If moderators feel the debate about the T-80 is getting too long for this thread please move it. I`m gonna respond to it after all since Fistalis does want to continue it.EDIT: and also to hopefully clarify a couple of misunderstandings.
You're complaining about costs but not even looking at the actual pricings.
I`m neither complaining(proposing and complaining are not the same thing), nor ignoring the " actual pricings" that you`ve posted above. You got a reply already on this.
You chose to compare it to the M1, and I explained why it should be cheaper in comparison.
No, I choose to compare it(the T-80 and T-80U that is) to the T-72 and T-64. I don`t understand why you keep jumping over that directly to the Abrams. The M1 in game values were there mentioned as an indicator of what an expensive tank has in game. The T-80 is cheaper by comparison to the M1 and nobody suggested it shouldn`t be cheaper. What I`ve said is that the T-80 needs to be somewhere in between the T-72 and M1, but closer to the M1 than it currently is. And that was only to provide an idea of the sort of cost value I was thinking that would work in game. I could simply have said "more expensive than the T-72 and the T-64", but that would have been too vague so I chose an upper limit by mentioning what an M1 costs. If I would not have said that it might have appeared that I ask for the cost of the T-80U to be 3 times the price of the T-72 as it says in the book. That in my opinion would have been too much gameplay wise so I pointed it out.
I didn't bring it up.
No, but you`ve focused on it unnecessarily and gave it a different purpose.
You suggest increasing all tanks more expensive than the T-80u since an increase in price to it would require an increase in price on EVERY tank worldwide in order to maintain the comparative pricing structure.
No, I wasn`t. Throwing in the "worldwide" factor is what you`re responsible for. Upping the T-80 is something that was meant by me to affect the soviet line of tanks and the choices that a soviet player needs to make. Not revolutionizing the pricing of the whole list of units for all countries.
Honestly almost all the unit costs are off in the game due to economic scale and PPP. In order to get pricing right they would have to go through all 4000 or so units and redo them due to the fact that the Economic modifiers are so low in comparison to 2020.
That may be true, I don`t know. What I know is that I have not proposed that and won`t either. The point for suggesting an increase in the T-80 is that its history(early especially) was marked by the fact that it was perceived(by the russian officials) as delivering a relatively small increase in offensive/defensive performance for a very large increase in cost(relative to the T-64 and T-72). And I think that it would be good if this issue(that the player feels it`s paying somewhat more than what it`s getting) were to be better reflected in game. By, yet again, a reasonable increase in the cost value of the T-80 without
touching the values of any other units.
As to the goods its not IG its MG, military goods /= Industrial goods. Units require Military goods to build. Buildings require Industrial goods.
And what is the column for military goods in DEFAULT.UNIT?
and yes I forgot the ' it was we're as in WE ARE..
Oh! That`s what you meant! To me the phrase sounded(for all the right reasons) that it`s missing the subject and that "were" was the verb. The subject could have been "you"(meaning I
have ignored the military goods in which case it meant I`ve missed something) or it could have been "they"(meaning that the military goods were ignored by the developers in some sort of way; which is something that needed an explanation too).
if you're going to start being a grammar troll then you're right the convo is best left as is.
As I have just explained there is a very legitimate reason to ask who the subject was in that phrase for it made different senses. Just because you haven`t checked your writing though doesn`t mean you should throw personal insults at people confused by something in your post. Making a "hard to read post" and then calling a troll the person who has to struggle with your lack of punctuation are really two wrongs that don`t make a right. Even the phrase above where you`ve explained what you meant with "were" was missing proper punctuation and honestly, the first two times I`ve read it, I didn`t understand what you`re trying to say. But I`ve persevered because it seemed important to know its meaning, as the next phrase called me a "grammer troll". It was just a misunderstanding and you shouldn`t have - so quickly - jumped to that "solution".
The only reason I even replied to it is YOU Linked this particular conversation in my modern world mod thread.
I haven`t asked for a reply or debate on it. I`ve linked you to the info I have posted in the hope that it could benefit your mod. Honestly, I apologize if you`ve felt obligated to get into a discussion for which you weren`t prepared and/or for which you had no enthusiasm, just because you thought that link was an invitation for such a thing!
I was more than happy to leave it be prior to that since I'm well aware that the chances of them going over something they did 7 years ago to rebalance the entire unit structure for the new economic modifiers is rather slim.
First of all I haven`t asked you to modify anything. The quotes were there to be used or not. Secondly I haven`t asked for anything other than the T-80 to get higher cost numbers. Nothing about the entire unit structure came from me.