Talk:Weapons (TFTD) - Revision history

Madned: /* Real Manufacturing Costs */

2011-02-09T03:10:59Z

Real Manufacturing Costs

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:10, 9 February 2011
Line 272:		Line 272:

	:: I have just attacked T'Leth in July on Superhuman without researching any Gauss weapons, and having skipped the Sonic Blasta and Oscillator. I only researched the drills because I was waiting for the engineers to finish building a Leviathan, and the scientists (per Spike's advice I had 100 of them) were paid for and had nothing else to do. I'm now wondering how quickly it is possible in the game calendar to get to T'Leth, given that you need only attack one dreadnought and one base to get the necessary two Lobsterman Commanders. A big part of the answer is money, I suspect. [[User:4th Cuirassier\|4th Cuirassier]] 07:02, 7 February 2011 (EST)		:: I have just attacked T'Leth in July on Superhuman without researching any Gauss weapons, and having skipped the Sonic Blasta and Oscillator. I only researched the drills because I was waiting for the engineers to finish building a Leviathan, and the scientists (per Spike's advice I had 100 of them) were paid for and had nothing else to do. I'm now wondering how quickly it is possible in the game calendar to get to T'Leth, given that you need only attack one dreadnought and one base to get the necessary two Lobsterman Commanders. A big part of the answer is money, I suspect. [[User:4th Cuirassier\|4th Cuirassier]] 07:02, 7 February 2011 (EST)

			: should probably avoid the subjective info if possible at least if it's being presented as factual. the real manufacturing costs seem to be $ manufacturing cost + engineer time cost + materials cost. I think neglecting housing costs is ok, you may be getting it in effect free for building housing for other purposes, in any event the cost function for that is jagged (housing batches cost, but once constructed it's paid capacity). inclusion of workshop space up for debate, again jagged function. if the profit/hr calc is essentially (sale price-RMC)/(engineer hours) then i think it'll work fine.<br> using opportunity costs adds another layer of calculation and putting it in the infoboxes removes the time context. in part opportunity cost is a function of research. [[User:Madned\|Madned]] 22:10, 8 February 2011 (EST)

4th Cuirassier: /* Real Manufacturing Costs */

2011-02-07T16:58:24Z

Real Manufacturing Costs

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:58, 7 February 2011
Line 265:		Line 265:
	: Yes that's a fair point NKF. First of all I'm not totally confident in my numbers and I should 'show my work' by uploading the original spreadsheet, which I can't find. I don't think that the calculated total direct costs are that controversial, but I agree it starts to get into subjective territory. My numbers deliberately don't include opportunity cost, they are only the total of all direct and indirect costs. The problem with opportunity cost, or one of the problems, is that it's a kind of circular argument. You can't calculate the opportunity cost until you know the most profitable item. So my table is a starting point for opportunity cost. But I don't think it's that cut and dried. Not everyone wants to be bothered cranking Gauss Cannon out all the time. And actually there are higher opportunity costs - more valuable things to produce - that are hard to quantify. There are things you need to manufacture to survive, and to win, that aren't commercially viable - but what price do you put on the survival of XCom and the human race? So I think the opportunity cost argument is a very subjective area. The total direct+indirect costs is not a grey area, and printing the "face value" costs of manufactured items, without giving any qualification, gives a very misleading impression of the actual economics of the game. I think that at least, the nominal costs and the real direct+indirect costs, should be presented side by side. The table I linked to does not do this in a very helpful way because it's focused on describing hourly rates of profit, rather than per unit cost. So I will try to find the original data. [[User:Spike\|Spike]] 14:35, 4 February 2011 (EST)		: Yes that's a fair point NKF. First of all I'm not totally confident in my numbers and I should 'show my work' by uploading the original spreadsheet, which I can't find. I don't think that the calculated total direct costs are that controversial, but I agree it starts to get into subjective territory. My numbers deliberately don't include opportunity cost, they are only the total of all direct and indirect costs. The problem with opportunity cost, or one of the problems, is that it's a kind of circular argument. You can't calculate the opportunity cost until you know the most profitable item. So my table is a starting point for opportunity cost. But I don't think it's that cut and dried. Not everyone wants to be bothered cranking Gauss Cannon out all the time. And actually there are higher opportunity costs - more valuable things to produce - that are hard to quantify. There are things you need to manufacture to survive, and to win, that aren't commercially viable - but what price do you put on the survival of XCom and the human race? So I think the opportunity cost argument is a very subjective area. The total direct+indirect costs is not a grey area, and printing the "face value" costs of manufactured items, without giving any qualification, gives a very misleading impression of the actual economics of the game. I think that at least, the nominal costs and the real direct+indirect costs, should be presented side by side. The table I linked to does not do this in a very helpful way because it's focused on describing hourly rates of profit, rather than per unit cost. So I will try to find the original data. [[User:Spike\|Spike]] 14:35, 4 February 2011 (EST)

