Suggestion for weapons corps (Fearless Blue)

After talking to a few people we did some research and found even with all the updates/reductions to military's its still hard as ever to get a military up and running. After research we discovered a large mistake we think that might have been overlooked. People keep mentioning how easy it is to get to level 3 and move up the war levels. The primary reason most dont is the cost of defense. After doing some digging we found a some good info.

For 1 Garrison (Ammo is the default amount of asked ammo)(Ammo is priced on base price and 100Q)
---Anti Aircraft = 550weapons/66000missiles...Cost of ammo 864B
---Armored Vehicles = 25weapons/3000 missiles...Cost of ammo 13B
---Jeeps= 25---No ammo cost
---Artillery = 50weapons /25500shells...Cost of ammo 300M
---Tanks = 50weapons /22500shells...Cost of ammo 300M
---Missile Interceptor Batteries =255weapons /30600 missiles...Cost of ammo 460B
---Defensive M

So what you're trying to say is, is to double the production of the weapons corps which in turn would probularly produce the weapons half as cheap, good idea, but will the maintenance cost of maintaining the garrisons be cut in half too in the process? thats the most important thing as the maintenace cost always bleed the country dry and ultimately new players quit the game.

Really I don't think there should be any maintenace cost at all in keeping weapons in storage in a country (except for nuclear/strategic weapons) unless you are upgrading them that is.

The real cost of maintaining a garrison should be the soldiers salaries.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

People keep mentioning how easy it is to get to level 3 and move up the war levels. The primary reason most don't is the cost of defense.<!-/Quote-!>

Wrong, by far it is the fact that people don't want to war. Just being honest here. If you wish to present that weapons and cost of an active defense is expensive, do so. But don't mix it with baseless assumptions on an entirely different subject. It is hard to take seriously.