Unit Production

That is silly. Since they have train tracks in a city, would they not bother putting anchors on a ship? Or maybe give a heavy tank less armour than it should because a town had a harbor? It doesn't really make sense, does it? You can speed up build time with an indo complex but you can't build a tank faster if there is some good dry docks nearby and a ship won't be cheaper if you see some pretty trains in the station nearby. If any resource DOES go down, it should only be cash.

Just kicking out a idea.

I think in this case the faster production is good, but my opinion if cost reduction was implemented is that the money cost is reduced. You will still need to get the resources to build the thing, but money costs would reduce with better manufacturing.

Ah okay, that makes a lot more sense. I was thinking this because its more advanced industry thus the higher you go the more excess materials can be removed from the finished product. That is what I meant.

Thor321 wrote:

Ah okay, that makes a lot more sense. I was thinking this because its more advanced industry thus the higher you go the more excess materials can be removed from the finished product. That is what I meant.

But in WWII new tech meant bigger gun and more armour. That will require more materials so using your idea and making it accurate to history would mean it should get more expensive, not cheaper.

I know but as tech level increases, so do tolerances which means that they get more exact in terms of the amount of material needed.

Butter Ball Bill wrote:

But in WWII new tech meant bigger gun and more armour. That will require more materials so using your idea and making it accurate to history would mean it should get more expensive, not cheaper.

In WWII, battles weren't based off of generality in some cases, because some of the squadrons or regiments that had smaller numbers than the enemy still won and were able to change the tide of the war itself. I can see how commandos could serve as a substitute for brave men in casual infantry, but you can't really make this game 100% based off of history.

Perhaps the devs could make a modern version that has similar mechanics in terms of unit movement and deployment, but with modern-type war scenarios, modern manufacturing, modern research methods, etc.

So, it is probably levelled with the fact that they need more materials. I mean, look at light tanks. They went from being 14.7 tons(I think) with a 37mm gun to 18.4 tons(I think) with a 75mm gun. Big difference. The Chaffee is much bigger than the Stuart, nearly two feet in height(they are the tanks I am comparing).

Butter Ball Bill wrote:

So, it is probably levelled with the fact that they need more materials. I mean, look at light tanks. They went from being 14.7 tons(I think) with a 37mm gun to 18.4 tons(I think) with a 75mm gun. Big difference. The Chaffee is much bigger than the Stuart, nearly two feet in height(they are the tanks I am comparing).

IISpikeII wrote:

Perhaps the devs could make a modern version that has similar mechanics in terms of unit movement and deployment, but with modern-type war scenarios, modern manufacturing, modern research methods, etc.

Base the game around modern life and it will suck

IISpikeII wrote:

Butter Ball Bill wrote:

So, it is probably levelled with the fact that they need more materials. I mean, look at light tanks. They went from being 14.7 tons(I think) with a 37mm gun to 18.4 tons(I think) with a 75mm gun. Big difference. The Chaffee is much bigger than the Stuart, nearly two feet in height(they are the tanks I am comparing).

Didn't they come up with ways to manufacture it faster and easier? Perhaps the time taken to produce higher level units could decrease by an hour or so. I mean, the U.S. needed to have a powerhouse full of production if they wanted to have the advantage in WWII.

Yes, American's loved Willy's.

If you want to simulate production efficiency perhaps making a second+ instance of the same unit built in the same region cost slightly less money and resources...

That just sounds like it would be a pain to code.

what production efficiency implies decrease cost in terms of money spend and time required due to more advance and larger production methods, in a way you build more of it (Time needed) with the same resource you spend on it (based time of production)

decreasing the cost will be in the Dev's discretion.

most countries in WW2 increase the volume of production while bigger and better weapons of war is most like experimental, because in the real world during WW2 steel is in limited supply and efficiency is more desired than a more powerful tank, the German Tiger tank is an example, being a "beast" of a tank its often outnumbered 5-to-1 or more (especially against the Russians)

Too right mate. However a single Tiger IH before it could be knocked out could often take down three Sherman Tanks in a platoon of four. See Tiger Battle clip from the movie Fury. Also if you are wondering what the Tiger commander says just before the 'Fury' sends a shell up the backend of the Tiger. He says 'Shoot the B******!' Its kinda funny. However the grim truth is, a Tiger could do that to a platoon of Shermans.

The Tiger is indeed more powerful than the Sherman, but can Germany accept losses? A lost of a single Tiger pushes Germany further to defeat.

In a grand military strategy and application of war economy, the Tiger is actually a waste of resource, they could have made more MT to face the allies in equal footing.

Let me remind that there are 1 Tiger for 50 Shermans or more, if you look it from an economic standpoint Germany had it worse.

Germany would've done better if it had been MT and HT mixed together, maybe in groups of 3?