Infantry 1 2 1 = 4 PU
Elite 1 3 1 = 5 PU
Stormtrooper 2 3 1 = 6 PU
Hvy Infantry 2 4 1 = 7 PU

Mot Inf 1 2 2 = 6 PU
Mot Elite 1 3 2 = 7 PU
Mech Inf 2 3 2 = 8 PU

Arty 3 1 1 = 5 PU
Katyusha 3 1 2 = 7 PU
Mech Arty 3 2 2 = 8 PU
Light Tank slow 2 2 1 = 5 PU
Light Tank fast 2 2 2 = 7 PU
Medium Tank slow = 7 PU
Medium Tank fast = 9 PU

(below i only view the normal combat values, because air att/def is not recognized by AI purchase, btw aircraft costs are the most difficult ones to set right for AI)
Fighter short 2 2 4 = 11
Fighter medium 2 2 5 = 13
Fighter long 2 2 6 = 16

Attack aircraft and Hvy Fighter
short 3 3 4 = 15
long 3 3 5 = 18

Heavy Bomber medium 4 1 5 = 19
Heavy Bomber long 4 1 6 = 23

From another post i made, yet got no answer but ingame there is a function which could be more insightfull about unit costs i guess.

Ingame: Debug -> Hard AI Settings -> AI Logging
->Efficieny values !?

Gathered data from different basic unit example variations out of AI Logging to help reading:
Example land units (movement ignored: doesnt change Efficiency)

A/D @ PUs = hitPointEfficiency - attackEfficiency - defenseEffieciency
1/1 @ 1 PU = 1.4 ---------------- 5.0 --------------- 5.0
1/1 @ 2 PU = 0.7 ---------------- 2.5 --------------- 2.5

2/2 @ 1 PU = 1.8 ---------------- 8.0 --------------- 8.0
2/2 @ 2 PU = 0.9 ---------------- 4.0 --------------- 4.0

1/2 @ 1 PU = 1.6 ---------------- 6.0 --------------- 7.0
1/1 @ 4 PU = 0.35 --------------- 1.25 ------------- 1.25
1/2 @ 4 PU = 0.4 ---------------- 1.5 --------------- 1.75

I see a pattern, but........math is not my strength

"The gross national product of the U.S., as measured in constant dollars, grew from $88.6 billion in 1939 — while the country was still suffering from the depression — to $135 billion in 1944. War-related production skyrocketed from just two percent of GNP to 40 percent in 1943 (Milward, 63)"

Taken from here.
https://eh.net/encyclopedia/the-american-economy-during-world-war-ii/#:~:text=The gross national product of,1943 (Milward%2C 63).

So thats a 50%-ish increase in PU from 1939 to 1944 should be factored if using historical figures.

This can be coded as a National bonus, a few maps have done this, including my Settler maps.

My concern for 1 upkeep per HP is its really high upkeep especially for cheapest cannon fodders. It may be not problem at all for maps which logictic and base productions are less important. USA might be really crippled too in some WWII maps since it would mean losing 33%-50% value of infantries before even moving them somewhere assuming USA is incapable of crossing Atlantic in 1 round.

I think of Upkeep as the supply of POL (petrol, oil, lubricants), ammunition and food and water, each turn.

An Elite infantry unit will consume the same Upkeep as a Raw Infantry unit.

Generalising I would advise 1 Upkeep per Hit Point per unit, so usually 1 per unit.

In designing my games almost no rebalancing was done because of the addition of Upkeep, so give it a try.

The best thing about Upkeep is its just a one liner in the xml for each unit.

Adding Upkeep gives extra dimensions to the game;

• Super stacks of units consume a lot of PU in Upkeep for the gain of just one territory, so is that worth it?
• Do I delay buying units as I will save PU?
• If I commit many units to a battle front overall I will have less PU to commit to another front.
• The more I defend, the less PU I have to to spend, so it encourages aggressive play.
• In one game I was so defensive I had too many units consuming Upkeep I could not buy any more units.

Its dubious for me how could 1 upkeep work for infantry in NWO when infantry cost is already 2. It would be perfectly fine for me if infantry and armour had the same upkeep since NWO unit set up is already more defensive oriented than A&A series. Otherwise I can see a major rebalance would be needed if upkeep was added to NWO as optional rule.

So I would favour of either increasing base incomes or folding in ten unit prices and territory values then assigning upkeeps. Factories definitely do not need upkeep. AAguns might have lower upkeep per cost than air units similar to the bunker situation. I would prefer higher upkeep rates as much as possible without decreasing tactical options since higher reversibility is great thing which makes games more interesting.

