Army Costs, Part #589

[The Rock Doctor]

I read through the seven page thread on armor costs a few times and just got utterly lost.

A boardgame series I have explains its unit ratings.  It figures light armor/recce units have twice the firepower as infantry, while heavy armor has three to four times as much.  Therefore, I assigned the following ratings to our existent light and heavy armor brigades, based on the most recent Infantry units at the time:



I assumed there was no organic artillery component - the armored units are subordinate to a larger force of infantry that provides the artillery.

How to pay for the units?  Rather than worry about historical figures, let's assume total value ($ + 4*BP, since a BP costs four times an IC) is proportional to firepower.  Let's assume a light armor unit has triple the value of an infantry unit (twice as much for the firepower, plus a bonus for the mobility increase).  By the same reasoning, a heavy armor unit has five times (4 x firepower, + increased mobility) the value of an infantry unit.  

So the 1905 infantry corps has a value of $10 + 4*1.25BP = 15, and an infantry brigade has a value of 1.5.  Therefore, the 1905 and 1910 light armor brigades have a value of 4.5, and a 1910 heavy armor brigade a value of 7.5.  

If we assume that armor units generally have a $2:1BP cost ratio, as P3D suggested, then the costs convert as such:



Note that there is no change in cost between the first and second levels of each armor.  We assume the main difference is reliability, which is accounted for in the combat rules (...somewhere).

These are quite different numbers that we actually have in our current rules set - however, with the combat ratings fixed, there should be no worries about huge tank armies; there is no cost incentive associated with them.  Also, if the BP cost is divided by one hundred vehicles, the resultant vehicle size (15t for a heavy tank in 1915-1920, for example) seems reasonable.

Thoughts?

[Sachmle]

I like charts...they're easier to read then the other post (no offense Miketr or P3D). As to the overall idea, it definitely has merit. As I stated earlier, when it comes to land units, I'm clueless. I'll go w/ the majority with no complaints.

[ctwaterman]

Ok Ive  built a theoretical new Mechanized Corp using the above System.

It contains 6 Brigades of 1905 Infantry and 3 Brigades of 1910 Armored Cars and a Theoretical Brigade of Dedicated Corp Level Artillary Assets.  I also Motorized the entire Corp with 1910 Tech.

Brigade Type	Inf CP	Art CP	$ Cost	BP Cost
1905 Inf	0.5	0.3	1.5	.125
1905 Inf	0.5	0.3	1.5	.125
1905 Inf	0.5	0.3	1.5	.125
1905 Inf	0.5	0.3	1.5	.125
1905 Inf	0.5	0.3	1.5	.125
1905 Inf	0.5	0.3	1.5	.125
1910 AC	1	0.0	1.5	.75
1910 AC	1	0.0	1.5	.75
1910 AC	1	0.0	1.5	.75
1905 Art	0	0.6	1.5	.125

Total Cost $: 16     Total Cost BP: 3.125
Total Combat Power: 6/2.4

So is this the Type of Corp people want to build the point being this Corp as an example would replace All of the Empire Desert Corps/Specialist Corps.??????  Its individual more powerful then a standard 5/1.5 Corp and more manuverable but as an example it cost more $6 more then a specialist unit and more then Double in BP ????

Is it worth it for just a little bit more Combat Power both Infantry and Artillary that would be up to the individual nation???

[The Bushranger]

I think I like the sound of this.

I also don't think I'm going to wade through the various threads that led up to it. :p

[Sachmle]

I think I like the sound of this.

I also don't think I'm going to wade through the various threads that led up to it. :p

At least ONE of is has common sense. :D

[miketr]

If you tie combat power directly to cost of units why do I upgrade my armies at all?  I just build more lower level units and swarm you under.  Other than for setups were numbers are limited such as an invasion there is no advantage to upgrading your units.

[The Rock Doctor]

I see your point.  I think the advantages are:

-Logistics:  naval transport and, for the combat gaming, "stacking" limits

-Density of firepower for things like invasions, as you note.

-More manpower available for other things - though, unfortunately, we have no way yet of characterizing the effects of full mobilization on the workforce.

[miketr]

I have read a number of books on mobilization in war time you have to REALLY drain the manpower pool and or be REALLY stupid about how you organize and do things to not be able to increase production.

[miketr]

OH I will respond in more detail later... I have to do some yard work at our old house.