	:: Well, it's not a huge point, I just thought it was interesting. Eg, the profit per hour from making Gauss Cannon, based on sales price less cost divided by tech hours, is $97. So let's take that $97 per hour to be a cost of production. If you make Particle Disturbance Sensors instead, they cost $34,000 plus 220 tech hours @ $97 each. This is a gross cost of $55,340. They sell for $45,600, so each PDS you make costs you $9,740 ''compared to making Gauss Cannon instead''.		:: Well, it's not a huge point, I just thought it was interesting. Eg, the profit per hour from making Gauss Cannon, based on sales price less cost divided by tech hours, is $97. So let's take that $97 per hour to be an opportunity cost of production, i.e. it's what you ''could'' have been making. If you make Particle Disturbance Sensors instead, they cost $34,000 plus 220 tech hours @ $97 each. This is a gross cost of $55,340. They sell for $45,600, so each PDS you make costs you $9,740 ''compared to making Gauss Cannon instead''.

	:: In effect, a table on this basis would always show the best item as being worth 0, with other items worth progressively less. I would need to go through it and see if the resulting sequence is any different to the one we already have. The main reason it would be interesting is in the early and mid-game where you would be comparing what you're making with what you could be making at the moment. The latter would change as you develop techs and might to some extent be a driver of what techs you make and when.		:: In effect, a table on this basis would always show the best item as being worth 0, with other items worth progressively less. I would need to go through it, and see if the resulting sequence is any different to the one we already have. The main reason it would be interesting is in the early and mid-game, where you would be comparing what you're making with what you ''could'' be making at the moment. The latter would change, as you develop techs, and might to some extent be a driver of what techs you make and when.

	:: Clearly this takes no account of the value obtained from developing and building things that stop troopers getting killed. I'm assuming you'd do that first. What I was interested in, to some extent, was managing the path to victory efficiently, notably at the points in the game when you're short of scientists and gear and you want to figure out what to research ~~adn~~ build in what order.		:: Clearly, this takes no account of the value obtained from developing and building things that stop troopers getting killed. I'm assuming you'd do that first. What I was interested in, to some extent, was managing the path to victory efficiently, notably at the points in the game when you're short of scientists and gear, and you want to figure out what to research and build, in what order.

	:: I have just attacked T'Leth in July on Superhuman without ~~ressearching~~ any Gauss weapons, and having skipped the Sonic Blasta and Oscillator. I only researched the drills because I was waiting for the engineers to finish building a Leviathan, and the scientists (per Spike's advice I had 100 of them) were paid for and had nothing else to do. I'm now wondering how quickly it is possible in the game calendar to get to T'Leth, given that you need only attack one dreadnought and one base to get the necessary two Lobsterman Commanders. A big part of the answer is money, I suspect. [[User:4th Cuirassier\|4th Cuirassier]] 07:02, 7 February 2011 (EST)		:: I have just attacked T'Leth in July on Superhuman without researching any Gauss weapons, and having skipped the Sonic Blasta and Oscillator. I only researched the drills because I was waiting for the engineers to finish building a Leviathan, and the scientists (per Spike's advice I had 100 of them) were paid for and had nothing else to do. I'm now wondering how quickly it is possible in the game calendar to get to T'Leth, given that you need only attack one dreadnought and one base to get the necessary two Lobsterman Commanders. A big part of the answer is money, I suspect. [[User:4th Cuirassier\|4th Cuirassier]] 07:02, 7 February 2011 (EST)

4th Cuirassier: /* Real Manufacturing Costs */

2011-02-07T12:02:22Z

Real Manufacturing Costs

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:02, 7 February 2011
Line 264:		Line 264:

