REVS Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 Here I am sitting in my foxhole in Tunisia while yet more of the Axis firepower rains down around me. I know this will seem a bit ahistorical to some, but I decided at this stage to get out my early-model laptop and do some sums. Now, we know from reliable camel drivers that this Axis outfit is made of conscripts (neatly ironed uniforms, etc), just like my fresh-faced Allied conscripts. This is what my laptop told me when we fired up our CMAK reality wargame simulator. The Axis Conscript AFVs (MkIVs) costs 81% the price of the Regular MkIV. The Allied (American) Conscript AFV (Grant) costs 87% the price of the Regular Grant. The Axis Conscript Infantry Company costs 71.8% the price of the Regular Axis Inf. Co. The Allied Conscript Infantry Company costs 73.4% the price of the Regular Allied Inf Co. The Axis Conscript 81mm mortar costs 78.8% the price of the Regular Axis 81mm mtr. The Allied Conscript 81mm mortar costs 80% the price of the Regular Allied 81mm mtr. That is enough as a random sample, but as I went through the listings, I could see that Axis conscripts receive a better discount than Allied conscripts, point for point. With artillery it is almost equal, but with AFVs the difference is quite sharp, but even in infantry and support weapons the cumulative differences in, say, a 1500pt game amount to a couple of freebie extra weapons for the Axis side. Is there any very good reason why this might be so? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 Covert pro-Axis bias among the BFC staff? Inability to do simple math? Still hung over from Winecap's gift the morning they worked out the numbers? Okay, I give. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guachi Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 Doing point calculations on squads in CMBO (yes, I was bored) I found, I think, that a normal squad costs X, a conscript .8X^2, a green .9X^2, veteran 1.1X^2, crack 1.2X^2, and elite 1.3X^2. I never did find a bias when comparing squads. I'm not saying you are wrong. I never did look systematically at costs for other stuff. [added]Just checked my spreadsheet I made ages ago for CMBO. Added some columns for cost ratios. No bias in CMBO for any units. Each class of units appears to have a different, but consistent, ration for con/green/reg/vet/crack/elite. For conscripts-- 85-87% for armor 64% (mentioned above) for FOs and squads 60% for crewed guns 90% for support vehicles CMBO, at least, had no bias. [end added] Jason [ April 09, 2004, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: guachi ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joachim Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 Some more data: A conscript Sherman cost only 79,8 and a conscript Priest only 76% of their regular brethren. While a conscript PzIIc or IIf costs 87% of the regular price! So a small survey found that conscript tanks in 2/43 cost from 76,04 to 87,62% (US) and 79,53 to 86,96% (GE). Can't see a bias in any direction here. Gruß Joachim 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSpkr Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 Perhaps availability has something to do with it. I would guess the Axis had more conscripts readily available than did the Western Allies. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.