Quote:
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
Re: Unit Cost
Hybrid Mode
