OK, opinions needed!

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hello all,

ManheimTanker hit upon something after being inspired by something Lewis had suggested concerning a topic in another thread. We thought it should be kicked around a bit more. So this is a thread to get some opinions...

There has been a lot of grumbling about the low cost of some vehicles. The reason for the low cost is that they are highly vulnerable to enemy small arms (not to mention the big stuff!) and do not possess much in the way of offensive power (at least taking vulnerbility into consideration). This is consistant with the way all vehicles are rated, which means a tank of any sort is going to be much more expensive to a Jeep with a .50cal MG.

OK, the problem with this is that realitically vehicles have an inhernet bunch of uses that are not dependent upon offensive and defensive capabilities. Transporting infantry units is one, and that is factored in already. But some other factors, like recon ability and "real world use value" are not. In some people's opinions that this makes some vehicles far too cheap and therefore more apt to be used for unrealistic "disposable" tactics.

What we are proposing is a scaled system that, say, would make a currently priced 20 point vehicle have 10 points added (=30) to its price, a 100 point vehicle gets +5 (=105), and a 200+ point vehicle gets no change. Or something like that

This is just one idea and we are not wedded to it. What do the rest of you think about the issue and the possible solution.

Thanks,

Steve

P.S. A "leave it as it is" answer is OK, but please try and explain why it should remain the same.

[Guest Michael emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

What we are proposing is a scaled system that, say, would make a currently priced 20 point vehicle have 10 points added (=30) to its price, a 100 point vehicle gets +5 (=105), and a 200+ point vehicle gets no change. Or something like that <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While it's good that you are addressing the problem, I'm not sure that this is quite the way to go about it. For instance, what if there's a 20 point vehicle that's *not* being abused nor likely to? It doesn't deserve to be bumped up to 30 points, does it?

I think each vehicle needs to be considered on a case by case basis. Here's a thought: For each vehicle rate it in several categories such as gunpower (if any), armor (if any), load carrying ability, speed (that alone should bump the jeeps up a notch), floatation (i.e. ability to avoid bogging), stealth, etc. Then after you've done all that you add up the points and hey presto! there's your cost.

Or something like that.

Michael

[Mark IV]

Doesn't lowering the speed and spotting capabilities of such units fix the problem at CM's scale, in the most straightforward way?

If I understand one of the points correctly, the true value of the vehicle in the overall logistical sense isn't captured in its cost.

But since CM is a tactical game, perhaps any tweaking to reflect soft vehicles' importance should come in the assessment of victory points... the little units' value to a CM scenario seems about right to me. The soft targets that make it onto a CM battlefield are there for their perceived tactical contribution. Stupid employment of them should reap a just reward.

The fact that jeeps and trucks brung the guys to the dance (and will to the next one) is important, but not on the shooting battlefield (the battalion/brigade/division isn't going to send ALL, or even a large percentage, of their transport within a klick of the front line). If their characteristics are modeled accurately, problem solved, in the context of an hour or so of battle. A burst or two of MG should be the reward of dashing thin-skins.

If unit costs are weighted for their overall net worth to the war effort, shouldn't the price of the 88 Flak go up, since every round might have brought down a B-17?

Should we purchase HQ units separately, at a higher cost, to prevent O-grades from conducting solo assaults? Isn't this the slippery slope to modeling field kitchens, because of their tactical importance?

This issue has really received a disproportionate amount of attention, IMO. It has not been a problem in the games I've played. I would prefer to see unit characteristics modeled as accurately as possible, and then let the player make his own decisions, and live with the consequences.

I don't have a problem with jeep rushes, so long as MG42s (or even a couple of K98s) do to them in the game, what they would in real life.

[Sten]

Two ideas:

1. Maybe surviving vehicles should result in a point bonus at the endgame scoring?

Let the initial cost for vehicles remain, but add a "Survivability bonus". The bonus could be varied according to some factor (speed?).

2. Increase the impact vehicles have on Global Morale (=GM). Instead of

GM=(Points still alive)/(Initial points), change the formula to

GM= (Points still alive with AFV points counted twice)/( Initial points with AFV points counted twice).

This would discourage any overly offensive use of AFVs.

Sten

------------------

Keep your whisky on the rocks and your tanks on the roll.

