point cost for CMBS

[Larsen]

I played WWII titles for exclusively until recently. Now I switched to CMBS. There was no way to direct way to evaluate various units' costs for WWII. One had to empirically estimate the contribution of this or that unit compared to others.

for CMBS there is a direct way of evaluating the units. Actually, there are two of them. The first one is how much it costs to produce or train a specific unit. Since this is a modern title we know pretty much how much different piece of equipment costs to produce. Modern battlefield is all about technology. Obviously the more expensive units perform better than the cheaper ones.

Teh other way is actually let the market evaluate the unit worth. Taht is how much different equipment is sold for. There we go.

What do you think? 

[Vanir Ausf B]

I think there is no chance BFC will use dollar value of units for QB cost. It's not even a straightforward calculation. Do you adjust for purchase price parity? Do we use export cost or domestic procurement numbers? Do we even know what the Russian government pays for a T-90?

[Larsen]

Oh, the prices of what Russian government pays and for what they sell their equipment is all over the internet. Same is for the US arms. Obviously there are a lot of different configurations but the ballpack is there.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Mmm, so assuming "ballpark" is good enough, why would this system be better than the current system?

[Larsen]

Hm. For example T-90A (different sources give the price between 1.5M to 3.5M per one) is at least 2 times cheaper than M1A2SEP 8.5M. And I feel that in the game M1A2 is underpriced. Another example are drones and MANPADS. Right now a section of Stinger armed MANPAD platoon (4 operators, HQ and 4 trucks) carry 24 stingers. Each missile is about $120K. So even without the price of trucks a section of the US MANPADS is at least $2.9M + 4 trucks (I didn't even look at price of those). In the game they cost 406 points for regular experience. Raven drone is $173K so the question is why in the game a section of MANPADS costs the same as one RAVEN drone?

Do you know how many drones they can shoot with all their stingers? I ran a few tests. 5. I just happen to think that the drones are too expensive in CMBS and the real world price confirmed my suspicion.

Again, there is a market for all those toys. Why invent your own system when there is a free market?

 

[Vanir Ausf B]

1.5M to 3.5M is a pretty big range.

Try running your Stinger test against the Russian Zala drone.

I tried looking up the cost of a Ural-4320 truck. I can't find what the Russian government pays for them, but in mint condition they go for $26,000. Per unit cost for a US FMTV A1R is $160,427. I think people may complain if US trucks cost 6 times Russian trucks

https://fourtankmen.com/why-ural-4320-is-the-best-russian-military-truck/

http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product2211.html

Edited April 6, 2022 by Vanir Ausf B

[Larsen]

Zala is the only one that can not be killed by anything in the game. But then it can be used mostly for observation. Calling airstrikes with it leads to long spotting times and the eventual artillery strike going off the target. I tested it even with elite FO and elite artillery and still the strikes were very much off the target. So you spend 400 points to watch the battlefield. It has an advantages of course but for pretty much the same price you can get T-90A.

Well, the US stuff is more expensive all around. It is also better. Who buys trucks in QBs? For Russian I think hey are useful as they carry extra HE shells for mortars. Not sure what the US side uses them. 

I think that Tunguska is underpriced too. The wiki gives a unit cost of $16M. That is about twice as much as M1A2. And that might feel like too much but Tunguska basically leaves the US side without any way to use drones or air power. 

[Vanir Ausf B]

2 minutes ago, Larsen said:

So you spend 400 points to watch the battlefield. It has an advantages of course but for pretty much the same price you can get T-90A.

400 points for an unkillable spy in the sky is a bargain, IMO. In my Black Sea-PBEMing days we banned them from QBs.

2 minutes ago, Larsen said:

Well, the US stuff is more expensive all around. It is also better. Who buys trucks in QBs? For Russian I think hey are useful as they carry extra HE shells for mortars. Not sure what the US side uses them. 

I think that Tunguska is underpriced too. The wiki gives a unit cost of $16M. That is about twice as much as M1A2. And that might feel like too much but Tunguska basically leaves the US side without any way to use drones or air power. 

If you made Tunguskas cost 1300 points I doubt anyone would ever buy one, although they probably are underpriced currently.

[Larsen]

Severely underprized. When was the last time the US side brought up any airpower or drones in a QB? They simply can't. But they BMP-3Ms are a bit overpriced and so are the Russian tanks compared to Bradleys and M1A3SEP. 

This article gives and estimate of 3.1M per Bradley

M2 Bradley - Wikipedia

 

[SgtHatred]

Obviously Combat Mission is not the kind of game where point values for units would be related to real life costs in any way. Games like this usually use something like a Battle Value or some other arbitrary point system to compare 2 units for fairness within the game, and Combat Mission is no exception. Wanting real life costs to factor into this point cost seems extremely foolish and out of scope.

[Larsen]

Hm. And why is that?

Is CMBS an attempt at real battle simulation or a war game?

