Re: Bradley vs Abrams
 

Unfortunately (at least from my point of view) the majority of the cost of vehicles in WinSPMBT comes from their vision and weapons systems. Armor is a rather small part of their cost.

Re: Bradley vs Abrams
 

A TI, good FC/RF and decent offensive weapons are inherently more valuable than armor most of the time. Armor can be incredibly useful but this is highly dependent on the circumstances.
Back in its days the extra armor of a early T-72 compared to a T-55 was a nice advantage against 105mm guns. Against later high end 120mm they were both equally toast, their armor difference becoming meaningless. TI, modernized FC and decent rounds would give each of them the ability to face modern tanks at least in the ambush mode; this is especially true in a game where laying smoke is rather easy.
Likewise the tactical value of the Tiger I armor was very different in early 1943 compared to early 1945.

Re: Bradley vs Abrams
 

TI and FC are fantastic to have, I don't disagree. Armor is still very important as long as it is higher than certain value. Get a latest version Merkava or even Abrams and try to kill it from a distance without top attack atgm. Good luck.

Re: Bradley vs Abrams
 

Oh I don't disagree at all that vision/weapon systems are vital, that said there is a certain advantage to being able to drive up to a dug in infantry position without needing to worry much about RPGs or LAAWs.

Re: Bradley vs Abrams
 

What I meant to say is that TI/LRF/FC are useful by default, in most circumstances.
Armor, beyond what it takes to fend off MGs and arty fragments, is a case by case. If you have 40 worth of HEAT armor and you are being shot at with basic RPG then that 40 is worth its weight in gold. If you are facing RPGs with penetration of 60 then 40 is not much of an improvement over 4.
So it seems logical that a cost calculator that has to work for the whole game would value the former factors more than armor.