[Pvt. Ryan]

I would leave it the way it is. If players use the cheap vehicles in an inappropriate manner, that is their problem and they won't have too many willing opponents after a while. I only buy jeeps and light ACs when I have just a few points to spend and I can't find anything else to buy. I'm not sure how the game models a units victory location grabbing ability (VLGA), but the recon vehicles should have less of it so that they can't be used to race ahead to grab victory locations early in the game or during the last few turns. I find that my enemys' units usually take care of my light vehicles if I try to get too bold. That's good enough for me.

[Guest Rollstoy]

I do not know, but don't we need the original formula for the unit price to assess it and comment on it?! How else can we answer such a specific question?!

Regards, Thomm

[John Hough]

The problem here is that these units have completey different values when used in 'gamey' ways than they do when used in realistic ways. Is a jeep worth 20 points providing mobility to weapon teams/HQ units and hauling around light at guns? Maybe. Probably not. But the MG jeep is probably worth 30+ doing suicide recon rushes. And there doesn't seem to be a good way to reconcile these differences. Particularly since the tranport vehicles, when used in that role, seem overpriced already. (Though perhaps that's a matter of not knowing how to properly use them)

So basically, I see this idea as completely eliminating the lighter vehicles from player picked QBs, except in a 'gamey' role, while only slightly reducing their use in a 'gamey' role in scenarios and auto-pick QBs. Totally not the intended result.

As for solutions that do work? I don't know. Perhaps reducing the recon value and offensive ability of vehicles by speed more than is done presently. Perhaps making unarmored vehicles more likely to bug out upon taking small arms fire. Perhaps the system of giving units differing victory point an purchase point costs, so you can purchase them for their value in realistic uses, but lose them at the value of their use in either 'real world' uses or unrealistic throwaway recon uses. (This may have been what you proposed, if so, it was unclear.)

I have no idea how much coding any of these fixes would require, but since the general rule is that it takes a lot more than you would think....

-John Hough

[Olle Petersson]

A few remarks from me:

- When calculating a vehicles defensive value it should be a combination of armour, speed and silhouette.

- One way to avoid gamey tactics with low point vehicles is to make them more expensive to lose.

The MG Jeep is a tough nut.

I'm not very knowledgeable about it's historical use, but the way I'd use it historically would be in rear areas only, for escort and patrol duties.

One could also think of it as a generic commando car, like the SAS Jeep, to be used behind enemy lines. For this purpose, however, it's got too little transport capability.

As for using cheap vehicles for recon (by blowing up); what are the spotting abilities of vehicles? All the same, varies, recon vehicles better, or what?

Having some designated recon units that are better at finding and identifying enemies, at the cost of some extra point value, could be a real treat.

Cheers

Olle

[KiwiJoe]

I think each vechile needs to be individually looked at. Some are maybe a little too expensive... greyhound, puma.

The 1's which could do with a small tweak upwards because they get "abused" are"

Allies:

T8

M20

Jeeps

Humber scout car

None for the axis. This is because all the axis vechiles are quite expensive... I think the Puma and SPW 250/9 (20mm 1) could go down a LITTLE bit. Mainly because of thier increadably weak side/rear armour.

[Holdit]

I think it probably ought to be left as it is. The new rules for offroad movement and spotting should kill the the gamey recon use, without penalising players who use jeeps historically.

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KiwiJoe:

I think each vechile needs to be individually looked at. Some are maybe a little too expensive... greyhound, puma.

The 1's which could do with a small tweak upwards because they get "abused" are"

T8

M20

Jeeps

Humber scout car

None for the axis. This is because all the axis vechiles are quite expensive... I think the Puma and SPW 250/9 (20mm 1) could go down a LITTLE bit. Mainly because of thier increadably weak side/rear armour.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree to almost everything here.

Except for "plain" Jeep and Humber. Those will lose most of their

"gamey value" with the upcoming patch.

Are AC's and tanks weighed with the same price system?

It seems odd the heavy AC with 20mm is more expensive than Lynx,

as Lynx is "clearly" the better vehicle.

Same with Greyhound, 'xept there's nothing to compare it with.

[KiwiJoe]

Yeah 83 points for a greyhound with max 19mm armour is a little steep... ok its hell fast, has 3 mg's and plenty of ammo but still...