Different weapon systems cost is  directly related to their effectiveness on the battlefield. The modern world, the modern economy is global. Taking the real life costs and comparing them is the only real way of determining the modern armor value. There is a reason why some equipment is more expensive then the other. It usually the cost of technology and the cost of putting it all together that creates a dollar value.

Keep in mind that there are two costs - one is what the government pays for the weapons produced by and inside the country and there is what the other countries pay to buy the weapons.   

 

[SgtHatred]

2 hours ago, Larsen said:

Hm. And why is that?

Is CMBS an attempt at real battle simulation or a war game?

Different weapon systems cost is  directly related to their effectiveness on the battlefield. The modern world, the modern economy is global. Taking the real life costs and comparing them is the only real way of determining the modern armor value. There is a reason why some equipment is more expensive then the other. It usually the cost of technology and the cost of putting it all together that creates a dollar value.

Keep in mind that there are two costs - one is what the government pays for the weapons produced by and inside the country and there is what the other countries pay to buy the weapons.   

 

It's called Combat Mission, not Finance Mission.

[Vanir Ausf B]

3 hours ago, Larsen said:

But they BMP-3Ms are a bit overpriced and so are the Russian tanks compared to Bradleys and M1A3SEP.

BMP-3Ms are fantastic. I buy them without hesitation.

[Larsen]

7 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

BMP-3Ms are fantastic. I buy them without hesitation.

I like them too. I am not saying that they are not fantastic. I am saying that they are worse than M2 Bradley. Their lifespan is much shorter partially because of the location of the ammo storage and their sighting is also substantial worse. 

I saw a Russian source that atated that they were worth about 85M rubles in 2019 (about 1.15M USD) and that is three times cheaper than Bradleys and I personally feel that difference in the game.

[Saberwander]

7 hours ago, Larsen said:

Hm. And why is that?

Is CMBS an attempt at real battle simulation or a war game?

Different weapon systems cost is  directly related to their effectiveness on the battlefield. The modern world, the modern economy is global. Taking the real life costs and comparing them is the only real way of determining the modern armor value. There is a reason why some equipment is more expensive then the other. It usually the cost of technology and the cost of putting it all together that creates a dollar value.

Keep in mind that there are two costs - one is what the government pays for the weapons produced by and inside the country and there is what the other countries pay to buy the weapons.   

 

Problem with your theory is that real world countries have requirements and needs that are out of scope of this game. For example you will not be spending vast amounts of money on field hospitals, kitchens or engineering equipment in the game while in real life, that is a necessity.

Similar applies to various other assets. This is why price is not a good choice for "points" systems in a tactical level game.

[Larsen]

9 hours ago, Saberwander said:

Problem with your theory is that real world countries have requirements and needs that are out of scope of this game. For example you will not be spending vast amounts of money on field hospitals, kitchens or engineering equipment in the game while in real life, that is a necessity.

Similar applies to various other assets. This is why price is not a good choice for "points" systems in a tactical level game.

That is a strange argument. The price of a particular unit does not depend on the countries need. If they have a budget and a need they buy it if not they don't. At these days the price is mostly driven by new technologies be that new sensors, new software, new materials etc. The more expensive the unit is the better is the technology (for the most part). Taht is a direct way to compare unit. Otherwise is all super empirical and much more subjective.

[Vanir Ausf B]

1 hour ago, Larsen said:

Taht is a direct way to compare unit. Otherwise is all super empirical and much more subjective.

You said yourself that different sources give the cost of a T-90A as "1.5M to 3.5M". So does a M1A2 tank cost 6x T-90A or 2.5x? Who decides that and how is that not subjective?

Wikipedia gives the unit cost of a M4A1 rifle as $700. What does Russia pay for an AK-74M? Wiki doesn't say.

The unit cost of any manufactured item is also going to be influenced by how many of them are made because the R&D cost is spread over each unit and economies of scale. That has nothing to do with battlefield performance.

Edited April 7, 2022 by Vanir Ausf B

[Larsen]

Well for one, M1A2SEP should be at least 2.5 more than T-90A. And if feel like that in the game too - spotting, armor, accuracy is much much better for Abrams. T-90AM feels and operates a bit better. Now the point difference is about 1.5 That's just to low. 2.5 times would be a good stating point. 

I am sure one can find the prices for small arms in different catalogs and compare them. 

[Vanir Ausf B]

I was just looking over the Wiki page for the German Puma IFV. Unit cost $22 million, 2.5x M1A2 Abrams.

[Larsen]

That is one expensive IFV vehicle. I wonder what technologies they use in it. 

Look, there are always exceptions and adjustments. Frankly speaking Germans probably would be better off just buying Bradleys in this case and ditching Pumas all together. I wonder how many of those they export and who buys them. 

[Larsen]

Actually, not sure where the 17.14M EUR number came from. The article stated that 405 Puma costed 3bn EUR which makes it approximately 7.41M EUR per unit or about 8.5M USD (same as Abrams tank). Maybe some people are not good at first grade math. Again, not sure why not just buy American M2s or Abrams instead.