The Amount of Steel required to manufacture a tank should be lowered

[Kihansi Haley]

Orbis pls dont kill me for suggestion lmao

I think that the amount of steel required to manufacture 1 tank should be lowered.

Currently it requires 0.5 steel to produce one tank 

lets assume the price of 1 steel average is $3000

The price of 1 soldier is $5

I read somewhere that a tank is the value of 40 soldiers (please correct me if Im wrong)

so with 1 steel you can make 2 tanks 

which is 80 soldiers 

and $6000

now 6000/5

is the equivalent of 1200 soldiers. 

(I seriously doubt one tank is 40 soldiers, its probably much higher but whatever)

You see the problem, right?

Tanks are extremely expensive to manufacture, and not worth the cost compared to a bunch of soldiers 

OK, SO IT TURNS OUT YOUR NUMBERS ARE BULLCRAP AND TANKS GO BRRRRR]

Even in a scenario where 10K tanks easily beat 200K soldiers because I failed to do basic maths or missed out on one specific variable/formula:

Tanks are still incredibly expensive and costly maintain, I mean moving to 5553 and getting your tanks to max would require thousands of units of steel, which is incredibly costly. This is especially a problem for nations with lower city counts and low incomes.

So, I think the amount of steel required should be lowered from 0.5 to 0.25 or around that range, possibly even lower.

As you can see, I am incredibly unconfident in this post but uh YOLO.

I probably broke some hidden forum post rule Idk, poorly executed bye.

Edited June 9, 2022 by TTTTTas

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

if it makes you feel better, it used to cost 1 steel for a tank

[Jacob Knox]

First, I already don't trust you about this because your math is off.

3 hours ago, TTTTTas said:

so with 1 steel you can make 2 tanks 

which is 80 soldiers 

and $6000

now 6000/5

is the equivalent of 1200 soldiers. 

Where did you get $6,000? You just said assume 1 steel = $3,000. So that should be $3,000. Then 3000/5 = 600.

Also, sure, let's just totally forget/neglect the additional $60 per tank.

 

Second, well yeah tanks are meant to cost more than soldiers. That just makes logical sense. Now if you want to argue worth the ratio is too high because 1 tank = 40 unarmed soldiers and 1 tank is worth roughly $1,560, which is 7.8 times the $200 the 40 soldiers are worth, then that's up to you m8. Note that reducing it to 0.25 steel per tank would decrease this ratio to about 4 times the cost of 40 soldiers.

 

Third, militarization isn't mean to be cheap, kiddo. That's part of why alliances need to consider when to militarize and when not to. But for reference, assuming steel is $3,000 ppu, tank militarization alone is $1,950,000 per city while soldier militarization is $75,000 per city.

 

Finally, unless you're not serious about this suggestion, you put it in the wrong place lol.

[Kihansi Haley]

Thanks for demolishing my post... sorry, and yeah just realized this in the wrong place

I did not even check steel prices before assuming $3000, so another fault on my part.

 

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

Let me chip in my 2 bad cents.

So at the time of typing this, the market price of food is 134, and munitions is 1819 so 5,000 Soldiers should cost $27,757, but do keep in mind that I rounded up food costs.

Now tanks are worth 10 armed soldiers. Why? "In battle, one tank is worth 40 unarmed soldiers." Because munitions raise the effectiveness of soldiers by 75%, In order to compensate, we set the number of soldiers to 25% of 40, which is 10. Simple and likely incorrect math. Now, We add in gas which is 2677. If we add it up for steel and munitions 100 tanks cost $178,596, most of it from steel (only a few dozen bucks added from war resources). Let's do some more lame and probably incorrect math!

One soldier is 396.53 Armed. One tank is 1785.96. Multiply 396.53 by 10 and you get 3,965.30.

Huh, almost seems like the cost of tanks should be RAISED. Although I do believe the higher cost of Factories than Barracks offset this.

Except the deal is that prices of resources and change and fluctuate constantly.

Considering that resources tend to gradually go down (you want to get more sales with lower prices so that more people buy from you to save a quick buck). Unless some direct attempts to increase or decrease prices happen, as such with lead I would assume.

Edited June 13, 2022 by Federative Woodstock
Clarification, tank math may seem wrong but 1 per 100 with gas and munitions makes their contribution rather negligible.

[RoDevs]

I agree with you. 

All I have to say.