China:
In reply to Germany (msg # 203):
Actually its closer to 75 per war round for the forces currently in NK..costly but not back breaking..(yea I had to go back and reread it) ..So same as it does now overall..maby a buck or two more if i miscounted (did a quick scan count not exact)
Let's see...
China now has in Korea 71 units (unless I misscounted them, and after WR2 losses). As none of them is reserve quailty, their base maintenance cost is $71 (according 8.4, page 53 table, remember 1 SU=$1).
According 10.11 (Quick Combat, page 83):
quote:
For each round, Supply Units consumed by each unit involved equals 5 X the unit maintenance cost as if the unit started the Turn in the hex where the GM determines most of the combat occurs, see section 8.3.
So, You're right in that I missread it, as I thought it was 5 times the base cost, while it is 5 times total cost. So, if Chinese troops are considered in frendly site, their cost would be $71 x 5 = $355 per war round, while if they are considered outside a friendly site, the cost would be doubled, to $710 per WR (I guess it would be some point in betwwen, as at least air units acting from frendly bases would be considered in a friendly site).
How long could you maintain the offensive, at least without ressorting to War Footing, for what's only an expeditionary force (remember, your total SU reserve would now be 658 SU)?
China:
As to the tech costs the current system is Broken..regardless of hard choices China will not be able to upgrade more then a three seperate techs 0.1 in a turn (zero chance of closing the gap) and the numbers go down to zero soon thereafter Taking China out of the game at all.
Under the new system China will still be behind the west and still in the game and smaller nations like Canada, Australia, Nordic Federation, Saudi Arabia etc will be able to advance ..the cost limiter is moved to theoretical. The European union will move advance on theoretical tech working asa group..The USA can do it on its own able to take the lead on any theoretical tech (well mabey one of it concentrates on it..
The number of TLs one can rais in a turn depends on many factors, mostly AM, relative costs of military (both, because its costs and for its effect on military infrastructures costs) and expenses (oil, inefficiences, etc), bonus or penalties to economy for stability et al, etc.
China:
As to the economical being cheaper and not feeling like it did earlier remember it still costs China more than any of the western nations. Remember that theoretical is the more difficult to advance under the new system and will still be a limiting factor as it can only go up so fast.
China would need only $27 with those rules to raise its power infrastructure TL to 6.7. S, with those rules you could raise all economic TLs by +0.3 at a cost of about $650, while you spent $972 to raise a single one by +0.1 wiht old rules...OTOH, to raise your military air from 8.4 to 8.5 would cost you about S156 (about a 25% of raising all your economic TLs by 0.3)...
And US, to raise an economic infrastructure TL to 8.8 would cost only $31
For Nigeria, (TL 7 in most economic infrastructures TLs, to raise it to 7.1 would cost now a miser $2 (with old rules, it would have costed S72). So, with the cost of sending the 1
st divison (3 experienced and one green brigades) to Korea for a single war round ($20) it could raise all economic infraastructures TLs by 0.2...
In comparison, to raise military infrastructures for Nigeria (all at 6.0) would cost now $4, double of what would cost to raise an economic infrastructure, despite the tiny (to be generous) armed forces Nigeria has...
China:
So yea over all I am more than willing to give the new rules a shot next starting next turn ..
And I'm willing to keep playing with them, but, in Kelvin's words:
Combat Cycle Ref:
In reply to Germany (msg # 181):
The whole point of publishing a rules proposal is to elicit comment from others.
China:
As to why is it cheaper now than before before it was broken this may be a bit to cheap but let it run a couple turns and see. It is simpler much simpler..
Not because it's cheapoer, but to be just a 3% of what costed before, and only for economic infrastructures, IMHO, is broken (or more probably a typo from Kelvin in assigning the divisor).
This message was last edited by the player at 14:25, Mon 24 Oct 2016.