Weapons corps profitability

Is it jut me or does anyone else get annoyed about how much money weapons corps loose? Annoyed is putting it lightly.

We can't buy LBC,CB or PB on the world market so were forced to build coprs if we want these weapons. Which I have done but the ammount of cash they loose im considering closing them.

It's so frustrating given that im contracting these weapons ever month to myself and still loosing money. Can the GM expalin why this is?

In the real world goverment contacts for weapons is what these corps have wet dreams about.

There was a time when weapons corps were profitable on here does anyone know why this changed? I'd love to setup corps for all the weapons I want but I'd only bankrupt myself.

Fair enough strat corps loose money but I don't see why the rest should?

This is puzzling to me as well. The weapons are being paid for by the country or CEO you create them in. Or maybe I am wrong and the stock just gets transferred and the corps just lose money.

I think if we contract them to the country or CEO there should be a posted profit, if not that then at least break even as we pay for these weapons. It is almost like paying for the weapons twice.

Yes I wasn't sure either if im paying for the weapons twice or the corps are just loosing money.

SweetPea im gonna send you a contract for LBC on LU. Pls accept and well see if profit/loss changes? I'll cancel it after a few months.

Accepted

Very few mili corps make money because there is little demand. There is no longer any real war, any forces you do need have been greatly reduced.

I contract high Q light tank ammo and light arty shells to my own countries and find the country pays the corp just like normal. This used to be a bad move when your corps could ask mark up on world market prices, and contracts would only pay market price increased with Q, but now there is no mark up to be had, I find it OK to contract to my country.

So, with the end of the war game came the end of military corps basically. If you need stuff you cant get on your world, I reckon you could secure supplies from someone on contract, they or you could always ship from another world.

they arent profitable because they produce so few weapons seriously 2 precision bombers a month how are you supposed to create a fleet....they are not profitable and they contribute very little to defense...same story all across the board

I find the biggest factor in war is not the weapons themselves but the ammo.

In the event of taking a City it requires 800tanks/800artillery atleast 2attacks, A Capital sometimes requires 3 but that is dependent on the Q of the unit.
Each tanks/Artillery uses 35 Shells per attack @ 120Q
Each shell is 160,000 at base price.

1600weapons * 35shells = 56K per attack
56K shells * 160K per shell = 8.9B per target.
In the upper war levels you need to blow up ALL factories(10targets), Civilian population centers(10targets), around 30forts or so.

50Targets * 9B = 450B to blow up the targets based you use 120Q but since garrisons in the higher war levels have MUCH higher Q you need about 200-250Q ammo to balance your weapons systems.

450B * 2.5(for Q)= 1.1T

You spend @ war level 7 just around 1.1T in just blowing up targets not counting whats needed for stripping the

Personally, I think it's actually irrelevant how much the corporation produces or how much the war costs. Those are balancing issues related to a different side of the game. The management likely wants war to be expensive... what the corps produce is directly related to the price of the goods. In other words, no matter how much it takes to conquer a country, the question of how much a corporation produces is irrelevant here: consider it this way, there are two options if the corps are not earning money in full shortage markets: (1) increase quantity produced or (2) increase base price of product. Both are viable options depending on what they want to achieve in the realm of the wargame and military size. No matter what, buying weapons from others must always be compared to the cost of producing them... not compared against some game change. If weapons corps are profitable, it is cheaper to produce the weapons than buy from

I'm thinking the real issue here is are we paying for paying for weapons/ammo by purchasing the product...and in doing so are we also paying for the corp to run at a negative when profits from the purchases should turn a sc buck.

That is all I wanna know. I hate doing math, so when anyone figures out the answer, please post it here so I can see.

"If you're buying your own weapons, think of it as you losing every cent of that corporation's earnings despite it being reported as profit."

You are buying at cost, which means there is not another entity profiting off of your business. Your statement is incorrect. Just saying.

