Ammo costs are NOT DECREASING

Andy

You stated ammo costs ARE DECREASING. Well i have proof to show OTHERWISE.

(all my facts can be checked in the game docs or tested)

To clear the airdefence
Offensive Anti aircraft bats only have a 4% chance per missile to hit a heli and the fire 5missiles per attack.
This means each battery has a 20% chance of taking a heli down. It takes 4to1 ratio on helis meaning it takes 520batteries per attack to clear a heli wing.
520batteries * 5missiles per attack = 2600missiles
2600missiles * 15 attacks = 39,000 missiles to clear 15wings
39000missiles * 19M(base price)= 741Billion
741Billion * 3(to simulate 300Q)= 2.2T

To clear 15wings with 300Q weapons and ammo it costs 2.2T in just ammo costs. Keep in mind that the HIGHEST level C3 only give 11T in cash assests.
Also keep in it costs around 1.9T to just destory targets
1600tanks * 35 shells per attack * 100targets * 110,000 per shell * 3(for Q effects)= 1.9T
(keep in mind thats 1.9T just to BLOW UP TARGETS no clearing the garrisons)
To clear garrisons double that.

Stealth bombers are also a problem. I found that a inter wing/with a missile garrison of 400anti air/200missile inters destories all 20bombers but ou also lose 20inters.(in war level 11 theres 30wings that double attack)
130Inters * 10 missiles per attack = 1300missiles
1300missiles * 30attacks = 39000missiles
39000* 10M per missile = 390B times 3 for Q = 1.1T
400anti air * 6 missiles per attack = 2400missiles * 30attacks = 72K missiles
72K * 10M per missile = 720B(2.1T for 300)
200Missile inters * 6 missiles per attack = 1200missiles * 30 attacks = 36000missiles
36000 * 15M per missile = 504B (1.5T for 300Q)
Keep in mind you lose around 20inters per stealth bomber attack in the upper levels they attack twice increasing these costs)
30attacks * 20inters = 600
600inters * 292M= 175B (525B for 300Q)

War costs in total.
Clearing Helis - 2.2T
Cleating Stealth bombers - 4.7T
Clearing Garrisons - 1.9T
Destorying targets - 1.9T
Loss of weapons(inters only) - 525B

TOTAL COST OF A WAR LEVEL 11 = 11.2T
(these are figures from game docs and testing and this is the BEAR min costs and figures)
This donesnt include mid range missiles or batteries, or other weapons used.

If all goods were bought 50% of base value the war would cost almost... 5.6T
This would be the only time profit would be seen
-------------------------------------------------

The first thing "Andy" will state is make them yourself and it will be cheaper.
With the notes above it takes 56K shells per target, A corp only makes 60K(which good job on the increase there, for those that dont know the GM increased them from 54K->60K per year).
To produce enough ammo for 1-C3 war it would take over 170 corperations @ max production to give you the ammo needed in 1 game year.

You use 39000Anti air missiles for heli but the corp only makes 456missiles per year. Meaning you need 85corps @ max production to give you all the ammo you need in 1game year.

-------------------------------------------------

ANDY

No matter how its broken down the War game
----ISNT---- Profitable and SERIOUS work needs to be done, either gifting more assests/reducing the cost of ammo by doubling production/both/ or something else.

Income in warring is not possiable or VERY limited. If you like id be happy to help you in comming up with ideas/helping with tweaks in which would make the game more profitable

Signed---Your favorite SUPERSOLDIERRCP

Wow, the level of density here is astounding.

Super the statement of ammo and cost of war decreasing is mostly coupled with the addy following the exchange rate.

That is about as simple as it gets. I applaud your effort but that is what you should expect as a response if the post is not ignored outright.

Rick makes the excellent point that raiding c3s for cash is likely bad for econ, or at least removing an incentive for presidents to run a good economy. It was also said probably earlier this year or before that they don't intend to continue allowing raiding c3s for cash indefinitely and will probably remove the profitability of it intentionally. That was pretty clear, I wouldn't be surprised.

