| Gaz | Saturday, December 1, 2012 - 07:24 am 
Is it jut me or does anyone else get annoyed about how much money weapons corps loose? Annoyed is putting it lightly.
We can't buy LBC,CB or PB on the world market so were forced to build coprs if we want these weapons. Which I have done but the ammount of cash they loose im considering closing them.
It's so frustrating given that im contracting these weapons ever month to myself and still loosing money. Can the GM expalin why this is?
In the real world goverment contacts for weapons is what these corps have wet dreams about.
There was a time when weapons corps were profitable on here does anyone know why this changed? I'd love to setup corps for all the weapons I want but I'd only bankrupt myself.
Fair enough strat corps loose money but I don't see why the rest should? |
| SweetPea | Saturday, December 1, 2012 - 07:55 am
This is puzzling to me as well. The weapons are being paid for by the country or CEO you create them in. Or maybe I am wrong and the stock just gets transferred and the corps just lose money.
I think if we contract them to the country or CEO there should be a posted profit, if not that then at least break even as we pay for these weapons. It is almost like paying for the weapons twice. |
| Gaz | Saturday, December 1, 2012 - 08:13 am
Yes I wasn't sure either if im paying for the weapons twice or the corps are just loosing money.
SweetPea im gonna send you a contract for LBC on LU. Pls accept and well see if profit/loss changes? I'll cancel it after a few months. |
| SweetPea | Saturday, December 1, 2012 - 08:25 am
Accepted |
| Crafty | Sunday, December 2, 2012 - 07:20 pm
Very few mili corps make money because there is little demand. There is no longer any real war, any forces you do need have been greatly reduced.
I contract high Q light tank ammo and light arty shells to my own countries and find the country pays the corp just like normal. This used to be a bad move when your corps could ask mark up on world market prices, and contracts would only pay market price increased with Q, but now there is no mark up to be had, I find it OK to contract to my country.
So, with the end of the war game came the end of military corps basically. If you need stuff you cant get on your world, I reckon you could secure supplies from someone on contract, they or you could always ship from another world. |
| Mr T | Sunday, December 2, 2012 - 10:17 pm
they arent profitable because they produce so few weapons seriously 2 precision bombers a month how are you supposed to create a fleet....they are not profitable and they contribute very little to defense...same story all across the board |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Sunday, December 2, 2012 - 11:13 pm
I find the biggest factor in war is not the weapons themselves but the ammo.
In the event of taking a City it requires 800tanks/800artillery atleast 2attacks, A Capital sometimes requires 3 but that is dependent on the Q of the unit.
Each tanks/Artillery uses 35 Shells per attack @ 120Q
Each shell is 160,000 at base price.
1600weapons * 35shells = 56K per attack
56K shells * 160K per shell = 8.9B per target.
In the upper war levels you need to blow up ALL factories(10targets), Civilian population centers(10targets), around 30forts or so.
50Targets * 9B = 450B to blow up the targets based you use 120Q but since garrisons in the higher war levels have MUCH higher Q you need about 200-250Q ammo to balance your weapons systems.
450B * 2.5(for Q)= 1.1T
You spend @ war level 7 just around 1.1T in just blowing up targets not counting whats needed for stripping the airforce wings.
Also remember we use 56K shells per attack. A SINGLE corp only makes 54K a YEAR!!! In 1 attack we use more then a corp of 250K people make in a year. Also it takes 4people a year to make 1artillery shell???
I can personally kinda of understand the issue with weapons but ammo needs to be redone. When they lowered the production it was kinda a stupid move(hope i dont get banned).
Plus as you move up the war levels the C3 become harder then its worth to take them. War level 6 you make 6T no bombers and little defences. In a war level 11 the Q of the C3 units is 3times as high, and has 3-4times the amount of weapons as a level 6 but only 6T more. The profit is there but it is VERY LITTLE. I make more warring with a level 7 then an war level 11 does.
The big factor is players want to be self suffient and WANT to make goods themselves. If i want to self supply myself i shouldnt have to contract 50+ corps JUST to supply myself with tank ammo. Let ALONE contract 100+ just to war a C3 once a week.
Id like to see ALL ammo production on all worlds doubled(which would drop the base price by 50%), FB should also see weapons corps making double production(50% cheaper base price weapons then the other worlds), and its ammo corps should make triple if not more.