	: Yes that's a fair point NKF. First of all I'm not totally confident in my numbers and I should 'show my work' by uploading the original spreadsheet, which I can't find. I don't think that the calculated total direct costs are that controversial, but I agree it starts to get into subjective territory. My numbers deliberately don't include opportunity cost, they are only the total of all direct and indirect costs. The problem with opportunity cost, or one of the problems, is that it's a kind of circular argument. You can't calculate the opportunity cost until you know the most profitable item. So my table is a starting point for opportunity cost. But I don't think it's that cut and dried. Not everyone wants to be bothered cranking Gauss Cannon out all the time. And actually there are higher opportunity costs - more valuable things to produce - that are hard to quantify. There are things you need to manufacture to survive, and to win, that aren't commercially viable - but what price do you put on the survival of XCom and the human race? So I think the opportunity cost argument is a very subjective area. The total direct+indirect costs is not a grey area, and printing the "face value" costs of manufactured items, without giving any qualification, gives a very misleading impression of the actual economics of the game. I think that at least, the nominal costs and the real direct+indirect costs, should be presented side by side. The table I linked to does not do this in a very helpful way because it's focused on describing hourly rates of profit, rather than per unit cost. So I will try to find the original data. [[User:Spike\|Spike]] 14:35, 4 February 2011 (EST)		: Yes that's a fair point NKF. First of all I'm not totally confident in my numbers and I should 'show my work' by uploading the original spreadsheet, which I can't find. I don't think that the calculated total direct costs are that controversial, but I agree it starts to get into subjective territory. My numbers deliberately don't include opportunity cost, they are only the total of all direct and indirect costs. The problem with opportunity cost, or one of the problems, is that it's a kind of circular argument. You can't calculate the opportunity cost until you know the most profitable item. So my table is a starting point for opportunity cost. But I don't think it's that cut and dried. Not everyone wants to be bothered cranking Gauss Cannon out all the time. And actually there are higher opportunity costs - more valuable things to produce - that are hard to quantify. There are things you need to manufacture to survive, and to win, that aren't commercially viable - but what price do you put on the survival of XCom and the human race? So I think the opportunity cost argument is a very subjective area. The total direct+indirect costs is not a grey area, and printing the "face value" costs of manufactured items, without giving any qualification, gives a very misleading impression of the actual economics of the game. I think that at least, the nominal costs and the real direct+indirect costs, should be presented side by side. The table I linked to does not do this in a very helpful way because it's focused on describing hourly rates of profit, rather than per unit cost. So I will try to find the original data. [[User:Spike\|Spike]] 14:35, 4 February 2011 (EST)

			:: Well, it's not a huge point, I just thought it was interesting. Eg, the profit per hour from making Gauss Cannon, based on sales price less cost divided by tech hours, is $97. So let's take that $97 per hour to be a cost of production. If you make Particle Disturbance Sensors instead, they cost $34,000 plus 220 tech hours @ $97 each. This is a gross cost of $55,340. They sell for $45,600, so each PDS you make costs you $9,740 ''compared to making Gauss Cannon instead''.

			:: In effect, a table on this basis would always show the best item as being worth 0, with other items worth progressively less. I would need to go through it and see if the resulting sequence is any different to the one we already have. The main reason it would be interesting is in the early and mid-game where you would be comparing what you're making with what you could be making at the moment. The latter would change as you develop techs and might to some extent be a driver of what techs you make and when.

			:: Clearly this takes no account of the value obtained from developing and building things that stop troopers getting killed. I'm assuming you'd do that first. What I was interested in, to some extent, was managing the path to victory efficiently, notably at the points in the game when you're short of scientists and gear and you want to figure out what to research adn build in what order.

