AGEOD Forums

In my current game Eastern Entente's inflation is currently 5 %, and a new Supply Train unit costs 158 money, 50 manpower and 30 war supply, while a replacement part costs 94 money, 16 mp and 119(!!) war supply. Why is the war supply cost for replacements so high? Given the shortage of WS as Russia, there seems to be no point in buying Supply Train replacements at all.

In game logic it could be as a surrogate for the critical inadequacies of the Russian rail net. The problems of getting war materials and supplies to the armies proved extremely limiting to military operations in the period 1914-16, and insurmountable thereafter. Maybe the designers inflated the cost of the supply trains as a way of representing this. That's a guess, of course, but I can't think of any other reason.

I should say it is a bug.

Base cost of a Supply is 150$, 25 mp and 15 WS, and you may suffer from some cost penalties due to inflation and/or poor NM...so your cost does not look outrageous to me

Ah.

In 1916 scenario, at the start with 15% inflation and 60 NM for Russia, the cost is WS is 122 (103 money and 15 conscripts).

Which year and NM in your game pantsukki?

I started the regular grand campaign, date is currently ~April 1915 and NM is around 97.

So.

5% inflation and 97 NM then 119 WS.

15% inflation and 60 NM then 122 WS.


Your situation is much better, however the cost is similar.

I suppose the 122 number is "artificially selected" and 119 is according to the development of your game.

But shouldn't the replacements be cheaper (also in WS) than completely new units?

It's due to the way replacements are calculated in AGEOD engine. Replacement cost is an average of the cost of all units using the replacement chit, which can sometimes skew the replacement costs up if there are large variances in the unit cost utilizing the replacement.