83 for the Puma isnt too far off seeing as that 50mm main gun can penetrate almost as much as the sherman's 75mm. But it only has 1 mg, the HE blast is crappy and the side armour is about as strong as a wet paper bag. Not to mention the slow turret.

I think 65-70 for the Greyhound, 70-75 for the Puma would be a bit fairer. Bit then you'd have people buying 5-6 of them and racing them forward to flank mbt's, so maybe I don't know ****

Oh and Jarmo, that Humber is a great buy. Ok its only got a crappy bow .30 cal bit u dont buy to with the intention that it will kill anything. At 18 points and with 14mm armour it can race forward, scout out enemy positions, and take hmg fire doing it... unlike the jeep. 3 of them can scout out 90% of the enemy's force for around 50 points and last longer than the jeep doing it. But that is gamey and none of us would do that would we

[Wilhammer]

Vehicles should be cheaper for Americans relative to other countries vehicles, especially the logistical vehicles. The reason is that they were as plentiful in the US Army as men.

I think a lot of the problems could be solved if the US vehcicle list was added to (having the ability to buy a M-16 will divert money from jeeps). Another way to solve the problem would to be to create another category so that we would have Armor, Vehicles, and Light Armor, that includes Lt. AFVs, Armored Cars and other light armed vehicles like armed HTs. The current vehicle category would be left for logistical vehicles/transports.

Upping vehicle costs will not change gaminess. Heck, just buy a platoon or two of green or conscript troops, split the squads, and deploy a skirmish line.

I do like the idea of bonus points for survivors and surviving equipment.

Bill

[pzvg]

I don't think it would have an effect, Folks will find and exploit things in a game, So until we can craft AI that looks up at you and says " You must be outta friggin mind Sir" I think we'll have to live with it.

------------------

Pzvg

"Confucious say, it is better to remain silent, and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt"

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sten:

Two ideas:

1. Maybe surviving vehicles should result in a point bonus at the endgame scoring?

Let the initial cost for vehicles remain, but add a "Survivability bonus". The bonus could be varied according to some factor (speed?).

2. Increase the impact vehicles have on Global Morale (=GM). Instead of

GM=(Points still alive)/(Initial points), change the formula to

GM= (Points still alive with AFV points counted twice)/( Initial points with AFV points counted twice).

This would discourage any overly offensive use of AFVs.

Sten

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of all the idea's presented here I like these the best.

I think the way all the vehciles are costed for purchase, right now is fairly well done. The question in my mind is how are they treated by the game and the AAR and for victory points if they are destroyed or if they survive?

I really like the idea that they could have a large impact on global moral.

And I really like the idea that there should be a vehicle survivability bonus, encouraging the player to do every thing he or she can to end the scenario and win the battle with as many vehicles as possible. These seem like VERY realistic suggestions.

I don't think the cost to "buy" the vehicles up front should change, but the cost to have them destroyed in battle, especially for those cheaper vehicles you refer to, especially the jeeps and trucks that are being abused for gamey recon, should have some more exagerated cost associated with their loss other than just the loss in victory point of their original purchase cost.

I think the answer here, lies in trying to model the loss of these vechilces as more expensive, or on the other side of the coin, reward those players with vehicle bonus points for victory points for vehicles that survive the battle.

I think what we are trying to model here is the notion that the vehciles (especially, thin skinned jeeps and trucks and AC's) will be very valuable in the next mission or the upcoming battle, or they will be indispensible after the current battle to ferry the wounded to the rear, so some substanial reward should offered to encourage the "proper" "don't waste the cheep truck or jeep for suicide recon" thinking amongst gamey players.

And if you know me I speak from gamey play experience, and I'm more than happy to help find ways to make this situation less gamey and more realistic.

It would be my opinion that it "might" be easier to code a backend solution at the end of the battle to give vehicle bonuses in victory points for all those that survived the battle than to try to add a seperate different "cost" of getting that vehicled destroyed that would be a cost MORE than the purchase price because the vehicle was squandered or using in a suicide mission.

The points to purchase all the vehicles should not change, but a generous vehicle survival bonus in the victory points should be awarded for all light vehicles that are in good working order at the end of the battle.