In short:
Attacking is more expensive than defending, because attacking is more difficult (in reality) hence more demanding.
Defensive strategie is then a good way to save money. Moving needs more energy, sitting not.

As Germany on a NWO map, you have sometimes alot of ground to cover, at least in my mod, so you have a real option of going bunkers and Entrechnments to save money, to get enough hp to cover all directions.

Another big plus of upkeep is the fact that if one side looses a huge army stack (in my case i lost around 140 hp in one battle), it frees up alot of upkeep. In my case around 250 worth of production. That means that games are much more intresting and not over in one big decicive battle. Helps alot for AI btw, it recoveres so to speak. Therefore one tend to play more aggressive in a way, whether its on the defensive side or the attackers. Yes, you can play a from rushing to a passive aggressive strategy lol.
Blitz and then dig in and Bunker (Atlantic Wall)

All units cost 1 per turn except battleships costs 2 while transports, factories and AA guns are free. I gave each player 15 extra PU's/turn & 1 tech token/turn. The US gets an additional bonus = to the turn#. The Chinese get random units.

I find that the game does work. The flat extra income makes Russia less vulnerable to being steamrolled. Upkeep can be useful in game, but you need to balance it with income.

One surprising effect for upkeep costs is the defeated powers can bounce back more quickly. When I last played as Russia, Moscow fell after a tough struggle with the Germans. The British will able to retake it and without any units to pay for and flat extra income I was able to build units more quickly than the Axis.

I'am personally big fan of unit upkeep which I do believe should be between %3-%10 of unit costs and its benefits are just invaluable.

1. It is the simplest way to counter stacks.
2. It is realistic.
3. It makes losing units less bad which mean higher reversibility.
4. It adds another dimension to units without adding complexity.
5. It speeds up games.
6. It can be integrated to games as optional rule as well.

Conscript: 20/2
Infantry: 30/3
Cavalry: 35/3 (m.warfare provides carrying inf ability)
Field: 35/3 (with ww)
Heavy 45/4 (with ww)
Gas 30/2 (with ww)
Fighter 80/5 (with ww)
Trench 30/2
Zeppelin: 140/5 (new stats are 2/1/5 instead of 1/2/5)
Colonial: 30/3
S.Trooper: 30/3
L.Fighter: 100/5
Transport: 60/3
Sub: 60/3
Destroyer: 80/4
Cruiser: 90/5
Carrier: 120/6
B.Cruiser: 140/6
B.Ship: 200/9

Are stacking issues lessened when people use dice instead of LL, and if so by how much are they lessened?

With this said, unless the map goes a bit the way of Civil War, and you have manpower vs manufacture, so that, for example, you cannot spend all your income in spamming infantry (hence the gas would be alternative to other materials, not much to infantry, reducing the need of having a quite strict mathematical comparison between the TUV cost of the gas and the TUV cost of the infantries it is going to grind down), I would rather suggest gas being limited by the number of targets, that would represent the fact that is not a weapon of annihilation. Regular gas may hit at 1 and mustard gas at 2 (and possibly another level of gas that hits at 3), and only infantry or infantry-like units, with possible maximum rolls limited to the number of targets (as said). However, the problem with this is that, then, you may end up just sending exactly a number of gas equal to the maximum hits you can roll, each time, that would be some dumb management. The best would be that gas has a sort of mechanics that becomes less and less effective the more you use it on a same target, and the more effective the bigger the target.

That would somewhat discourage big stacks, and makes some sense, as not all 'reserves' would fit at the 'front'.

Alternatively, packing in huge numbers of units in a single space should make them more vulnerable. Engine-wise, give the opponent hit bonuses proportional to the number of opponents.

But also I would make gases purchasable from capitals only in this case.

@Schulz You really need to think bigger picture... literally your near last post was complaining about the handicap the Central face with production locations...

Central Power's biggest production locations (Berlin, Mecklenburg, Vienna,Hungary,Constantinople) are already too far making noticable effect in battles. Entente nations start immiadetaly benefiting inf/conscript spawns because they provides immiadetaly cheap defensive power while gases from these locations don't provide immiadeate benefit.

Now you are advocating for cheaper gas units which can only be produced at Capitals.... this does not seem to benefit the Centrals at all... and really only seems to compound their problems more.

Gas really NEEDS to be:

• A research specific tech that is effective but requires some level of effort by the developer (wherever they might want to develop it from) to manufacture which also has production limitations.

It's similar to the German Stromtruppen which simply become the bulk purchase during the game. It is silly, as gas is, when a player can simply spam something that is meant to be a "special" unit. It forces the game to either make the unit relatively mediocre to compensate for unlimited production potential... or it forces you to make overly simplistic restrictions that are going to hand the advantage to one side or the other depending on the circumstances of the game.