Army Costs

[miketr]

I want to find out what people think about current unit costs.  Ignore the current thread on tanks, brigades and reinventing the wheel with respect to armies.  This is just about the current Army Corps people can buy.

[P3D]

While armies seems to be very expensive (looking at the numbers) they have to be. In a total war like WWI the budget more or less determines the size of armies. That is, the total budget, and the army cost was chosen to allow WWI-size armies relative to national economies. If it is decreased by say 20%, people would just buy 20% more armies (at least those not willing to lose the next conflict to come).
Just keep that in mind.

However, a flat upkeep cost would be fine (I voted too much to upkeep - a nit too much for 1915 army units but OK for the earlier ones). The artillery ammo expenditure is accounted for separately anyways.

[miketr]

$8 to 1 BP cost on infantry is reasonable?  That sets the bar for costs on all other army units.  Tanks need to be more expensive than that for game balance reasons if nothing else.  So we would be looking at least $24 to 1 BP as base to prevent out of wack tank to infantry numbers.  The limiting factor on naval construction is purely BP the limiting factor on army construction is pure cash but troops are HUGELY more expensive than naval units as a part of budget; war time budget or not.

I want to remove the ammo expenditure all together.  Between that and replacement troop costs try to do even the most basic naval program.  This is another debate for later.

[Sachmle]

I agree on the army ammo thing. We don't pay for stockpiles of naval shells, land/sea mines, avgas, fuel oil, ect..
So why do we have to pay for army ammo?

[P3D]

I agree on the army ammo thing. We don't pay for stockpiles of naval shells, land/sea mines, avgas, fuel oil, ect..
So why do we have to pay for army ammo?

Because of the sheer quantities of ammunition consumed. The UK armies consumed in the order of 5 (or 8, don't remember exactly) million tons of ammunition during WWI. Doing the math that comes down to around 5000t+ per corps per year average - regardless of being on the frontline or in the British Isles. The BP cost is supposed to represent the industrial constraints of this - reducing what is available for buying new units or building ships.

Honestly I don't understand why people want to make big war less costly (which only means even more corps around).

[P3D]

Second reason is that this force nations to import ammunition, sometimes from overseas - thus reason for overseas allies and trade warfare. Otherwise the MM would just sit out the war, with no reason to make any risks.

[Jefgte]

As I can remember in WWI, the french industry was essentially converted to military material production
shells from metallurgie sites or industrial cities
Renault cars...built tanks & trucks.

so, I think that a part of civil budget could be converted to military material production - civil $ & civil BPs
10% during peace time & 75% for war periode

for ex , that mean for Peru HY
100% - 6.5BP
10% - 0.65 BP for shells - mines - guns- riffles - tanks - planes...
-------------------

Just a suggest...
Jef

[Kaiser Kirk]

... If it is decreased by say 20%, people would just buy 20% more armies ...

I was under the impression there was a 5%-7% of your pop limit to army size regardless, at least in peacetime.

[miketr]

Honestly I don't understand why people want to make big war less costly (which only means even more corps around).

Because the metrics of fighting a war see us having trouble upkeeping our current forces let alone expanding our armies at all.

Michael

[miketr]

Second reason is that this force nations to import ammunition, sometimes from overseas - thus reason for overseas allies and trade warfare. Otherwise the MM would just sit out the war, with no reason to make any risks.

Because you can't import units, transport units, etc.  The Germans MM did just that in both wars. Also I have suggested a MM rules that costs income if your MM sits out or takes losses.

Michael

[Kaiser Kirk]

Comparing to the Original Time Line, let me introduce Belgium. She was arming as best possible since the mid-1930s to defend herself, but her planning did not include Stukas and Panzer divisions.  In the end, she slowed the Germans down. Still, her forces are pretty easy to define and break down.

1940 Belgium boasted 650,000 men in 22 Divisions,  I've read another 150,000 were raised and training in France, I would not think those were fully functional. At this time the she had a population of 8,398,000.

Of the Belgian divisions, they would be classed in Navalism as :12  would be 1920s  infantry, 4 1920s  specialist, and 6 would be advanced. 12 would be 1910 motorized, 2 would be fully motorized.
Some of the infantry would be assigned as garrisons for  fortresses and fortified lines. Converting to 50,000 man corps is a little more tricky, but basically it's 2 divisions/Corps, with some folks left over.

