unorthodoxt said:Couldn't the cost be balanced out with artillery consuming more supplies than a standard infantry? Thus making it a material battle. And if I think I know what I am talking about, most people cannot trade good A to another country for good B. You would have to purchase good B from the country with cash.
Meaning a nation with oil problems would have to manage their resources much closer and limit the amount of extraneous supply consuming 'brigades' they are using.
Or some other analogy to make arty more balanced. Since you need shells to fire the damn things!
Well, yes. IC/supply/oil cost would balance it out for those countries that have to fight on huge front lines (Germany and the USSR comes to mind).
So, in the end, it helps those countries that have little manpower but a lot of IC/resources (Germany, and they still have to seriously balance the oil consumption, though this shouldn't be a problem for infantry-artillery as they only use supplies) and countries that have a small front and enough IC/resources (all of the allies pretty much but especially the US).
One thing, we don't know the cost yet, and artillery could have a serious leadership cost, which would again hamper it's use a lot. Also, more divisions = less leadership to use for other things like research, so having a small width could be a curse in disguise.
It really depends on how well it's all balanced.