 |
|
|
|
Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - 10:48 pm  Dear W3C, In the midst of the general player outcry over recent changes, I'd like to take a moment to offer a bit of gratitude for the reduced weapon prices and increased weapon production. This particular change has served a greater purpose than merely alleviating shortages, it has greatly reduced the military costs of ammo used in training. When weapon prices remained high after profit potential had been cut, maintaining a large standing army was akin to running razor blades across a country's wrists. There was simply no way after the financial changes to pay for the then overpriced ammo. As far as ammo versus profits goes, I think we are presently situated in a position almost as good as it used to be - and this was/continues to be the MAJOR operating cost of countries: militaries. I recently brought two major warhorses up to 90% offensive activation, and 60-70% defensive activation, running 5+ million man armies each, and combined indexes at 1400 and 1600 - the countries still made profits of 190B and 113B each. So, as far as this goes, I'd like to thank you, W3C, for balancing this out. -WildEyes That being said, I still disagree with other decisions you have made in the PR sector, but this isn't the place for that. The only major thing left to make present game values equal to past game values is to adjust GC prices again.
| |
| Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - 11:01 pm yes it is nice to buy so much each gm now. 
| |
| Thursday, March 19, 2009 - 12:08 am Everyone comments "wow i wish we could have had these prices at least year's profits!" but that's just the point - this is part of the balancing... I hate to admit that W3C might know in part what they're talking about, but I have to admit that the game has partially come around in the past few weeks. I would still like a direct refutation of Quaxocal's points about a price cap, and a better explanation of what the 'price averaging' means, as well as an explanation of why C3s magically produce 185Q products... I think W3C still has a lot to answer for that "Simcountry is a continuing beta" doesn't answer... it really stopped being a Beta once you started asking people to PAY for it... but I digress, and I think everyone needs to cut you (W3) a little slack, insofar as the game is returning to a semblance of its former playability.
| |
| Thursday, March 19, 2009 - 12:28 am Yes even a broken clock is right twice a day. So by my count they still owe us 1 more. That is if they want to be at least as good as a broken clock.
| |
| Thursday, March 19, 2009 - 05:34 am The cost of maintaining a large military should be a strain on an economy. Real world militaries are around 1% of the population not 10%. If the primary cost of maintaining an army is lost workforce production then maintenance is cost is way too low.
| |
| Thursday, March 19, 2009 - 06:10 am Simcountry =/= real world. Real world militaries don't need 20 people (oaamb, atmb), 29 people (mrmb), 32 people (L2S), 78 people (lbcm), or 240 people (conv) to fire a single missile battery. And don't even look at the manpower requirements for nukes and nuke defense missiles. 68 and 98 people are not needed to fly fighters. We have drones that require 1 person, and computer corporations, but the rest of the military is stuck in WWII mode, so PS, please don't compare real world militaries to SC and say our costs are too low. Activating as much as I did cut my profits by more than half. If just so happens that I'm THAT good at building my countries. If I went up to 100% I'd probably be at break-even point. Other players with similar indexes and people in the military lose 100-150B per month. I know because I've seen it. And they are good players. Already, the maintenance costs are more than all my other country costs combined, so it IS the single major strain on economy.
| |
| Thursday, March 19, 2009 - 03:43 pm Petra, 70 people are needed in the real world to fly fighters. To fly a fighter you need: -multiple pilots (yes, pilots are not deployed 100% of the time with the fighters. You'll need pilots in training, on leave, and flying). This doesn't even account for the need for training instructors (who are pilots), the folks who build and maintain flight simulators, nor the aeoral refuling opperations and people who are used for training and flight ops) -Maintainance crew - about 10 staff per plane to inspect and repare the plane after every flight. They also need to install the upgrades (every few years most systems have some sort of technology upgrade) -Medical staff - these support the pilots, and everyone else, as well as their families. -Supply and spare parts delivery and transport - this takes people, and there are (in real life) units that specialize in this. -Testing, Evaluation, etc staff and check for safety, as well as to determine the flight envelope of the plan, check the integrety of the fleet, etc- -This also doesn't include the people needed to maintain runways, controll air trafic, design opperational plans for the use of the aircraft in combat, nor does it include the human capital people, the training folks for the support staff, nor the contracting officers needed to support the plan. Simply put -- YES it does take about that many people to fly a SINGLE airplane.
| |
| Thursday, March 19, 2009 - 03:57 pm Petra. I served in an operational air force base. there were 4000 people and 80 fighters and bombers. It takes much more than one pilot or two per airplane. In real war time, one sortie takes an hour or two but a pilot does not fly 12 or 24 sorties in a single day. The aircraft does. There are also many services around and ammunition handling, maintenance etc. the numbers in the game are too high but they are not too high by a large factor. I also agree with your conclusions. In addition, I think that we should keep approaching them with single issues, in a short mails and request a reaction rather than tell them that the whole thing is wrong. Some of the texts you can find here make me sick, let alone someone who works for that company.
