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.