Unit Costs - T-80 example, split from Errata

[MK4]

Shouldn`t`t the T-80U(with its gas turbine engine) be much more expensive than it currently is? And shouldn`t the T-80UD(with its cheaper diesel engine) be less expensive than it? I`m looking(hopefully correctly ) in the DEFAULT.UNIT at the following list of prices:

T-80U - 2.4
T-80UD - 2.5
T-64A - 2.25
T-72M - 2
T-72M1 - 1.25
And, for comparison, the other gas turbine engine powered tank, the american Abrams:
M1 Abrams - 3.8
M1A1 Abrams - 5

According to Osprey`s "T-80 Standard Tank: The Soviet Army's Last Armored Champion" (New Vanguard) by Steven Zaloga, the T-80 was costing R480,000 vs R143,000 for the T-64A. The T-80U was costing nearly three times as much as a T-72B(R824,000 compared to R280,000). Also, according to the mentioned book, a 5 five year plan of 1984 concluded that the army could purchase 2,500 tanks and 6,000 diesel engines or 1,500 tanks and 2,000 gas turbine engines. The main reason for the T-80UD being economics apparently. Also, in game, the T-80UD seems to have significantly better attack and defense stats when in fact it was supposed to be virtually identical to the late production T-80U, apart from the engine and the aa machine-gun iirc.

EDIT: just to make it clear:
1. the in game cost values of the M1 Abrams are noted above just to show what a considerably more expensive tank has in this regard and to provide an idea of how much the T-80`s cost could/should be increased(i.e. it should not reach the Abrams so as not to have complaints that it shouldn`t be that expensive by comparison with the Abrams)
2. my point is that the costs of the T-80 should be increased relative to the costs of the T-64 and T-72(and not relative to the tanks of other nations), but, for gameplay reasons, not as much as the book says(three times the cost of a T-72).
3. I don`t think any other units should get cost increases; my intention was just to reflect the expressed belief(by the officials of the time) that the T-80 was, among the other russian tanks, expensive to produce and maintain without necessarily being that much better. The result would be that the player would have a tougher choice when it comes to producing this tank instead of the T-72/T-64 since that dilemma seemed to have existed historically too. I.e. this increase cost proposal of the T-80 is meant to affect just the russian line of tanks and the strategy of the soviet player. I am NOT suggesting that any other tank of other nation should get increases/decreases by comparison to the T-80.

[Fistalis]

U.S. designs are always more expensive. We have military design companies who use money like I use oxygen.

You also have to remember that the research and maintenance costs are both derived from the same figure.

Your point may be valid.. but the choice of U.S. tanks for comparison was bad.

Also unit designs costs over time are effected by the date in game.(adjusted for imaginary inflation and cheaper manufacturing processes?)
For example. Year 2012-
T-80U - 478.26M
T-80UD - 471.62M
T-64A - 703.38M
T-72M - 495M
T-72M1 - 282M

Notice the T-72 is more expensive than both the T-80s. Due to it being an older design. (and the T64 is crazy expensive)

Edit: This is with the economic factors adjusted. Prices are far cheaper in the default scenario, however the comparative costs to each other are the same.

[MK4]

U.S. designs are always more expensive. We have military design companies who use money like I use oxygen.

What does that have to do with the fact that the T-80(turbo version) was much more expensive than the T-64 and T-72?

You also have to remember that the research and maintenance costs are both derived from the same figure.

I don`t know how the research of the T-80 should be portrayed monetarily, but as far as upkeep costs are concerned I`ve just assumed people here would know that the gas turbine engine of the T-80 was not just more expensive to produce, but that it was also more expensive to maintain and that it consumed more fuel. Hence why a considerably more expensive maintenance is also right for this tank. As far as research goes - and I`m just speculating here - the fact that the gas turbine engine for tanks(in general, not a particular model) was in development for such a long time, that eventually it was built especially for the tank and not adopted from a helicopter engine and that it was something really new(and unique since no other Russian tank had it) I`d say that a higher research cost(if it`s dependent on the higher construction cost of the unit) would be proper too.

Your point may be valid..

It`s not my point. I`ve quoted a book on it and there are others along the same lines.

but the choice of U.S. tanks for comparison was bad.