I would suggest if it is easy to do, the destruction of the light vehicles could be modeled in victory points as a penalty costing more than the purchase price.

Ideally I would suggest these numbers. I'm not exactly sure which vehicle should be included but lets use the .50 cal jeep as an example.

Its purchase cost should remain the same.

If it is lost in battle the penalty in victory points should be a loss of the purhase cost of the jeep plus an additional loss of 10% of the cost of the jeep. (about 2 points I guess if the purchase price is 19, but it costs 21 to loose it, maybe that %10 value should be higher?)

If the jeep survives the battle the bonus should be 20% of the cost of the jeep plus of course the purchase price of the jeep reflected in victory points.(rounding UP maybe the jeep should be worth 24 points if it survives the battle)

Just figure out which vehciles are being abused and let us know what is the % cost penalty of getting them destroyed in battle and what is the survival reward bonus as a percentage of the purchase price for those vehicles that surive the battle is.

I strongly believe the survival % bonus reward value should be greater (yes even double), than the penatly cost % to loss the unit because it is largley unaviodable that some of your vehicles will get destroyed in battle just through bad luck even if you do excersise caution and prudent historical tactics in their use and movement.

Hope that made sense, I fully support all efforts in this area to make the loss of any light skinned vehicle a more costly venture than it is now.

-tom w

[Gen. Sosaboski]

The jeep's a tough issue. Though it certainly is a valuable recon asset, I've had it taken out at 200 meters by small arms fire. I DO think that the M20's point value should be raised a bit, along with the Humber Scout Car. Those things can hurt you.

[Jarmo]

I'd like the idea of penalizing the loss of such vehicles instead of

upping the purchase cost.

[Slapdragon]

This may not be a good place to bring it up -- seeing as the anti science elements may come out in force, but there and some things that can be looked at.

Some players of ladder games could start keeping records of who won and what vehicles they had. Once you start getting a hundred or two hundred games recorded by both players, you can use some pretty simple math to ask if having a particular vehicle correlated with winning the game. Ideally no vehicle should have the answer yes, but if it does then it implies that the vehicle is too cheap and needs some points thrown in. The beauty of a Battlefront win / loss database is that it will allow progressive tweeking as you can also ask if having a particular vehicle correlated with loosing also. Since vehicles are far less common it would be more simple to maintain,

For example:

Clinton (US) versus Jackson (DE)

Map size: 3 Weather: 2, Date: 4

US Major Win

Jackson: MkIVH, StugIII

Clinton: M4A1, Stuart

And it would get coded into a program like SPSS. Note that if board size, weather, or Date correlated with winning more often that information could be useful also.

The beauty of it is that as long as they pretty much play random sides, and don't park on one size and play one board style, then it does not matter if one player is better than the other, since it will get factored out as sides switch.

The other thing would be an "abuse factor" for some vehicles. A vehicle that is identified in play testing, possibly based on narrative reports, as being used in an unusual manner, or being purchased in mass numbers (such as jeeps) would get a tag placed on it by the game. The first example purchased would cost what it costs, but the second would cost twice cost and so on. Some vehicles would be immune to this, such as the Sherman and the MkIV.

Finally we could use a cost and loss point system for some vehicles. Maybe jeeps should be cheap (US had a lot of them), but their loss more expensive (who wants your company jeep blown up). Transports, Arty FO, vehicle crews, and the rest could be in the higher loss category.

[KiwiJoe]

I think if u penalise the loss of light armour you run the risk of people simply not using them at all. I for 1 wouldnt choose any light vechiles or even med tanks if I knew I was going to loss extra points for having them knocked out. I'd just choose a couple of big tanks and sit them at the back of the map so I didnt get penalised. That idea really hurts people who want to choose high numbers of lighter afv's and flanking to do the job.

I think u just need to find the right price point where people find that rushing vechiles at the enemy on suicide recon runs costs more than its worth.

[Frenchy]

Steve and Charles:

I do not know if changing the price structure is the answer. A person who is intent on using the vehicles in a "gamey" recon way will still do it whether he has 4 or 2. Granted it will cost a player more but I doubt if it will change his tactics.

I say leave the price structure the way it is and may the best man win on the field.

------------------

Webmaster

http://www.trailblazersww2.org

http://www.vmfa251.org

[Henri]

I think BTS should be commended for trying to improve the program as much as possible and to take into account player suggestions on how to do it.

