1) No PP upkeep cost for any naval units in port. In other words, if your battleship (or other units) stays in port it doesn't cost anything.
2) Reduce PP upkeep cost for submarines at sea to 1PP.
For #1: I think it is a way to prevent players from disbanding their battle fleets because of the 4 PP per turn cost. You only pay for upkeep when you actually use your naval units.
For #2: The two PP upkeep cost for subs is steep given what they accomplish. For example, in my last CP game with priviliged AI my starting U-Boat managed to sink 11 convoy points and 2 points of the Canadian Corps in transit. I calculate that as a cost for the Entente of about 114 PP. But my upkeep cost for that U-Boat before I disbanded it on turn 90 was 180. And I suffered 5 points of damage. I calculate this as a net loss to me of about 194 PP. If I had been more successful at locating convoys, I could have broken even, but only at the expense of triggering American entry.
I know the Units file can be edited to change the upkeep costs, but I don't know if there is a way to mod the game without getting into the exe. file to kill upkeep costs for units in port.
yes, you take a wrong approach, you cannot calculate it like that. The brits need these convoys to be a factor in the war in the 1914 start, they need it to survive in all the later starts, even if you knock off 2-3 points of each convoy that is a win for the central powers, regardless if they spend some more upkeep on the vessels to do so. to give a simplified account
if you have an income of 40 and your enemy has an income of -5 but get gets 25 income worth of convoys then if you spend 30 of your income to knock off 20 income worth of convoys you are winning. this is what the axis vs allies look like. problem with the current game is that the axis cannot spare the production cost of making extra subs AND also be capable of winning on land, not that they cant carry the upkeep.
besides you only need to play one 1914 game vs allies on multiplayer to learn 2 things
1) if you do not kill the convoys you will lose to a good allied player, uk on convoys is like being on steroids. you will go fine early on, then in 1916 they will flood you with superior tech and mass artillery (aka low upkeep units but with massive impact) you will then lose the war of attrition. 2) the usa entry is way overrated, it takes like 10 turns to ship units across and they only start with 1-2 naval capacity or something like that and no tech/upgrades. they have alot of income but its definitly worth it. UK on convoys is way scarier than UK without convoys and US on allied side.
1 sub is useless, you need 2-3, there are several reasons for that
1) mutliple attacks will deal more damage. 2) you have more line of sight = better chance of spotting the convoys 3) the enemy will actually have to invest more to deal with it, only catch, the current system makes dealing with subs effectively impossible. as long as you dont go into a green zone with your sub you will be fine.
the convoys always take the same route, you should camp these route just as the brits camp the axis convoy route.
the idea to have ships cost nothing in port is good, subs shouldnt cost less upkeep imo, it just need a different engagement system.
I agree with majpalmer especially on the first point. While there might be plenty for the sailors to do in port all a ship can really do is get resupplied or repaired and point as many of its guns out to sea as possible. Since ammunition and repairs are counted separately to upkeep anyway I don't see why there should be an upkeep cost for a fleet in port. Then again I'm no expert on naval warfare.
In spite of the Final Fantasy character it's pronounced sao-win after the Irish pagan god of death. I'm not a pagan but we're on a wargames website so I thought it fitting.