I beg to differ that war isnt a good economy. Monglia, Rome, British empires only ended not becuase of the lack resources but becuase of man power. As should be the problem in SC. This shows that in the Upper levels it takes 11T to make a desent(barely desent) military for warring.

Even if you a country had to gain this income on it own before hand. It would take time.
Lets you had a nation making 50B a month.
11,000B / 50B = 220Game months(33Real days)
Keep in mind 50B income a month would already take a large econ on its own.

My point is the GM are creating more problems.
As people learn(as they already do) warring is to expensive in the upper levels meaning you will have LARGE amounts of players in the lower levels, This will be a mix of exp and unexp players alike which -WILL- lead to noob bashing as so andy claims.

If they want people to move up(as they tried in FB they need to give reasons to)

I can easily suggest a few
-1.5T * a players war level(@ level 11 this would give 17T)
-1M pop * a players level. Id war more if i got 11T cash nation(or 17T) plus a 21M pop nation 10m starting + 11M extra added.
-Increasing cash by the 1.5T suggest but also instead -ONLY- after war level 10 they player would have 2 choices
#1 would be to take over the nation gaining the cash assests/pop
OR
#2 just ending the war taking to total cost of the market value of the cash and turning it into GC. Meaning a war level 11 war would give a player 300GC which would be worth the war and worth moving up the levels

Even give all worlds these upgrades but only FB gets the GC idea.

Theres many things they CAN do but the fact is they ARENT

I would also like to be able to produce more ammo myself and be come a little more self suffient.

As far as I remember, raiding C3s never was about gaining assets. That only sort of came along as you got here SS. You would raid C3s for pop exchanges maybe, or for use in war or empire expansion.

I suggest we wait on all the upcoming additions to the war machine which look like they will revive wars some. Not liking things as they are right now seems a bit pointless.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

I would also like to be able to produce more ammo myself and be come a little more self suffient.<!-/Quote-!>

Currently, you are able to build and produce every type of weapon and ammunition corporation there is in the game.

I have a fully functioning space program and just up until about a week ago I held the number 1 finance rank on FB. Super has said it takes x amount of corps to supply a single shuttle corp. I have three and all the corps needed to supply.

I have two Strategic bomb corps as well.

You can do it(produce multiple ammo types), and still be quite profitable.

Not sure why you posted that on the forum. You can do these things. Were you confused or something?

BUMP

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

You would raid C3s for pop exchanges maybe, or for use in war or empire expansion.<!-/Quote-!>

Yep

This is a copy of a previous explanation:

The price of ammunition depends on the market.
The market price fluctuates around the base price and can decline to a level significantly lower than the base price or can increase to a level far higher than the base price.

Most types of ammunition have an oversupply on the market and their price declined to the lowest possible.
Some types of ammunition show a shortage and have a much higher price.

The base price is declining gradually for a very long period. As all numbers in Simcountry declined in the past years, ammunition and weapons, declined even more.

The next decline in the the base price will take place tomorrow with the next Simcountry update. The result will probably not show in the initial hours or even days.
Following this change, we expect ammunition, and weapons and many more products, to continue their slow decline in price.

The profitability of countries and enterprises will remain largely unchanged. some cost will decline (government will pay less for the products it uses).

The profitability in Billions will remain. The profitability as a percentage of the monthly turnover of countries will increase. (same profit numbers but a smaller turnover results in a higher profit percentage).

Thank for the responce andy, nice to know the prices will drop.

In terms of ammo can they be increased.

You know can see it takes 500 Offensivce anti air(or as you have stated a wing of 500 fighters).
Both those corps make 450 missiles

500 off batteries use around 3000missiles per attack as do fighters

For 1 attack it takes 6 corps 1 year to make that ammo. That is VERY low. You keep speking about the flucuations in the market but the fact is i buy 50K mid range missiles in 1month and it takes a week to recover. Thats 1 PLAYER, if i want the higher Q and its benfits as you tell us there are many its VERY hard to make them myself, Fact is Production needs to be higher

Also can you increase Offensive anti air missile batteries.

