However, I don’t believe you have a single reason why mass is more important than energy. How about this ~ if you can give me any reason at all that mass is more important, I will change the psalm.

Attack until you are dead.

AA is expensive for it’s effectiveness, AA can’t shoot at walls or other ground forces. I hope my enemy’s spend resources building AA, it will take a serious amount of AA to stop bomber’s from dealing damage and a serious AA force is something that is easily killed by ground forces.

Also, a bomber being shot down, even to stop an advance, may not be an economical advantage. When the enemy starts shipping in plenty of AA, especially when forces are very unconcentrated, it may be time to start deploying mobile artillery or point defense at a distance of the walls to ensure safety.

The true panacea of war gaming is to be able to accurately identify and apply ones knowledge to the situation at hand.

This needs to be broken up into
1. a psalm on economic growth and it’s byproduct of deflation upon the units value.
2. a psalm on assisting factories with engineers Psalm 30
3. a psalm on fixed/variable costs of units relative to their relationship with their factory. Psalm 27
4. a psalm on production goals and factory quantity to production rate ratios.
5. a psalm on the lifespan of factories and their relationship with their products (units).

However, depreciation accounts for the fact that something will stop eventually and automatically saves money to buy a new one (by increasing the cost of current goods sold). One could argue that units depreciate over time and if they survive longer than [x] seconds, then you’re winning economically. This game uses stable variables and conditions. The only unknowns are if you’ll meet that quota of 9 siege bots or not.

What you say is far more important will be the topic of another Psalm (thanks for reminding me, I forgot all about that). This psalm is only concerned with maximizing useful life of factories and how many one should expect to need for a goal.

It is far more important to understand if going T3 would even be necessary as well as the possibility of holing out for longer and assisting fewer numbers of factories even with the roll off time.

What I don’t understand is depreciation refers to something of value declining over its life time.

What you are explaining is called opportunity cost. Not depreciation.

Please read the entire post before making up “What if” scenarios.

“In Vanilla the point of intercepting the nukes is that the nuke costs 5x as much as the anti nuke, meaning that every intercepted nuke is not only a major tactical victory but also an economic victory.

“The payoff still stands in Forged Alliance, a nuke is 3.5x more expensive than an anti nuke. In Forged Alliance a nuke is equal in price to 40.6 siege bots and the anti-nuke is equal in price to 11.6 siege bots. Intercepting a nuke is a 29 siege economic deficit to the player who launched it.

“An opponent attempting to overwhelm your anti nuke is a fantastic opportunity to consistently win tactical and economic victories. The more nukes they shoot, the better.

“Raiden2 and Lunagirl are the perfect examples of players who would play into the anti nuke trap.

A win is a win not matter the means used to achieve that win.