No, it wasn`t. For one thing I`ll assume you know that the Abrams(not US tanks in general) is the only other tank apart from the T-80 that uses a gas turbine engine. So even though they are very different tanks, they do have that general feature in common. Between an expensive(in SRCW game terms) western tank that uses a diesel engine and one that uses a turbo I preferred to choose the turbo in the form of the early versions of the Abrams. Their in game price is mentioned in my post for the reader`s convenience, to give a sense of how much more expensive a tank can be in game. Point being that for game balance reasons one should probably not threefold the price of the T-72 to obtain the price of the T-80 as the data show, but the price should still be somewhere in between the T-72 and the Abrams, but closer to the later than the former.

Also unit designs costs over time are effected by the date in game.(adjusted for imaginary inflation and cheaper manufacturing processes?)
For example. Year 2012-
T-80U - 478.26M
T-80UD - 471.62M
T-64A - 703.38M
T-72M - 495M
T-72M1 - 282M

Notice the T-72 is more expensive than both the T-80s. Due to it being an older design. (and the T64 is crazy expensive)

The prices I`ve posted were the standard ones from DEFAULT.UNIT. That SR uses this in game design date convention for gameplay reasons to make older designs more expensive has no connection(that I can see) with what the standard price of each unit should be(before it starts being affected by age).

[Fistalis]

The prices I`ve posted were the standard ones from DEFAULT.UNIT. That SR uses this in game design date convention for gameplay reasons to make older designs more expensive has no connection(that I can see) with what the standard price of each unit should be(before it starts being affected by age).

You didn't list prices.. you listed the abstract numbers thats used to Calculate the Prices/Research costs and maint. costs.
Also.. I assume you know that T-80s were significantly cheaper build and maintain than an M1. I don't think the Price should be upped.. if anything it should be dropped when comparing it to the M1 prices.

Also were ignoring the number of military goods that goes into the production of each.. which indirectly effects the final cost.

I could agree that the T-64 is too expensive in comparison..and the UD might need to be dropped .2 or so But not that the T80U doesn't cost enough. when comparing it to the M1 It should actually be cheaper than what it is now.

But then again it might be a balance BG struck since the number affects Research costs as well. (not to mention this is all stuff they did 7 years ago )

[MK4]

You didn't list prices.. you listed the abstract numbers thats used to Calculate the Prices/Research costs and maint. costs.

That`s correct actually. Still valid point on my part as that number covered the construction cost, maintenance and research which I`ve showed to need upping by comparison to the T-64 and T-72.

I don't think the Price should be upped.. if anything it should be dropped when comparing it to the M1 prices.

I could agree that the T-64 is too expensive in comparison..and the UD might need to be dropped .2 or so But not that the T80U doesn't cost enough. when comparing it to the M1 It should actually be cheaper than what it is now.

What an Abrams-centric speech that was. You`re just assuming that the M1 is proper in game as it is now and that all the others need to change after it. Maybe you should have said that not only the T-80U should have its price increased, but also the M1. I`d prefer to translate it this way, because what you`re saying is keep the cost of the M1 as it is and decrease the cost of the T-80U. Which, as I`ve pointed above, would by necessity require the dropping in prices of ALL the other russian tanks that were cheaper in reality than the T-80. To me this would mean more work for the sake of more of work. Personally I would just have upped the price of the T-80U, not by three times the cost of the T-72, but by at a significant amount to make it significantly harder to have and maintain so as to reflect reality, without upping or dropping anything else.

Also (?) were ignoring the number of military goods that goes into the production of each.. which indirectly effects the final cost.

Well, a subject would make the world of difference in that phrase. I haven`t mentioned the IG because as far as I can see no unit in DEFAULT.UNIT has anything in the AB column expect for the structures. And I can`t see another column dedicated to goods for each unit.

EDIT: I now realize that this has dragged on for quite a few long posts and is getting a life of its own. This being the unit errata thread I think it`s best to leave it as is. The points(quotes and all) are already there to be considered by the devs so I think we can move on with other issues.

[Aragos]

Just pitching this out there fellows, but comparing development/production costs for military equipment over time just doesn't work all that well. The per plane production cost of a WWII era P-40 Warhawk vs. a F-22 isn't really fair or all that accurate.

Also, I'd think about the cost associated with 'breakthrough' designs (e.g., the M60 or T-62 tanks, or the F-14/MiG-25 aircraft) with earlier or later designs. The quantum leap equipment would/should cost more, whereas the later derivatives (M60A1, or even the T-72) would actually be 'cheaper' in game terms [note: not necessarily in real life, as you have to deal with things like inflation, floating currency, world situations, stock markets, et al that all have an impact on how much something costs].

[Fistalis]

You didn't list prices.. you listed the abstract numbers thats used to Calculate the Prices/Research costs and maint. costs.