Presuming a 1920s Inf would cost $14, +1$ for motorized, +$2 for fully motorized.

Armor would be basically 1.5 BP brigades of late 1930s  light armor. (300 x 5t). At +$ per 5 years, that would be $14 : 1 BP, or  $21 to build.

Artillery would be 5x 170mm RR, 5x 280mm RR, and 1x 305mm RR.

Air power was 140 planes, mostly early-mid1930s biplanes.

At one time I read that Belgium had been spending 25% of her peacetime budget on the military, and that would have been during her rearmament in 1935-1940, during the Great Depression.

This gives the following wartime mobilized costs in Navalism terms
$25.5_____6 x 1920s inf Corps ($14?)
$3.75_____1x 1920s specialist Corps
$4.00_____1x 1920s motorized specialist corps
$8.25_____3x motorized Advanced corps
$0.50_____5 x 170mm RR
$1.95_____5x280+1x305RR
$5.25_____300 Lt. Armor AFVs (1.5BP)
$0.275____100 ftrs + 50 Bombers

$49.475  is what mighty Belgium would have to pay to stay mobilized.


Realistically, she could sell war bonds, but in Navalism it would be hard to imagine the 8.38 mil population nation coming close to financing this, or expecting too. . This excludes the 3 Corps they supposedly raised and were training in France.

Given that in peace, I read 25% of the budget went to the Military during the Great Depression and which was still trying to add new French tanks, British fighters and ATRs, etc.

From the write up it sounds like the Jaegers were considered "Elite".
So peacetime status :
$12.75___Active__6 x 1920s inf Corps ($14?)
$3.75___Moblz__1x 1920s specialist Corps
$2.00___Active__1x 1920s motorized specialist corps
$8.25___Resrv__3x motorized Advanced corps
$0.125___Resv__5 x 170mm RR
$0.4875___Resv__5x280+1x305RR
$2.625___Active__300 Lt. Armor AFVs (1.5BP)
$0.1375__Active__100 ftrs + 50 Bombers
$30.125

Presuming that Belgium complies with Navalism rules, that gives the Belgians an economy of $60.25

If that is reasonable, then the Army costs in Navalism are fine.
If that is not reasonable, then the Army costs and maintenance in Navalism are too much.

[miketr]

If you look at Belgium they had 22 divisions on 8 million people so roughly 2.6 divisions per million.  France with 42 million had 98 divisions or 2.33 million divisions per million but they had a large navy, tanks in large numbers (over 2,000), aicraft, etc.  USSR had 170 million people with about 300 divisions so 1.75 division per million in 1941 but USSR was less industralized per capita than the west.  Germany had about 150 divisions in 1941 with a ratio of about 1.66 divisions per million but Germany had been building up from its 100,000 treaty limited army in 1933 and nation had been expanding.

So being able to suppot in peace time or near 3.5% of your population under arms should be a reasonable goal; (2 divisions per million pop with a divisions worth 17,500 men each).  I assume nation should be or near 1 IC to 1 POP at least.  So a nation of 50 million would be able to have under arms 1,750,000 counting reserves and active troops or an army of 35 corps.  In war time said nation should be able to expand said army or at least fully supply it and replace combat losses.  The 19th century and early 20th was the era of the mass army.  

This is why I want costs reduced in all ways with armies upkeep and production.  Its getting harder and harder to maintain my army.  Other nations are having the same problem too I have heard.

Under industrlized nations like Iberia that have less IC than their pop would have either smaller armies or more likely less capable ones compared to other nations.  Still I think I should be able to do better than I am.

Michael

[Borys]

I find the costs fine. The poor countries will simply field the less sophisticated corps. I can't afford to upgrade my Heimwehr, but that's my choice.
Borys

[miketr]

It looks like there is agreement on reduced upkeep and some desire for reduced production but not a majority.  6 out of 11 voted for something else.  I will put up a new poll later to get some opinions on different upkeep costs ideas.

Michael

[Desertfox]

As the leader of poor New Zion I do think that Army costs are excessive. The current army NZ has is the bare minimum I would consider sufficient for defense, and there is absolutely no way to improve it or enlarge it at all.