Please vote: Unit cost

Peter Stauffenberg · Post by **Peter Stauffenberg** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 6:54 pm

It seems that one way to encourage the Allies into building more naval units and thus less land units early in the war is to make the Germans want to use the subs despite the convoys being escorted. The Germans will be hard pressed for PP's for quite some time and that means they can't afford a very huge sub force and even a fighter force to deal with the Allies. So even if we let the subs inflict more damage on convoys we don't get more sub attacks from 1942-1943.

So altering the unit cost slightly could be worth some consideration.

1. Sub cost
a. 60 as now
b. 55
c. 50

2. DD cost
a. 60 as now
b. 55
c. 50

3. Fighter cost
a. 100 as now
b. 95
c. 90

4. Strategic bomber cost
a. 95 as now
b. 100
c. 110

5. Tactical bomber cost
a. 110 as now
b. 100
c. 120

Plaid · Post by **Plaid** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 7:06 pm

1 c
2 c
3 c
4 c (probably with slight stat increase in some areas)
5 b (probably with slihgt stat decrease in come areas)

PionUrpo · Post by **PionUrpo** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 7:06 pm

1. C
2. A (supposed to be 60 right?)
3. C
4. C
5. B

This would shorten the PP gap which seems to be part of the current problem.

dagtwo · Post by **dagtwo** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 7:12 pm

1. C

2. A

3. C

4. A.

5. B. (with stat decrease)

Blathergut · Post by **Blathergut** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 10:26 pm

1c
2c
3c
4c
5b

rkr1958 · Post by **rkr1958** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 11:08 pm

1. Sub cost - c. 50

2. DD cost - a. 60 as now

3. Fighter cost - c. 90

4. Strategic bomber cost - c. 110

5. Tactical bomber cost - a. 110 as now

Schnurri · Post by **Schnurri** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 11:15 pm

1c
2c
3c
4c
5b

amcdonel · Post by **amcdonel** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 11:40 pm

I agree with the other vote above:

1. Sub cost - c. 50

2. DD cost - a. 60 as now

3. Fighter cost - c. 90

4. Strategic bomber cost - c. 110

5. Tactical bomber cost - a. 110 as now

gerones · Post by **gerones** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 11:53 pm

1c
2a
3c
4c (to increase the shock factor of strats)
5b (to decrease the strategic attack of tacs)

peterjfrigate · Post by **peterjfrigate** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 11:53 pm

Cheaper subs makes sense and I vote yes, though the changes to Air costs don't make sense for dealing with a Morris Overload strategy. Think about it:

Cheaper fighters means an even stronger air umbrella for the Allies but also an even bigger drain on axis oil. More expensive TAC means less for the Axis. Let's assume the Axis can come out ahead and build 1 or two more fighters. But then more oil burning units = more oil burned which is what Overload is based on.

Finally note that Morris doesn't build bombers so making them more expensive changes nothing.

gerones · Post by **gerones** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 12:03 am

peterjfrigate wrote:Finally note that Morris doesn't build bombers so making them more expensive changes nothing.

In the real war the strategic bombers were the most expensive air units but in CEAW-GS they are the most cheap air unit. Many other wargames out there have the strategic bomber as a more expensive unit than the other air units. On the other hand, I also have voted to increase the shock factor of strategic bombers if we finally decide to make them 110 PP´s cost.

zechi · Post by **zechi** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 8:08 am

1c
2a
3a
4c
5a

PanzerGeneral · Post by **PanzerGeneral** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 8:17 am

1 c
2 a
3 a
4 c
5 a

Crazygunner1 · Post by **Crazygunner1** » Tue Nov 01, 2011 9:23 pm

1c
2a

On fighter cost it seems to be a majority for lower cost, is that really good? Fighters use less oil than other planes, they have for the most part better defense than any other bomber.

metolius · Post by **metolius** » Tue Nov 01, 2011 10:15 pm

all c.