That`s correct actually. Still valid point on my part as that number covered the construction cost, maintenance and research which I`ve showed to need upping by comparison to the T-64 and T-72.

I don't think the Price should be upped.. if anything it should be dropped when comparing it to the M1 prices.

I could agree that the T-64 is too expensive in comparison..and the UD might need to be dropped .2 or so But not that the T80U doesn't cost enough. when comparing it to the M1 It should actually be cheaper than what it is now.

What an Abrams-centric speech that was. You`re just assuming that the M1 is proper in game as it is now and that all the others need to change after it. Maybe you should have said that not only the T-80U should have its price increased, but also the M1. I`d prefer to translate it this way, because what you`re saying is keep the cost of the M1 as it is and decrease the cost of the T-80U. Which, as I`ve pointed above, would by necessity require the dropping in prices of ALL the other russian tanks that were cheaper in reality than the T-80. To me this would mean more work for the sake of more of work. Personally I would just have upped the price of the T-80U, not by three times the cost of the T-72, but by at a significant amount to make it significantly harder to have and maintain so as to reflect reality, without upping or dropping anything else.

Also (?) were ignoring the number of military goods that goes into the production of each.. which indirectly effects the final cost.

Well, a subject would make the world of difference in that phrase. I haven`t mentioned the IG because as far as I can see no unit in DEFAULT.UNIT has anything in the AB column expect for the structures. And I can`t see another column dedicated to goods for each unit.

EDIT: I now realize that this has dragged on for quite a few long posts and is getting a life of its own. This being the unit errata thread I think it`s best to leave it as is. The points(quotes and all) are already there to be considered by the devs so I think we can move on with other issues.

You're complaining about costs but not even looking at the actual pricings. Just the abstract numbers and comparing them to other tanks. You chose to compare it to the M1, and I explained why it should be cheaper in comparison.. I didn't bring it up.
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.

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.

As to the goods its not IG its MG, military goods /= Industrial goods. Units require Military goods to build. Buildings require Industrial goods.


and yes I forgot the ' it was we're as in WE ARE.. if you're going to start being a grammar troll then you're right the convo is best left as is. The only reason I even replied to it is YOU Linked this particular conversation in my modern world mod thread. 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.

Just pitching this out there fellows, but comparing development/production costs for military equipment over time just doesn't work all that well. The per plane production cost of a WWII era P-40 Warhawk vs. a F-22 isn't really fair or all that accurate.

Also, I'd think about the cost associated with 'breakthrough' designs (e.g., the M60 or T-62 tanks, or the F-14/MiG-25 aircraft) with earlier or later designs. The quantum leap equipment would/should cost more, whereas the later derivatives (M60A1, or even the T-72) would actually be 'cheaper' in game terms [note: not necessarily in real life, as you have to deal with things like inflation, floating currency, world situations, stock markets, et al that all have an impact on how much something costs].

ya Aragos, I figure alot of the pricing discrepancies are due to the fact that the same number is used for research as well. so they have to strike a balance between actual production costs and research costs.. They can't have both be correct without redoing the entire unit system to add a new input column. Not to mention the economic modifiers in CW are something like 1/10th that of in 2020.. so the majority of 2020 units are going to be far cheaper in the default CW scenario than they probably should be . Also since SR uses PPP which really muddies the water when trying to compare costs, most comparisons are going to be moot without attempting to figure out the exact formulas BG used.

[MK4]

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.

[Balthagor]

I haven't read it yet, but I've split it. Unit costs is one of the many things I'd like to review more...

[Fistalis]

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.

You are suggesting we fix one issue in cost by creating more. Simply raising the T80U cost and not touching anything else is going to make it far more expensive in comparison to most other tanks in the game than it should be.. why do you keep ignoring this? You seem to be focused only on russian tanks and not the entire picture.

You want to use comparative pricing.. but then you ignore that increasing the cost on one unit is going to ruin the comparative pricing of other units. You can't have it both ways.. either you want to use comparative pricing or you don't. Using it ONLY for the Russian models and ignoring the comparative prices of other units vs the russian models isn't fixing anything its making the problem worse.

(as to your issues with comprehension, it's less about my punctuation and more about you being obtuse. Which honestly seems like the whole demeanor of your side of this conversation.)

[MK4]

I haven't read it yet, but I've split it. Unit costs is one of the many things I'd like to review more...

Thanks! To be honest, my proposal was to edit the cost of just the T-80 line of tanks, not to generate a discussion about unit costs in general. Many of the following posts, I think, are more a debate of who didn`t understand what. So I`ve edited my first post to - hopefully - make my point clearer and more containing.