A single battery has a 4% hit per missile on a heli, Or it takes 4 batteries and 24missiles to shoot one down.

4% hit rate is stupid, dont you think it should be like 10 or even 15% per battery, what are my missiles made of left materials?

With the current oversupply of weapons and ammunition, we think that production numbers should decline even more until the market is stabilized.

Once the market stabilizes, increasing quantities while reducing the base price some more, will be a possible path for these corporations.

as of now, we do not need more products on the market. It will bankrupt these corporations that are hardly able to sell their product even with the current production numbers.

Andy

Honestly and VERY bluntly, do you never play, read, or UNDERSTAND the issue? If you dont just say so otherwise you are very poor Public Relations officer.

The Point REMAINS THE SAME.
You are pushing mobile units which costs as i said 20GC per unit from the looks they have no real difference over other units besides range. And dont bother with "Their" higher Q becuase it takes forever to increase.

The POINT that has been made by ME and OTHERS is the point that it costs TO much and theres to little production.

Please explain WHY? i need 6-7 corps to make 1 attack. Your telling me i need to self contract for 1 REAL MONTH or i need over 100corps just to supply myself with the ammo needed in 2 REAL DAYS.

The Cost of warring is to high. Weapons corps use the most materials of any corp type, Stimulating them would increase the need for other corps and help the game. The only people who buy offensive/defensive goods are PLAYERS and if no one is warring then no goods will be MADE!!!

Serious Andy either play your own game or really read on the issues.

Ive said it before and its VERY simple.
Each C3 war needs to have all its weapons/ammo come from the defensive market. A single war level 11 war uses 8000interecptors it would take a LONG time for that market to recover. The more wars the more corps make.

If better income for C3 warring.

Please explain why you dropped war level income for 17T to 11T?

Im done ranting becuase your prob not even listening but atleast maybe some GM will read it

This is untrue and just a pile of misinformation.
We do not accept such untrue stories on the forum.

The weapons in the mobile units, ammunition and materials are the same as in other units and do not represent any additional cost compared to the current units.

the additional cost is the professional soldiers and officers.
For the units we have introduced today, the cost of these soldiers and officers is less than 5 gold coins for one and less than 3.3 gold coins for the second.

The number of units you need in the army will decline as these units are usable in all your countries on all the worlds.

The price of the soldiers and officers includes their life long salaries and the quality of the units is not subject to any decline.

the cost of military units is mainly in their maintenance as they are used only a small part of the time in war and are just sitting there waiting. The maintenance cost of mobile units is lower.

The units do not use any workers or medium level managers as soldiers and officers and these remain available for the industry.

When stored on a space station, they even do not use any ammunition but of course, you need the space. You can start doing some computations on this one as it is more relevant.

in our opinion, the much reduced need for units will make the use of mobile units cheaper than the current units.

In addition, these units are optional. If you do not believe in the concept, don't use them.

as to ammunition:
as long as there is oversupply, all the math about how many corps you need is not relevant. the products are available on the market. There is oversupply.

If we get shortages, production will increase but certainly not in a situation when many of the these corporations bankrupt.

Currently, we see a swing to shortages in some markets. The reason is that units are now pushed to fill their supplies and large shortages in units are not tolerated. This will probably cause a one time surge in purchasing.

If the market will return to oversupply, there is no need for any change.

Andy I remember seeing somewhere that these new units were being brought in to replace war protection? Is that still the case?

I don't see the connection.

We think that war protection can become "less important" if countries will be able to setup a very strong defense with auto attack units that will be able to defend the country effectively.

We do have a plan to introduce such units and they may be mobile units but this is not the same as saying that mobile units will replace war protection.

Ok maybe I got the mobile units mixed up with some other new units you's have planned.

Anyway I like the idea of no WP.

Im looking forward to trying out these new mobile units.

Thx