			:: I have just attacked T'Leth in July on Superhuman without ressearching any Gauss weapons, and having skipped the Sonic Blasta and Oscillator. I only researched the drills because I was waiting for the engineers to finish building a Leviathan, and the scientists (per Spike's advice I had 100 of them) were paid for and had nothing else to do. I'm now wondering how quickly it is possible in the game calendar to get to T'Leth, given that you need only attack one dreadnought and one base to get the necessary two Lobsterman Commanders. A big part of the answer is money, I suspect. [[User:4th Cuirassier\|4th Cuirassier]] 07:02, 7 February 2011 (EST)

Spike: /* Proposed weapon infobox */ Moved Real Costs discussion into subsection and stated my case

2011-02-04T19:35:25Z

Proposed weapon infobox: Moved Real Costs discussion into subsection and stated my case

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:35, 4 February 2011
Line 237:		Line 237:
	::: Looking better every day! -[[User:NKF\|NKF]] 14:43, 4 January 2011 (EST)		::: Looking better every day! -[[User:NKF\|NKF]] 14:43, 4 January 2011 (EST)

			== Real Manufacturing Costs ==

	Sorry to come to the party late, but as you are going through the weapon listings, do you think you could add the ''real'' cost of manufactured weapons, SWSs, craft weapons, and ammo? These can be computed approximately from 3 columns in the Manufactured items table in [[Buying/Selling/Transferring_(TFTD)#Table]] using the following formula:		Sorry to come to the party late, but as you are going through the weapon listings, do you think you could add the ''real'' cost of manufactured weapons, SWSs, craft weapons, and ammo? These can be computed approximately from 3 columns in the Manufactured items table in [[Buying/Selling/Transferring_(TFTD)#Table]] using the following formula:
Line 261:		Line 262:

	Just hazarding an opinion here, but I feel that we're in danger of moving from simply presenting the factual data (both visible and hidden) about the weapon if we start mixing in derived data like profit. It's not volatile information as such, but it's still something that would be better suited to a table in a separate profit analysis section (in the page content - with a lot of the data moving to the side table, we're starting to get thin on page content!) or on a separate page that covers all objects and goes into greater detail. Just something to consider. -[[User:NKF\|NKF]] 08:34, 4 February 2011 (EST)		Just hazarding an opinion here, but I feel that we're in danger of moving from simply presenting the factual data (both visible and hidden) about the weapon if we start mixing in derived data like profit. It's not volatile information as such, but it's still something that would be better suited to a table in a separate profit analysis section (in the page content - with a lot of the data moving to the side table, we're starting to get thin on page content!) or on a separate page that covers all objects and goes into greater detail. Just something to consider. -[[User:NKF\|NKF]] 08:34, 4 February 2011 (EST)

			: Yes that's a fair point NKF. First of all I'm not totally confident in my numbers and I should 'show my work' by uploading the original spreadsheet, which I can't find. I don't think that the calculated total direct costs are that controversial, but I agree it starts to get into subjective territory. My numbers deliberately don't include opportunity cost, they are only the total of all direct and indirect costs. The problem with opportunity cost, or one of the problems, is that it's a kind of circular argument. You can't calculate the opportunity cost until you know the most profitable item. So my table is a starting point for opportunity cost. But I don't think it's that cut and dried. Not everyone wants to be bothered cranking Gauss Cannon out all the time. And actually there are higher opportunity costs - more valuable things to produce - that are hard to quantify. There are things you need to manufacture to survive, and to win, that aren't commercially viable - but what price do you put on the survival of XCom and the human race? So I think the opportunity cost argument is a very subjective area. The total direct+indirect costs is not a grey area, and printing the "face value" costs of manufactured items, without giving any qualification, gives a very misleading impression of the actual economics of the game. I think that at least, the nominal costs and the real direct+indirect costs, should be presented side by side. The table I linked to does not do this in a very helpful way because it's focused on describing hourly rates of profit, rather than per unit cost. So I will try to find the original data. [[User:Spike\|Spike]] 14:35, 4 February 2011 (EST)

NKF: /* Proposed weapon infobox */

2011-02-04T13:34:56Z

Proposed weapon infobox

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:34, 4 February 2011
Line 257:		Line 257:

	:: The net value is then listed sale price, less the above. I have a feeling this would give subtly different answers to those we have now. This is only because it embeds opportunity cost into the item's production cost, rather than leaving you to work it out manually by comparing specific items with (eg) the Sonic Oscillator. [[User:4th Cuirassier\|4th Cuirassier]] 06:03, 4 February 2011 (EST)		:: The net value is then listed sale price, less the above. I have a feeling this would give subtly different answers to those we have now. This is only because it embeds opportunity cost into the item's production cost, rather than leaving you to work it out manually by comparing specific items with (eg) the Sonic Oscillator. [[User:4th Cuirassier\|4th Cuirassier]] 06:03, 4 February 2011 (EST)

			Profit in that table is a measure of what 1 engineer hour is worth for producing that one item, and just that item. Take the difference between item's total cost to build and its sale price, then divide by the number of engineer hours needed to make it. Rent, salaries and other items aren't factored in at this stage.

