W3C - Weapons and Ammunition

For a long time, the market had a large oversupply of weapons and ammunition.

We have said at the time that this will happen because of the reductions we have introduced in the number of weapons in units in an effort to reduce the numbers of weapons destroyed in wars, reduce the quantities of ammunition used and reduce the cost of war.

As a result, many players reduced their armies and sold a lot of weapons and ammunition.

As we triggered the sell off, and to help stabilize the market, we have announced at the time that we will purchase products to prevent a collapse of the industry.

This has taken place for a very long time, on and off and indeed, the market stabilized, and the very large oversupply disappeared. (we have gradually bought a lot of it off the market).

We alway purchased a percentage of the unsold products so that oversupply did not disappear but the numbers became smaller.

This i

Andy

Can the GM investige increasing the damage, increase production, or decreasing the amount of ammo used in tank/artillery.

As of now they use 35shells per attack and to attack and destory a capital/city/fortifation it requires 1 or 2 attacks even if you use 1000 of both weapons. In the end of the battle its common to use 60-70K shells(depending on Q).

70,000 shells @ 50% below base price(110K per shell) = 7.7 Billion
70,000 shells @ base price(220K per shell)= 15.4 Billion
70,000 shells @ double base price(440K per shell)= 30.8 billion

They are the most suggested weapons to use yet as you can see it costs GREAT mounts to use. Even yet that's one target. You need to destroy around 50targets per war costing a player GREATLY.

50targets * 7.7B = 385 billion
385 Billion is what it costs if you use 100Q(non existent now) and everything is destoried in 1

I agree. I've always wondered why all the ammo is a lot more expensive in SC than in real life. In real life, an air-to-air missile costs at most $1 million but on FB, the current price is $11 million (base price is $22 million). A tomahawk cruise missile costs ~$1.5 million in real life, but a land-based cruise missile costs ~$54M and a sea-based cruise missile costs ~$70M. Is there a good reason why they are so much more expensive here?

I agree with the GM on the fact that weapons should be keep to a min or you'd have 100'000 of tanks n it be very hard to fight but i think they reduced ammo to much.

The main benifit to ground warfare should be the cheap weapons. If it costed a few 100B to blow up a target with missiles so be it but with tanks/artillery shouldn't cost so much.

I really think the GM should consider reducing the amount of ammo used per fighting round. 15 round seems fair. I mean honestly if you have a city being attacked by 1000artillery pieces firing 15K shells it should be EASILY destroyed with many many killed.

You have chosen to build a corporation that will produce Heavy Artillery Shells.
The maximum production of such a corporation is 51,000 shells per year.

Your telling me it takes corporation of 250,000people a full years production to make enough ammo for 1attack. Keep in mind you would use 70K shells to destroy a