Its the war world, i mean if its advertised as cheaper weapons/ammo "WHY" do i pay the same base price and have the same production levels as the other worlds? Alt east to me it makes no sence.
--------------------------SIDE NOTE---------------
Id like to see profits in C3 warring increase.
I think the GM should offer a little extra boost.
1.5T per war level is fair. At war level 10 your making 5T more which is a small bonus but id like to see a pop increase.
Maybe your war level * 1M population.
So each war level would add 1M population to the country.
In War level 10 youd get a nation of about 20M people and 15T cash assests. Just a thought |
| Mizore | Monday, December 3, 2012 - 03:08 am
Personally, I think it's actually irrelevant how much the corporation produces or how much the war costs. Those are balancing issues related to a different side of the game. The management likely wants war to be expensive... what the corps produce is directly related to the price of the goods. In other words, no matter how much it takes to conquer a country, the question of how much a corporation produces is irrelevant here: consider it this way, there are two options if the corps are not earning money in full shortage markets: (1) increase quantity produced or (2) increase base price of product. Both are viable options depending on what they want to achieve in the realm of the wargame and military size. No matter what, buying weapons from others must always be compared to the cost of producing them... not compared against some game change. If weapons corps are profitable, it is cheaper to produce the weapons than buy from others. If the weapons corps are unprofitable, it is cheaper to buy from other than produce them yourself.
All that matters here is the profitability of weapons corporations. In my mind, they should probably be relatively balanced in terms of profit with other corporations with similar market situations for the raw materials used and products produced so that weapons in shortage are cheaper to produce yourself. I'm unsure if this was the case. Last I checked was in June and it definitely seemed like the base price was far lower than was needed to achieve the "balance" with other corporations. This, however, is an opinion. See bolded statement.
As an aside, I am a player. I do not want to be self-sufficient. Therefore, your statement that players want to be self-sufficient is incorrect.
For the OP, the cost of building a military is actually VERY high relative to monthly income of an enterprise. If you're buying your own weapons, think of it as you losing every cent of that corporation's earnings despite it being reported as profit.
My only question is: are you referring to "reported" earnings or cash levels of the enterprise. My response only makes sense if you're referring to cash levels. The stuff I said previously may help explain if you're making losses on "reported" earnings. |
| SweetPea | Monday, December 3, 2012 - 04:59 am
I'm thinking the real issue here is are we paying for paying for weapons/ammo by purchasing the product...and in doing so are we also paying for the corp to run at a negative when profits from the purchases should turn a sc buck.
That is all I wanna know. I hate doing math, so when anyone figures out the answer, please post it here so I can see. |
| Drew | Monday, December 3, 2012 - 06:56 am
"If you're buying your own weapons, think of it as you losing every cent of that corporation's earnings despite it being reported as profit."
You are buying at cost, which means there is not another entity profiting off of your business. Your statement is incorrect. Just saying.
Too weigh in, Weapon Corps historically are very profitable irl, but not in this game. I agree the balancing of this game is priority however there are other ways to balance this act. A weapon corp can be made more profitable without an effect on the cost of war. Keyword balancing. If they can balance this is something that resembles moreso the real world they should do it, as this is a simulation game. But in reality I don't really know how unprofitable these corps are as they don't make any money and I buy my weapons and ammo under the base price, so I don't waste labor on less profitable production. Should that always for sure be the case? me thinks not |
| Mizore | Tuesday, December 4, 2012 - 06:18 am
My statement is correct.
Let's say corporation cost are $2B, revenue is $3B.
You're buying all the production. Therefore, you pay $3B. All told you lost $5B and made $3B... meaning you lost $2B, the corporation's cost. It doesn't matter that if someone else profits by you buying elsewhere, you're still losing money.
Sure you take into account that maybe you buy those weapons anyway... but you can save money and lose money at the same time. |
| Crafty | Tuesday, December 4, 2012 - 03:37 pm
Lol, but you are getting the weapons for your corp' 2B loss. Thats how real national corps function. And far better than privatisation it is too [IMO]. |
| Andy | Wednesday, December 5, 2012 - 12:49 am
Weapon corporations can make a lot of money if the product pricing is good.
there are many weapons in oversupply and the price declined, pushing some of these corporations into losses.