			Just hazarding an opinion here, but I feel that we're in danger of moving from simply presenting the factual data (both visible and hidden) about the weapon if we start mixing in derived data like profit. It's not volatile information as such, but it's still something that would be better suited to a table in a separate profit analysis section (in the page content - with a lot of the data moving to the side table, we're starting to get thin on page content!) or on a separate page that covers all objects and goes into greater detail. Just something to consider. -[[User:NKF\|NKF]] 08:34, 4 February 2011 (EST)

4th Cuirassier: /* Proposed weapon infobox */

2011-02-04T11:05:36Z

Proposed weapon infobox

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:05, 4 February 2011
Line 252:		Line 252:
	:: I.e. if I want to build a Mag Ion armour I need something like 16 Xrbites and 10 Aqua Plastic.		:: I.e. if I want to build a Mag Ion armour I need something like 16 Xrbites and 10 Aqua Plastic.

	:: The production cost of the suit is the cash upfront, plus what I could have sold the materials for anyway without making a suit. The cost of the engineer hours is whatever they ~~generate~~ making Sonic Oscillators, Particle Displacement Doodads, ~~wor~~ whatever piece of kit is your most profitable line at the time.		:: The production cost of the suit is the cash upfront, plus what I could have sold the materials for anyway without making a suit. The cost of the engineer hours is not their hourly rate, but rather, whatever they could have been ''earning'' by making Sonic Oscillators, Particle Displacement Doodads, or whatever piece of kit is your most profitable line at the time.

			:: Basically, when you make something that's not your most profitable item, there's a cost involved.

	:: The net value is then listed sale price, less the above. I have a feeling this would give subtly different answers to those we have now. This is only because it embeds opportunity cost into the item's production cost, rather than leaving you to work it out manually by comparing specific items with (eg) the Sonic Oscillator. [[User:4th Cuirassier\|4th Cuirassier]] 06:03, 4 February 2011 (EST)		:: The net value is then listed sale price, less the above. I have a feeling this would give subtly different answers to those we have now. This is only because it embeds opportunity cost into the item's production cost, rather than leaving you to work it out manually by comparing specific items with (eg) the Sonic Oscillator. [[User:4th Cuirassier\|4th Cuirassier]] 06:03, 4 February 2011 (EST)

4th Cuirassier: /* Proposed weapon infobox */

2011-02-04T11:03:57Z

Proposed weapon infobox

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:03, 4 February 2011
Line 247:		Line 247:

	:The listed calculation values seems a bit high I used the calculation on [[Thermal Shok Launcher]] page. worked the calculation, see the logic and put it in the documentation for the template: profitcalc (may need to rename it later). Also I'm considering switching to a simple 2 cell table and accepting a values for both cells, usu. label and value. [[User:Madned\|Madned]] 18:11, 2 February 2011 (EST)		:The listed calculation values seems a bit high I used the calculation on [[Thermal Shok Launcher]] page. worked the calculation, see the logic and put it in the documentation for the template: profitcalc (may need to rename it later). Also I'm considering switching to a simple 2 cell table and accepting a values for both cells, usu. label and value. [[User:Madned\|Madned]] 18:11, 2 February 2011 (EST)

			:: Isn't the cost of a weapon the sale value, less the opportunity cost of the components, less also the opportunity cost of the engineer hours - based on the most profitable thing they ''could'' have been making instead?

			:: I.e. if I want to build a Mag Ion armour I need something like 16 Xrbites and 10 Aqua Plastic.

			:: The production cost of the suit is the cash upfront, plus what I could have sold the materials for anyway without making a suit. The cost of the engineer hours is whatever they generate making Sonic Oscillators, Particle Displacement Doodads, wor whatever piece of kit is your most profitable line at the time.

			:: The net value is then listed sale price, less the above. I have a feeling this would give subtly different answers to those we have now. This is only because it embeds opportunity cost into the item's production cost, rather than leaving you to work it out manually by comparing specific items with (eg) the Sonic Oscillator. [[User:4th Cuirassier\|4th Cuirassier]] 06:03, 4 February 2011 (EST)

Madned: /* Proposed weapon infobox */ updated RMC response.