You are suggesting we fix one issue in cost by creating more. Simply raising the T80U cost and not touching anything else is going to make it far more expensive in comparison to most other tanks in the game than it should be.. why do you keep ignoring this? You seem to be focused only on russian tanks and not the entire picture.

Honestly, I think that raising the cost of the T-80U(and T-80, T-80B, T-80BV if they`re ever added) can be significant, yet relatively modest at the same time so as to keep overall gameplay balance. I think it could affect(raise an interesting issue for) the soviet player without turning things upside down across the world. That`s my thought at least.

(as to your issues with comprehension, it's less about my punctuation and more about you being obtuse. Which honestly seems like the whole demeanor of your side of this conversation.)

Well, I don`t know if this paragraph is trying to provoke me into a similar type of personal digs or if you`re just trying to finish things with "style". As far as I`m concerned both of them have failed.

[Fistalis]

I haven't read it yet, but I've split it. Unit costs is one of the many things I'd like to review more...

Ignoring the whole PPP headache. Most units from 2020 are under priced. Quick example.. the M1 costs about 2 mill a tank without inflation in game. It Should be closer to 6.

Honestly, I think that raising the cost of the T-80U(and T-80, T-80B, T-80BV if they`re ever added) can be significant, yet relatively modest at the same time so as to keep overall gameplay balance. I think it could affect(raise an interesting issue for) the soviet player without turning things upside down across the world. That`s my thought at least.

I agree that the Russian tank prices are off.. but I disagree with the assertion that other tanks don't need to be adjusted in response to any price changes in russian tanks.

Russian tanks greatest advantage vs the U.S. designs is lower costs. The USSR Being able to field 2 or 3 T-80s for the cost of a single M1. The quality vs. quantity aspect of the opposing spheres military doctrines shouldn't be tossed out.

Well, I don`t know if this paragraph is trying to provoke me into a similar type of personal digs or if you`re just trying to finish things with "style". As far as I`m concerned both of them have failed.

Neither.. there were no personal digs involved. Simply explaining my perspective in much the same way you explained yours concerning my punctuation.

[Aragos]

I haven't read it yet, but I've split it. Unit costs is one of the many things I'd like to review more...

As strange as it may sound, I wonder if something as simple as unit costs is at the heart of the stacking issue.

If you have 1/10 cost of a unit from 2020 in CW, the AI will be 10x more at the same price. 10x more units means 10x more unit movement, stacking, et al. Suddenly the whole game slows down due to the fact that the US is building 1000 Heavy Trucks instead of 100.

Just an idea.

[Fistalis]

I haven't read it yet, but I've split it. Unit costs is one of the many things I'd like to review more...

As strange as it may sound, I wonder if something as simple as unit costs is at the heart of the stacking issue.

If you have 1/10 cost of a unit from 2020 in CW, the AI will be 10x more at the same price. 10x more units means 10x more unit movement, stacking, et al. Suddenly the whole game slows down due to the fact that the US is building 1000 Heavy Trucks instead of 100.

Just an idea.

At first thought this seems plausible. But the economic modifier affects everything. Tax income, Social spending costs etc. The entire economic system was rebalanced for the 1949 starting date. So goods are cheaper, units are cheaper, social costs are cheaper etc etc.

The pricing change comes out to more like half the cost in CW for some units. M1 is an easy example so i'll use it. 167m in 2020 and 90m in CW. Money is a ALOT tighter in CW and for the majority of the game the AI isn't using 2020 era units anyway.

Kind of
But I think the inflationary pricing is backwards. Things tend to get cheaper to manufacture over time in real life, where as In the game they get more expensive.

Unless of course they apply those inflationary measures to all the economic aspects of the game and I haven't noticed it, in which case it makes sense. But if its only being applied to unit costs then it should really be reversed or removed. Considering that yes, if you adjust the original cost for inflation its going to be high. However if they started building M-60s again tomorrow with modern manufacturing processes its likely to cost a fraction of what it did in 1965.

[Aragos]

Interesting points, all.

I wonder though if you started making M60A1 tanks again how much the up-front expenses would be (retooling, etc.). One of the reasons the US kept building a few M1's a month even after the contract ended was to keep the assembly lines going--one of the benefits of arms sales is that you get to keep making things you normally would have stopped producing (IIRC, the US kept making the F-4 Phantom II even after the US quit using it, all for overseas sales).

Too bad the game doesn't have the building benefits that HOI3 has--the more you build of something, the cheaper it is. Build 1 CV and it's expensive, build 50 and your cost drops a lot.