As a result, some will close (C3 countries close them more quickly) and at some point the market stabilizes and the product price will recover.
If the owner country purchases the weapons from the corporation it is paying a low price.
the money paid for these weapons or ammunition is going into the corporation and compensates for the cost of the corporation. you do not pay twice.
There is no difference for you to purchase from your own corporation or from the market.
there is no difference for the corporation where the money it receives for the products comes from.
The lower the price you pay for the weapons, the more losses the corporation will make.
if the product price goes up because of shortage, the country will pay much more for the product but the corporation will make a profit.
All said, when you purchase from your own corporation, you end up paying the production cost and it makes no difference if the corporation makes a loss or a profit. |
| Mizore | Wednesday, December 5, 2012 - 12:50 am
That is true, but I was calling attention to the fact that the cost of building a military was high relative to the monthly income of enterprises. So having lots of self-supplying military corps does put a very large strain on an enterprise.
Anyway, my opinion is to pick the most profitable corporation regardless of what they produce. Let's say costs are the same at $2B and you're buying weapons in both cases at $3B, you got a military corp producing $3B or you got a non-military corp producing $3.5B. In the first case, you lose $2B in cash and get $3B in weapons. In the second case, you lose only $1.5B in cash and get $3B in weapons. |
| Andy | Wednesday, December 5, 2012 - 12:59 am
Building the most profitable corporations is a good strategy and the long term shortage of some high tech products is an invitation to build such corporations.
the reason to build weapons and ammunition corporations is to make yourself less dependent on the market.
We had times when weapons and ammo where in short supply and when in war, such a situation does not help you. |
| Andy | Wednesday, December 5, 2012 - 01:07 am
The cost of building the military is high and we have been pushing it down for a long time and keep doing so. The price declined significantly already.
also the cost of maintaining the army has declined substantially and this trend will continue. (armies with many army units saw a decline today).
Both weapons and ammunition were declining in price, more than other products.
The structure of weapons and ammunition corporations will keep changing in the future to lower product pricing while keeping their profitability. |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Wednesday, December 5, 2012 - 04:24 am
Andy
If i may id like to ask if a few corps can be looked at. Most Important is Corps that can "only" be contracted. Because they are not sold on the market the Game has a Fixed price and sometimes its not enough to really make them worth while.
First Example
Nuclear Weapons/Batteries- They make the most money when sold in space but chances of selling them are far and few between. Also these corps only make 1or2(if your lucky) per year. They only sell for 10B or so per system meaning even if SOLD for 300 only makes your corperation 30B a year which is low income compared to other corps like High Tech which can make 40-50B with little problems.
Also Conventional missiles/Cruise missiles/Space corps. Anything that has become "Contract Only" or has been removed from the market as got a rather low Fixed price. If your recall back a few months ago i Posted for you on the fourm the issue with space shuttle corps that sold a completed shuttle for 10B(the Fuseage costed more then that).
Id like you to take a look at some of these corps if you can. When these corps make so little production a production increase doesnt offer as big of a boost as it would to say a Tech corp.
If the GM can look into maybe a small production increase(a nuke corp making 2missiles a year, or conventional missiles going from 24->30 Missiles per year would offer a base increase of 3-4B per year. This would not overpower them in income but would allow them to be sold by players who want to base an economy off it. The problem players see and im sure you will if you redo your numbers is that an economy making weapons "DONEST" make as much money as a economy making non weapons. Even in the real world most of the top income companies on the planet have military/government contracts
I know i seem like im always bothering/harassing you with problems but i hope you know it comes from a place with the best intentions. |
| Mizore | Wednesday, December 5, 2012 - 06:47 am
I agree with the sentiment that "contract only" corporations should have their price fixed as though they were in a market shortage. |
| SweetPea | Wednesday, December 5, 2012 - 01:04 pm
Okay thanks Andy, I needed some clarity on why the corps continue to make a loss. I have some that are -30B a year, mostly precision bombers and their bombs.
I get it now. |
| SweetPea | Wednesday, December 5, 2012 - 10:45 pm
Yeah I also have to agree with Scarlet. Some baseline price near break even should probably be in place for contract corps. Especially weapons. I have very few if any problems with space corps failing. |
| Mr T | Wednesday, December 5, 2012 - 11:14 pm
in real life weapons companys are some of the most profitable and lucrative...why not in SC?? |
