Suggestion .. BlackBoat cost 4000 Lander cost 6000

Original title...  Why are rowing boats and landers so expensive?

(ok As always the gripe is that too few units are reasonably priced which really limits the number of unit types which get used making it hard to be creative )

A black boat is, in practical play, only rarely a little better than a rowing boat. Just calling it "black" is hardly worth the cost of more than a tank and near that of a battle- copter. Even stoneage man could make rowing boats with dead trees which would be able to nicely transport infantry and mech.  

Furthermore, landers are hardly sophisted engineering compared to tanks. A few metallic plates a welder and an outboard motor. So why do they cost nearly double tank price? Landers usually only get bought when its absolutely necessary and so there is little gameplay  choice going on here.  If these units were cheaper it would enhance game options and make AW more interesting .

NOTE  the game of chess underwent many changes over the centuries.  The queen used to move only 2 squares and pawns only 1 square. The players tried speeding things up and the game got better.   AW too can evolve and get better.

Suggestion ..   Lander cost 6000 BlackBoat cost 4000

BB (as rowing boat) should be cheaper than t copter which is already  reasonably priced technically. (The problem with t -copters is they should have considerably greater range than say tank and AA then they would get used more)

If you ever actually worked for the navy you'd realize how underpriced those units actually are in this game. Off the top of my head I can tell you that the USN pays about a million bucks to park its ships into a foreign port for only a couple of days for example, not to mention that even medium sized ships( can have a crew of about 300 people whereas the Carrier has a crew of around 5,000 who all have to eat, get paid, get medicine, etc, and then there's ship repairs, logistics, outside experts, fuel...

An M1 Abrams tank costs the army ~5million bucks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams

While here's what the IRL BB is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USNS_Lewis_and_Clark_(T-AKE-1) , and it costs around ~500million, which actually isn't even that much when compared to a ~10billion dollar carrier.

LOL. Nice links thanks.

Iordor wrote:USN pays about a million bucks to park its ships into a foreign port

Yeah i think anyone at AWBW who parks their vessels on my ports should pay that too!  That could be a customisation.. paying to get repairs on anothers port or city!?
Those LewisClarks look like modern ships with 1000s of tons cargo and fitted with pricey radars and stuff which our aw bbs and landers dont have.  (edit. admitedly BB in heavy naval can repair at sea which may be worth paying extra for, though rarely used unfortunately)  ... I was thinking more along the lines of World War 2 technology on which AW is loosely based ? For example the basic landers in wikipedia..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_craft
would probably cost a fraction of a tank.
Some fairly big around a million
http://www.seaboats.net/landing-craft-xidg45909.html
and small landers for only 75 thousand
http://www.alibaba.com/showroom/aluminum-landing-craft.html
which compares to tanks at 5 million.

In any case my main point is that a good cheaper priced sea transport could really enhance awbw gameplay when theres water available of course. In a current game where choke and rain have reduced tanks range to be ineffective we have indirect spam
http://awbw.amarriner.com/game.php?games_id=216452
nontheless, a cheap lander or BB could give players another shot at out manouevring the enemy in a number of ways.

Well, they didn't have high tech M1 Abrams back in those days either. It was more about quantity than quality, and they had very poor performance

BB would be cheap if it wasn't for the fact that they can repair, AND refuel. Modern ships that can do that cost an arm, and a leg - I'm not a military historian, but I doubt the ones back then(if there were any) were cheap.

Lol, I could make a 'lander' with 2x4's, and rope for around a hundred bucks, but it wouldn't have 6mp like they do in the game. Movement is what would drive the price up for these ships, and when you're moving valuable units you probably don't want them out at sea for long.

The problem with making those units cheaper is that it would nerf the subs, and cruisers. Spending 20k to take out a couple of 12k ones might be worth it, but spending 20k for 2-5k? That wouldn't be a very good investment.

I agree with Blanci's suggestion to reduce the price of those units.
Most naval units seem to be either underpowered or overpriced. So as Iordor says, subs and cruisers should have their prices reduced as well.

This way the navy might actually be viable on maps where they aren't required.
I don't quite understand the realism argument, though. Why would this be important?