2011-02-02T23:50:18Z

Proposed weapon infobox: updated RMC response.

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:50, 2 February 2011
Line 246:		Line 246:
	Or if it's easier I can send you the original spreadsheet (if I didn't upload it here already). The real manufacturing costs include the costs of the labour and materials inputs, and they paint quite a different picture of the relative usefulness of the weapons. [[User:Spike\|Spike]] 17:08, 21 January 2011 (EST)		Or if it's easier I can send you the original spreadsheet (if I didn't upload it here already). The real manufacturing costs include the costs of the labour and materials inputs, and they paint quite a different picture of the relative usefulness of the weapons. [[User:Spike\|Spike]] 17:08, 21 January 2011 (EST)

	:The listed calculation values seems a bit high I used the calculation ~~and labeled it as Net Manufacturing Profit (which is probably wrong)~~ on [[Thermal Shok Launcher]]. ~~I'm sure there are additional simplifications to~~ the calculation ~~which make~~ it ~~work, but seems like~~ it~~'s missing manufacturing cost~~. ~~perhaps manufacturing cost instead of sale price?~~ Also I'm considering switching to a simple 2 cell table and accepting a values for both cells, usu. label and value. [[User:Madned\|Madned]] 18:11, 2 February 2011 (EST)		:The listed calculation values seems a bit high I used the calculation on [[Thermal Shok Launcher]] page. worked the calculation, see the logic and put it in the documentation for the template: profitcalc (may need to rename it later). Also I'm considering switching to a simple 2 cell table and accepting a values for both cells, usu. label and value. [[User:Madned\|Madned]] 18:11, 2 February 2011 (EST)

Madned: /* Proposed weapon infobox */real manufacturing cost

2011-02-02T23:11:10Z

Proposed weapon infobox: real manufacturing cost

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:11, 2 February 2011
Line 245:		Line 245:

	Or if it's easier I can send you the original spreadsheet (if I didn't upload it here already). The real manufacturing costs include the costs of the labour and materials inputs, and they paint quite a different picture of the relative usefulness of the weapons. [[User:Spike\|Spike]] 17:08, 21 January 2011 (EST)		Or if it's easier I can send you the original spreadsheet (if I didn't upload it here already). The real manufacturing costs include the costs of the labour and materials inputs, and they paint quite a different picture of the relative usefulness of the weapons. [[User:Spike\|Spike]] 17:08, 21 January 2011 (EST)

			:The listed calculation values seems a bit high I used the calculation and labeled it as Net Manufacturing Profit (which is probably wrong) on [[Thermal Shok Launcher]]. I'm sure there are additional simplifications to the calculation which make it work, but seems like it's missing manufacturing cost. perhaps manufacturing cost instead of sale price? Also I'm considering switching to a simple 2 cell table and accepting a values for both cells, usu. label and value. [[User:Madned\|Madned]] 18:11, 2 February 2011 (EST)

Spike: /* Proposed weapon infobox */ Suggest add real manufacturing costs

2011-01-21T22:08:52Z

Proposed weapon infobox: Suggest add real manufacturing costs

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:08, 21 January 2011
Line 236:		Line 236:

	::: Looking better every day! -[[User:NKF\|NKF]] 14:43, 4 January 2011 (EST)		::: Looking better every day! -[[User:NKF\|NKF]] 14:43, 4 January 2011 (EST)


			Sorry to come to the party late, but as you are going through the weapon listings, do you think you could add the ''real'' cost of manufactured weapons, SWSs, craft weapons, and ammo? These can be computed approximately from 3 columns in the Manufactured items table in [[Buying/Selling/Transferring_(TFTD)#Table]] using the following formula:

			Real Manufacturing Cost = Sale Price - ($Profit/Hr x Engineer Hours)

			(Be sure to keep the sign of the $Profit - negative profit implies to a higher cost, positive profit implies a lower cost).

			Or if it's easier I can send you the original spreadsheet (if I didn't upload it here already). The real manufacturing costs include the costs of the labour and materials inputs, and they paint quite a different picture of the relative usefulness of the weapons. [[User:Spike\|Spike]] 17:08, 21 January 2011 (EST)