The Maintenance of Weapons

In countries that are holding weapons and military units, each weapon system requires monthly maintenance.

The maintenance means that they are using some ammunition for training, they use some materials and energy.

The materials are coming from the country, the ammunition too.
The cost of maintaining the army is in fact the value of these materials that are subtracted form the country storage and the salaries of the soldiers and officers.
Weapons that are put in the reserves, are maintained at a lower cost than those in the active army.

In enterprises, it works differently as we do not want to "subtract" ammunition from the storage of the enterprise. many do not have any ammunition.

Instead, the cost of the materials, the ammunition etc. is computed per game month and per weapon, and the total cost is subtracted from the enterprise cash and shows as a separate line on the enterprise finances as "the cost of maintaining weapons".

The cost will kick in gradually.

We received several messages from players who hardly/or didn't realize that weapons are stored in enterprises, and at no cost. They argue that enterprises should not store any weapons at all.
It specially strange situation if the country is peaceful and stores weapons in enterprises anyway.
we are not going that far and will not make any changes in the ability of enterprises to store weapons.

We expect that as a result, long term, huge armies will become a bit smaller.
This is good news for smaller (most) players.

We currently have extreme size differences between armies and for some, the war game is out of reach because they can be destroyed very quickly by one of these huge armies.

I can see it as a change for the best, but I have two questions:

1. How is this cost computed exactly?
Broadly, I imagine it is Cost = [Quantity_Ammo_i*Price*Quality]*Quantity_Weapon_i

For the purpose of calculating the Entreprise Cost of storing weapons, are the "quantities of ammo used for maintenance" the same as if weapons are deactivated in countries? Also, does it use Market Price at 120Q to compute this cost?

If this is the case, I'd suggest tweeking parameters in such a way that makes it more expensive to hold them in Enterprises than in countries, where they belong.


2. What about "storing" weapons in Space Stations?
I'm sure there's a loophole there...

The cost will be computed as:

"The number of weapons in the enterprise" (per type) * a fixed cost per weapon for a month"

If you have 10.000 tanks there and the cost of maintenance per tank is set to 50.000 per tank per game month then the cost will be:

10.000 * 50.000 = 500 millions.

Initially we will only use a fraction of this and want to see the numbers before we go further.

The cost will be similar to the cost of maintenance in the country.

There are some loopholes.

we will close them as we move forward.

I see. It's a fixed cost per weapon. Thanks for the reply.

I forgot to mention in my previous post, but the one particular objection I have with this solution is that it is divorced from the market. It doesn't add the ammo demand that there should be in the market, and keep the economy flowing.

But this is better than keeping it as it is.

Thank you. I agree. Excellent.

We cannot have the enterprise purchase the ammunition and other materials.
it will create a lot of confusion.

but we could have the game, place orders on the market for the correct number of pieces of ammunition to be delivered to the "game".
We already do so with immediate orders.
Immediate orders are delivered by the gamemaster, then orders are placed on the market by the GM and the GM receives the products back later.
I will think about it...
It might be implemented a bit later.

I need to see the numbers. If significant, then there is a good reason to do so.

so hear me out just a suggestion

instead of adding costs for maintaining weapons in storage it'll make more sense for weapon quality to slowly degrade over time, like being "mothballed"

weapons become outdated and degrade when stored

if someone needs to mobalize an army they would need to upgrade stored weapons that have been mothballed if they wanted
this allows players to decide when to incur costs

just sayin'

That's not a bad idea. Drop a point every 2 game years.

Not a bad Idea.
we have debated here the quality of many products being stored for a long time.

One of the issues is complexity.
Players will discover that their weapons lost quality and just imagine the discussions you get around it.

a cost per month is very clear.

The main issue is very different.

An enterprise is a business.
running corporations and trying to make a profit.
These profits are important to keep empires profitable and allow them
to make investments in the countries.
The can have raw material corporations etc.

We wanted to allow an enterprise to store products it produces and trade them when they think market conditions are right.
we made a mistake, and allowed enterprises to become a hiding place for weapons and ammunition.

Enterprises should keep out of the war game.
There should be no weapons in enterprises.

we can't just make such a change after allowing it for a long time.
Putting a maintenance price to keep the stored weapons and ammo in shape, will make it less of an advantage.

In time, the cost should convince everyone to remove the weapons from the enterprises.

We can invent all kinds of corrections and keep things that are wrong more reasonable.
the best solution however, is to correct these problems and then, there is no need for more complexity.

Andy.

I have tried to stay out of these arguments as I see it as pointless.

However I have one of the largest CEOs in the game, with nothing to do with my excess cash besides buy weapons and ammunition I see this as a huge waste of time and resources.

Is this the burning concern at the office?


I made it through the tax issue which basically singled me out for being too large, I guess I am on the pillory again now?

"In time, the cost should convince everyone to remove the weapons from the enterprises."

Great, and what will you have us do with them, Andy? Where are these weapons supposed to go if not in the enterprises?

Obviously, we can't move all the weapons and ammo to our countries; the cost there would be astronomical. It would sink our country's economy. Therefore, you are forcing older players to sell their weapon stocks that they have spent, in some cases, a decade building, myself included. I honestly think that this is an insult to veteran players. I hope that you would come up with a better solution. I understand the desire to give newer players a better chance in the war game, but there are ways to do that with the war levels, without punishing long-time players with half-baked rule changes that adversely affect them.

Johanas, I think he wants to weaken large players so that newer players can challenge them. I am insulted; the veterans of this game are what kept it alive. In previous comments, Andy has stated that players are not helping each other anymore, which is far from the truth. However, I believe newer players shouldn't require assistance; the game should offer them easily accessible knowledge. I will stay around for now to see how these costs play out in my enterprise, but if I have to sell most of my stock due to the high price tag, I might just exit the game. I have had fun over the years, and I genuinely enjoy it. However, when someone says they are going to dismantle everything you've built over a decade, what's the point of sticking around?

You can have as many weapons as you want and keep them where you want them.
but
You have to maintain your army.
The maintenance of the army was part of the game from the start.

keeping the army at no cost in an enterprise is an old error.

What exactly is the argument for keeping a large part of the army
without any cost of maintenance?

The idea of maintenance was partially, to make players decide how large the army should be, related to what they want to pay for keeping it.

if you want a large army that is fine. pay for its maintenance.

what exactly is wrong with this argument?

You are not arguing for the game to do the right thing.
You argue for your own personal benefit.

The introduction of this fix will be very gradual.
no revolutions.
It will give players enough time to decide what size of army they want.