

I know of no other way to do this that doesn't automatically interject opinion or bias...which is what created the mess to being with. 

[ZEBBEEE]

interesting, thanks. I wasn't suggesting anything though. I was just saying that there are other variables and that fixing these cannot take all historical figures into account. Exactly for the reasons you mentioned.

Furthermore there are other game variables that will change the balance, despite keeping total budgets even: rank access, supply location, trigger timers... And again, you can get very different final results. Production cost per unit has a great value but how it links to other variables is still arbitrary. 

Just Saying this because you said you monitered the final figures.

[Scotsman]

it doesn't account for any game condition or condition artificially imposed by the nature of the game ...its independent of that and has to be. I would humbly suggest that you better start considering changing game design if the design is such that it automatically generates superiority to one side or another outside of a reasonable local tactical situation. You can't and shouldn't protect players from making bad decisions or engaging in bad game play if that is what they choose to do for whatever reason. The system has to account for all players good and bad, all scenarios good and bad, and preferably be independent of it all. 

I can not say the same for bad game DESIGN. That is in the purview of CRS to correct...and correct it they should if it violates sound design or analytical principals. 

I can think of NO game condition that mandates an unequal brigade ground budget per say...there is to my knowledge never been any lack of players to spawn any ground equipment type...naval is another story...I can think of times when DDs werent being spawned because of a lack of player rank among available players. Again...largely irrelevant to what  the DD is worth per say....as its game design that creates the issue. 

The map is the same for everyone whether you are driving west or driving east. Dependent on tactical situation either side can be advantaged or disadvantaged by terrain - BUT YOU DON'T BIAS YOUR EQUIPMENT AVAILABILITY ON THAT. 

In short...when I say I look a this its a matter of how it is used...if its all used out of context or in a way that violates statistical or analytical reason or the historic record  then the player base can and should stand up and say something. That's no different than objecting to Tigers in 1939. 

 

[jwilly]

So if each combatant nation can figure out which of its weapons have the greatest combat effectiveness per unit cost within given weapon classes, and each nation's budget for each unit type is allocated so as to maximize combat effectiveness with zero budget used for less effective weapons even though they existed historically;

And, if Country A in a given tier historically had greater-combat-effectiveness weapons per unit cost than their opponent;

Then for exactly equal unit budgets, Country A inherently will have more-combat-effective units...prior to consideration of player human factors including skill, morale, and population.

I think it's unavoidable that there are inequalities in combat effectiveness per unit cost among the combatant countries. If those inequalities are built into the unit budgeting / composition process, the game at optimum unit composition inherently will be unbalanced. Only if one side chooses, or is forced, to make suboptimal choices and allocations would balanced aggregate combat effectiveness be possible.

That, to me, is not good game design.

--***--

I appreciate that any solution to that problem would involve (necessarily expert) judgement as to how to arrive at equal-combat-effectiveness units prior to consideration of human factors. Expert judgement cannot be objectively measured, and always is arguable.

My view though is that it's the job of the game designers to make the game balanced. Utilization of an "objective" system that does not address differences in historical combat effectiveness per unit cost will tend to tilt the game toward historical outcomes. IMO that is a fundamental mistake.

[Scotsman]

Right now its not possibie for HCs to alter TOE  or production...that was removed. The community has to live with the TOE provided by CRS. What I provided was the proper TOE mix based on production and budget at each half tier (along with item cost.) Thats what was actually being produced at the time within the brigade budget (which in turn is driven by the player population). The brigade budget was driven by the existing spawn pool size...but the new stuff allows that to change as a function of player pool should they choose to ever implement that. 

I would point out there are good reasons all armies now avoid having to make such subjective judgements and (inadvertently) screwing up their material acquisitions. That level of knowledge is unattainable in any measurable or practical sense. 

The system I gave them is independent of effectiveness per say one platform vs another. It's simply a matter of bigger is more expensive, longer range and larger caliber is more expensive - all because gross vehicle weight rises as you implement these things. It goes down as you delete capability (the turret for example in SPs) The larger guns and armor that come with bigger vehicles is inherent to the gross vehicle weight. 

Its infinitely preferable to a system that's subject to built in intentional or unintentional bias. I can't go into what was...but I was not a happy camper looking at those numbers. They were in no way shape or form 'balanced'. 

Edited December 14, 2018 by scotsman

[goreblimey]

As probably an extreme outlier , in this actual dollar cost vs effectiveness . British CS tanks,  why would anyone buy a matilda CS as apposed to the standard version, absolute waste of dollars given its obvious high  cost ve low effectiveness ?