However I am afraid that trying to make a program "smarter" than a player is an extremely difficult if not impossible task.

I am afraid that I have no idea of how it can be done while avoiding undesired side effects, but if they want to try, they have my full support.

Just one example: suppose you make halftracks more expensive to buy or to lose in order to discourage their use as recon; but then you are also discouraging their use as transport, which is what they are for, and you are also discouraging their use as MG support for infantry, for which they were sometimes used. As a consequence, you are discouraging mobility in combat, and biasing the game in favor of the defender, which is not the intended result.

However if a way can be found to resolve all those difficulties, kudos to the programmers.

Henri

[Bruno Weiss]

Sniff, ahem, (moves to the podium). Mr. Speaker, Gentlemen, fellow Mousegenerals. I remember the Panzerblitz days well, and I remember it suffered the exact same problem. They never resolved it. Trucks n jeeps n spotting oh my!

Now, I'm not opposed to this tweaking suggestion, however having said that I must add that I share the concern voiced by others that such a purchase point increase would inadvertantly penalize those who wish to properly use the transport qualities of these units.

Furthermore, I would submit that there are many areas of the purchase point system that are in need of tweaking. At the other end of the spectrum is the player who purchases a flock of Jumbo's or King Tigers to be used as a Castle Fortress. There is also the argument as to unit rarity factors. How common was the Puma really, for example. Might it not deserve to be more expensive? To my thinking, there are units who's rarity factor (say the Puma example), overall strength factor (say the Jumbo example), and disposal factor (the jeep example), who's purchase value needs to be increased or othewise tweaked.

One thing I've noted is the distribution of points altogether. Many players use a medium map with a gazillion points. Allowing for the purchase of massive forces armed to the teeth with weapons that their historical counterparts could have only dreamed of from a standpoint of commonality. Sure sure, they existed, they fought, and on page 1107.3 of this or that book you can find a picture of them in battle, but what was the commonality factor? There has also been the ongoing debate as to unit composition. Those who weave a patchwork quilt of purchased units who's likelyhood of deployment would have been highly rare. An SS unit here, a Pioneer unit there, or the Airborne, Armor mix.

I would suggest a broader overhaul aimed at constraining the purchase system point distribution itself. I do not profess to have the magic bullet answer, but my thinking leads me towards believing that there are far too many points being allowed according to the size of the map. On a medium map, I find 600 to 800 points produce a mighty fine battle that also constrains the players to choosing the most vital units, with very little left over for frills. I do not say flat out that a medium map should be limited to 800 points, but I am asking you to think about it. Somewhere in that vicinity of (600 to 1000), is where the points should be set. For me, points above that on those size maps are an open invitation to creating some of the problems we are all discussing. I recommend a review of the point distribution and that it be tied to the map size directly.

Secondly, I do not agree that players should be able to mix Nationalities. An American tank here, a British unit there, etc. Same with the Germans. It always irratated me the way CC3 implemented the SS/Heer mix. I don't like it in CM either. Yes, there are examples of SS/Heer fighting side by side, but overall the commonality factor must be considered. In the main, even when SS units were thrown into battle with the Heer, they remained in their own unit compositions. They didn't mix small SS/Heer/Fallshirm units together. Not in the main. Which is what CM has strived for. The cows man, the cows! Why no tinkle of cow bells? Commonality! I would recommend that the No Limitation option for unit composition be dropped altogether. You must then choose wisely. Choose Herr, SS, Fallshirm, British, French or American, and further that point distribution be tied directly to unit composition. A player selecting an armored force would then get far less points say, than his opponent who chooses infantry compositions, etc.

Third and finally, and back to the main point. Yes, I believe unit purchase points need to be adjusted, but not just for jeeps and trucks. But also for the bohemoths, and the rare birds. Rare units (Puma), spare units (jeeps), and the monsters (Jumbo's), need to cost more IMHO.

To summerize, the unit purchase system needs to be tied to the map size, the unit composition, and the Nationality. With point distributions adjusted accordingly and constraints that limit the ability to choose anything, from anywhere and still have enough points left over for a brass band or the Galway Pipers playing Beautiful Molly McKeon.

