| Tuesday, March 08, 2005 - 06:47 pm |
Military maintenance costs are way too cheap, for a sizable military, procurement should only represent a small part of the expense.
I agree wiht Matt that there should be a requirememt for professions other than LLW and MLM in the military. One way of implementing this is to place the burden of generals, colonels, etc on the military bases rather than on the individual units, and include other costs with the bases as well. Each military base/airport would be able to support so many of each type of unit (for simplicity, lets say 1000). If you wanted to have 10,000 MIB in your country then you would need to have 10 defensive military bases to support them, and in order to purchase your 10,001th MIB you would need to order another defensive military base first (contract sales would pose an implementation problem here).
Military bases/airports could also have infrastructure requirements to be built, and the maintenance of such infrastructure adds to the military maintenance cost (both in salaries and other costs) but this military infrastructure does not count towards a countries normal infrastructure indexes. An illustration is in order. To build a defensive military base the game might deem it neccessary for:
10 high schools, to educate the grunts who have problems reading;
0.5 universities, a military academey if you like, 1 university would be deducted from the education infrastructure for every 2 defensive military bases built (rounded up);
1 hospital, a war hospital, subtracted from the health infrastructure when the base is built;
100 miles of road and 50 miles of rail to service the military base (subtracted from infrastructure when built);
a bunch of other consumables, like clothes (uniforms), books (manuals), furniture, construction, etc
Different bases/airports might require differing infrastructure support. For example offensive military bases may require water treatment facilities, which represents the provision of clean drinking water and sanitation for attacks on foreign soil.
On top of the infrastructure maintenance for a base, there would also be many other monthly maintenance costs, such as gasoline, electricity, clothes (unifroms), books (manuals), furniture, services, industrial equipment (spare parts), etc. Although each base can support so many of each type of unit, some presidents would continue to choose to concentrate their forces in only a few areas. Such specialisation would offer no discount for maintenance, if a base can support 1000 heavy jeeps and you have no jeeps for that base to support, tough, you still get charged for it. This is an incentive to balance your military.
In addition to base maintenance costs, many weapons (belonging to an activated base) should consume ammunition (for training purposes) in order to maintain battle readiness. A heavy tank might consume 100 shells a year, while an interceptor may only fire 1 or 2 missiles a year.
Individual weapon types would no longer be able to be activated/deactivated independently, instead military bases/airports would be activated/deactivated as a whole. The cost of such mobilisation/demobilisation would be considerable, perhaps one years worth of base maintenance costs, salaries, and ammunition.
Under such a regime countries could still have an airforce of 100,000 interceptors, but the cost of supporting such a force would be very considerable. There would be the labour cost of supporting 100 defensive military airports, and the accompanying 100 war hospitals, 50 universities, and 1000 high schools, plus the infrastructure maintenance cost for 10,000 miles of road and 5,000 miles of train track, plus the consumables consumed by the defensive airports (and HS, unis, and hospitals), and not to mention the small matter of 100,000 to 200,000 interceptor missiles the airforce burns through each year in practise sessions.
Maintenance would now reflect a more reasonable portion of military expenditure, support costs would cause army sizes to fall.