| |
| Thursday, March 19, 2009 - 04:17 pm Training instructors, people who maintain flight sims, medical staff, testing and evaluation staff, runway maintenance and air traffic control, are not specific to each plane in use. I am aware that it does take a large crew to keep planes maintained, safe, etc, but don't blow smoke up my skirt with superfluous detail and pass it off as evidence that supports your point. We have staff at bases. Medical staff = war hospitals. Runway maintenance, air traffic control, food people? Not specific to each air craft. I also assume carrier crews are the same as base staff since they otherwise function just like bases. There are also private service contractors IRL that fulfill certain needs. What about supply? Well that's why we have supply units and supply ships. Supply ships take 18 officers and 60 soldiers. If you make a supply unit with 125 jeeps in it, the minimum, and have about 200 supply units - which you should really have more if you want to be sure that your garrisons and air defense are at least fully supplied at all times - you have 50,000 officers and 100,000 soldiers. If you have 300 which is better, 75,000 officers and 150,000 soldiers. And I do believe supply units and supply ships are UNITS that SPECIALIZE in "this." So, would you like to re-evaluate, chrysostom? I mean, unless you're implying that division of labor doesn't exist and the each plane's crew is responsibly for feeding the pilots and directing the individual planes off the ground, caring for the *specific spots* on the runway that *that* plane uses, etc, etc /sarcasm.
| |
| Thursday, March 19, 2009 - 04:23 pm @Romeo, please read my response to chrysostom. I grew up in a navy/air force city with three bases still operational, two smaller ones that got closed/privatized, and there are bases/training grounds within two hours drive of everywhere I've lived my entire life. I'm not pretending that this is the same as actually serving, but about 75% of my friends were military brats, some even the kids of Apache pilots at the NG base, figher pilots at the NAS or even when our carrier was still commissioned. So I do have a little idea of what it takes. I'm not suggesting we need only 1 or 2 staff per airplane. That's ridiculous. But I think 70 and 90 is a bit ridiculous as well. Why not half it? As I pointed out, there are plenty of staff that are shared. We need pilots, obviously, maintenance crews, ordinance loaders.... whatever... unless you can give me an itemized breakdown of why EACH fighter needs 70 people and navy fighter 90... just a rough idea to make me understand EDIT: BTW, 4000 people/80 planes = 50 per plane. Fighters use 36% more and NFP use 96% more... nearly 2x. I understand your numbers were an approximation. But please remember this all started because PS thinks that simcountry is realistic and we need more costs. I'm merely trying to point out that when you look at the SC requirements to operate military equipment versus RL requirements, a 5 million person army isn't as OMGWTF as one IRL would be.
| |
| Thursday, March 19, 2009 - 04:32 pm Anyone destroyed capital city in 3 hits from 1000 HA and 1000 HT? im sry, dont pay any attention to me, but i have to type it out. *** this message is approved by Freud *** realism = fail instead Iceland going bankrupt, the owner of Iceland could have just exchanged some gold coins for cash, or perhaps when Iraq was losing it, Saddam should have bought some pop and ordered bunch of Interceptors on immediate, or i dunno when USA got hit with financial and economic crisis translating to unemployment they would have build few more corps. its beyond me that someone would care what does a jeep cost or how many soldiers a bomber uses, when the basics are about as realistic as im president. just forget realism. for the love of Jesus, i beg you! oh and yeah .. get some condoms, no matter what the Pope says.
| |
| Thursday, March 19, 2009 - 04:35 pm LOL. Thanks Tuco. It's just one of my "buttons" when someone starts talking about how we need MORE costs in the name of realism.... when the game is FAR from realistic, but it nevertheless WORKS with some facsimile or how the RL does, regardless of WHY that happens. I also believe realism =/= fun. However, if someone is going to be a white knight for the cause or realism, he/she should at least get the information straight and realize why certain aspects are unrealistic, and why the game engine accommodates them... and how those aspects are nevertheless balanced. Balanced Game always beats Realistic Game in my book. Balanced > Realistic.
| |
| Friday, March 20, 2009 - 02:59 am In real war time, one sortie takes an hour or two but a pilot does not fly 12 or 24 sorties in a single day. Wow i would like to see a single fighter make it through 12 sorties in SC. Is this a change that SC is adding?
| |
| Friday, March 20, 2009 - 03:16 am The war engine should be more like Worms.
| |
| Friday, March 20, 2009 - 05:20 am Worms world party would be best...then I'd truly rock! 1 banana and it's all over folks.
| |
| Saturday, March 21, 2009 - 12:51 am For you civvies who would like a layman's guide to understanding virtually every aspect of modern military organization, costs, and operations: http://www.amazon.com/How-Make-War-Fourth-Comprehensive/dp/006009012X I really can't recommend this work highly enough. If only W3C would use it. SC realism is an oxymoron.
| |
| Saturday, March 21, 2009 - 03:32 am The cost of war in the real world...The UK has a tiny armed forces compared to russia or china but the UK spends a lot more real cash than either of them. Size and $$$ dont always add up. Sim and life are very different. I dont recall ever seeing a garrison in any of the factories I have visited, very few cities do either. This is a game and should be treated as such. We want to fun have not an accounts lesson.Realim but not reality.
| |
| Saturday, March 21, 2009 - 11:16 pm I wonder which post had to smack to rise production and cut base prices. There were so many...
|