Too weigh in, Weapon Corps historically are very profitable irl, but not in this game. I agree the balancing of this game is priority however there are other ways to balance this act. A weapon corp can be made more profitable without an effect on the cost of war. Keyword balancing. If they can balance this is something that resembles moreso the real world they should do it, as this is a simulation game. But in reality I don't really know how unprofitable these corps are as they don't make any money and I buy my weapons and ammo under the base price, so I don't waste labor on less profitable production. Should that always for sur

My statement is correct.

Let's say corporation cost are $2B, revenue is $3B.

You're buying all the production. Therefore, you pay $3B. All told you lost $5B and made $3B... meaning you lost $2B, the corporation's cost. It doesn't matter that if someone else profits by you buying elsewhere, you're still losing money.

Sure you take into account that maybe you buy those weapons anyway... but you can save money and lose money at the same time.

Lol, but you are getting the weapons for your corp' 2B loss. Thats how real national corps function. And far better than privatisation it is too [IMO].

Weapon corporations can make a lot of money if the product pricing is good.
there are many weapons in oversupply and the price declined, pushing some of these corporations into losses.

As a result, some will close (C3 countries close them more quickly) and at some point the market stabilizes and the product price will recover.

If the owner country purchases the weapons from the corporation it is paying a low price.
the money paid for these weapons or ammunition is going into the corporation and compensates for the cost of the corporation. you do not pay twice.

There is no difference for you to purchase from your own corporation or from the market.

there is no difference for the corporation where the money it receives for the products comes from.

The lower the price you pay for the weapons, the more losses the corporation will make.

if the product price goes up because of shortage, the co

That is true, but I was calling attention to the fact that the cost of building a military was high relative to the monthly income of enterprises. So having lots of self-supplying military corps does put a very large strain on an enterprise.

Anyway, my opinion is to pick the most profitable corporation regardless of what they produce. Let's say costs are the same at $2B and you're buying weapons in both cases at $3B, you got a military corp producing $3B or you got a non-military corp producing $3.5B. In the first case, you lose $2B in cash and get $3B in weapons. In the second case, you lose only $1.5B in cash and get $3B in weapons.

Building the most profitable corporations is a good strategy and the long term shortage of some high tech products is an invitation to build such corporations.

the reason to build weapons and ammunition corporations is to make yourself less dependent on the market.

We had times when weapons and ammo where in short supply and when in war, such a situation does not help you.

The cost of building the military is high and we have been pushing it down for a long time and keep doing so. The price declined significantly already.
also the cost of maintaining the army has declined substantially and this trend will continue. (armies with many army units saw a decline today).

Both weapons and ammunition were declining in price, more than other products.
The structure of weapons and ammunition corporations will keep changing in the future to lower product pricing while keeping their profitability.

Andy
If i may id like to ask if a few corps can be looked at. Most Important is Corps that can "only" be contracted. Because they are not sold on the market the Game has a Fixed price and sometimes its not enough to really make them worth while.

First Example
Nuclear Weapons/Batteries- They make the most money when sold in space but chances of selling them are far and few between. Also these corps only make 1or2(if your lucky) per year. They only sell for 10B or so per system meaning even if SOLD for 300 only makes your corperation 30B a year which is low income compared to other corps like High Tech which can make 40-50B with little problems.

Also Conventional missiles/Cruise missiles/Space corps. Anything that has become "Contract Only" or has been removed from the market as got a rather low Fixed price. If your recall back a few months ago i Posted for you on the fourm the issue with space shuttle corps

I agree with the sentiment that "contract only" corporations should have their price fixed as though they were in a market shortage.

Okay thanks Andy, I needed some clarity on why the corps continue to make a loss. I have some that are -30B a year, mostly precision bombers and their bombs.

I get it now.

Yeah I also have to agree with Scarlet. Some baseline price near break even should probably be in place for contract corps. Especially weapons. I have very few if any problems with space corps failing.

in real life weapons companys are some of the most profitable and lucrative...why not in SC??