------------------

"Wer zuerst schiesst hat mehr von Leben"

Moto-(3./JG11 "Graf")

Bruno "Stachel" Weiss

[This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 09-28-2000).]

[aka_tom_w]

When it comes right down to it what we are looking at here is a cost benefit analysis

This is not my area of speicialization (as you know I prefer rhetoric and debate, and gamey tactics) anyway..... here are my further thoughts

the problem is to try to find a way to make it "not worth it" to waste or expend cheep fast vehicles in gamey recon suicide runs?

I'm not sure the increasing the purchase cost of those vehicles is the answer.

But what other incentives or penalties could be imposed to entice players to not waste cheap fast vehicles using ahistorical or inappropriate tactics?

When we look at any of these suggestions lets also take a good hard look, as Henri suggests, as to what the result of that change will mean to the game play.

I would suggest that after all is said and done, even after the next patch, shrewd (so called gamey) players will do a quick cost benefit analysis and attempt to figure out what is their cheapest fastest and most easlily expendable unit and may choose to waste it in a "risky" recon role. If this is to be modeled correctly lets identify which units are intended to be "risked" in risky recon roles? Is that unit ideally a half squad of infantry? Is it a real life recon vehicle? then those units should be modeled to be most expendable and the cheapest I would say.

The bottom line is that when I sit down to play I will use a Min/Max cost benefit analysis in any given scenario to attempt to figure out which unit will give me the most bang for the buck and which unit gives me the best chance to gather recon intel for the CHEAPEST cost. Recon info on the enemy is very, very valueable and I would say most players are always trying to get the most recon intel by risking the fewest points or their cheapest units. I think that is a given and the next patch should be developed with that in mind.

As we seek to find ways to code the next patch to deal with this problem lets look at the problem from a Min/Max cost/benefit analysis model, as players even after the patch will try to get the most recon for the cheapest price.

so the question becomes how are we going to set that price strcuture to discourage suicide recon.

I think a strong case could be made to fix the speed and the spotting ability of all fast moving vehicles (as has been suggested by BTS) and be DONE with it, because I'm not really in favour of discourageing suicide missions for light vehicles because that choice and that "risky" use of the vehcile should be left up to the player. If you want to model in some, chance that some crews will refuse to follow sucidal orders, then that would be a realistic thing too. BUT then the nest obvious question is EXACTLY how would you program the game code to identify a suicidal commander or order? I suspect there is no good way to do that.

Thanks so much to Steve and Charles for asking and for taking all the time to read all these posts stay up to date with all the varied opinions on this board.

Lets keep the suggestions postive and constructive.

-tom w

------------------

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "It seems to me perfectly reasonable if a player wants to send one of his AFVs off at full speed in an attempt to draw fire, it's a legit tactic. So long as if that vehicle is alone, and it is unable to see/spot as well as if it were stationary, then you'll ge ta reasonable result out of the game. Better still so long as the player leaves vehicles in overwatch, he should still be able to garnish the info he's looking for even if it results in the death of the vehicle. It's a legit tactic even if a little harsh for the guys being the rabbit."

-Los

(And he KNOWS what he's talking about!)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[coralsaw]

Just a lateral idea guys, please jump in and improve before trashing it.

I think most of the proposals in this thread try to solve the problem analytically, which is not necessary correct. I explain my proposal below.

<bold> BTS, why don't you let the purchase system evolve according to players preferences? </body>

The idea is that you let the "market" decide what should be expensive and what not.

I suggest that you make the unit point table an open file, so that people can devise their own point table (as with mods) and people can choose which one they want.

The only requirement for PBEMs would be the mutual approval of both allied and axis point structures by both players (say by carrying the point table in the initial PBEM file, e.g. the player who proposes chooses point table).

Viva freedom and open standards!

CoralSaw

[Guest Rollstoy]

Incremental unit prizes!

If you want to have more units of the same type then you have to pay more with each unit you buy of this type. If the vehicle is very rare, than the increase of the unit prize should be dramatic. Like: one Puma is fine, but the prize for a second is just not affordable. On the other hand, basic infantry should not increase significantly in cost. I think this would implicitly guarantee balanced forces while still allowing for some freedom of choice, like "I want a Jagdtiger instead of three StuGs, damnit!".

Regards Thomm