Why don't structures have an upkeep value?

[Oddnerd]

According to the codex - turrets, bacons, banners, nests, and bunkers do not have any upkeep cost. Is there a reason why they don't? These buildings can have a substantial impact on the outcome of the game, and many of them a population cost... so why not an upkeep as well?

[egewithin]

Oh they don't?!! I knew they did. Thats why I never more than 2 Webways in a match.

[Cyris]

This is a situation where little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

On the surface, having no upkeep sounds super OP! The unit gets to sit around having an impact without actually effecting your economy. How absurd! However, the full details of how upkeep and population interact makes this happen a lot less often then you might think, if at all.

For starters, read this: https://dawnofwar.info/codex.php?page=e ... ary#upkeep

In the likely event that you skipped it, the important bits are these:
"Each race starts with 0 upkeep, and it will remain 0 as long as the Population threshold of 30 population is not exceeded."
"Regardless of the order the units are purchased in, the most expensive ones are always taxed first, while the units with cheapest upkeep go to the bottom of the list."

When combined, they mean that unless you have over 30 pop worth of units with low or no upkeep, your total upkeep will be normal - which is to say approximately 2.55 req/min per pop over 30.

Let's get specific:
3 DA - 30 pop of DA's with 15 models and 5.1 upkeep per model - total upkeep: 0
Why? Because we haven't passed 30 pop.

3 DA, 1 ranger - 30 pop of DA's with 15 models and 5.1 upkeep per model. 9 pop of rangers with 3 models and 7.65 upkeep per model - total upkeep: 22.95 and 39 pop
DA's and Rangers both have a upkeep/pop of 2.55, and we are at 39 pop. 9 * 2.55 = 22.95

Now for the 0 upkeep building...
3 DA, 3 webways - 30 pop of DA's with 15 models and 5.1 upkeep per model. 9 pop worth of webways at 0 upkeep each - total upkeep: 22.95 and 39 pop
Webways have 0 upkeep, so their 9 pop is counted first against the 30 free pop. This leaves 21 pop to be consumed by DA models, and then 9 more points, at 2.55 upkeep each, which brings us again to 22.95.

Let's look at an example where you DO get less then 2.55 per pop...
3 GM, 2 sarge, 1 sent - 22 pop of GM at 1.998 per pop, 2 pop of Sarge at 0.850002, 15 pop of sent at 25.5 - total upkeep: 39 pop, but I'm not actually sure how much upkeep. I should test this in game.
I'm not sure (and would love to know) because I don't know the specific order the units are counted in, and when passing the 30 pop threashold is counted. Here are 2 possibilities I can think of:
2 Sarge, 22 GM are counted first for a total of 24 pop. The sentinel is next and countes 0 upkeep (sicne we still under 30) and we are left with 0 upkeep and 39 pop.
2 Sarge, 22 GM are counted first for a total of 24 pop. 6 pop worth of the sentinel is counted for 0 upkeep. The next 9 pop of the sentinel counts for 15.3 total upkeep.


TL/DR:
Below average (2.55/pop) upkeep does not confer benefits until you have collected over 30 pop worth of such units. AFAIK, IG are the only faction that can reliably do this.

[Oddnerd]

Wow, that makes perfect sense, thanks!

I had assumed upkeep was an all-or-nothing deal where once you exceeded 30 pop everything was taxed.

[Cyris]

Wow, that makes perfect sense, thanks!

It did?!?!?!? Holy shit, I stopped understanding it half way through and finished out of sheer bloody-mindedness.

But seriously, the rules for exactly what order units are placed in for taxing, and how passing the 30 threshold interacts is something I didn't know I didn't know till 5 minutes ago The rest I think is solid.

[Psycho]

3 GM, 2 sarge, 1 sent - 22 pop of GM at 1.998 per pop, 2 pop of Sarge at 0.850002, 15 pop of sent at 25.5 - total upkeep: 39 pop, but I'm not actually sure how much upkeep. I should test this in game.

Don't quote me on this but as far as I know, it's binary when it comes to counting the upkeep of the most expensive unit regardless of what fragment of its population is over the 30 limit. It either counts everything, or counts nothing.

IE A sentinel, assuming it's the most expensive model unit in your current roster, will give you a total effective upkeep from population 31 to 45. As soon as the population goes to 46, it counts the next most expensive MODEL and adds it. For example, if it's a catachan squad that makes it go to 46 in a hypothetical scenario, it'd immediately add 5.1 upkeep due to being the next most expensive model regardless of what fraction of that model's population is actually over or under the limit.

If you do test it thoroughly then please give results. I don't check the upkeep counter with enough focus and calculations in my head to gauge if a model is generating its total or a fraction of its upkeep.

[Cyris]

Some data.

Each entry presented with pop/income - upkeep. (18/264 - 0 meaning 18 pop and 264 income, which is the baseline of "0 upkeep")

3x GM - 18/264 - 0
3x GM + Sent - 33/238 - 26 (which is the full upkeep of a sentinel)
2.5x GM (I'm taking losses) + Sent - 30/264 - 0 (As I took GM losses, the upkeep dropped down till my pop hit 30. I suspect there is some "deep math" being done here)
2x GM + 2x Sent - 42/238 - 26 (only being charged for 1 sent, I should have added another GM and seen what happened at 46 pop)
1x GM, 2x Sent - 37/248 - 16 (this I do not understand. I was under the impression order doesn't matter, but shouldn't this be more expensive then 3x GM + Sent?)

I'm more confused then before.

Edit:
I wonder if the unit order is updated only when making purchases?
How does reinforcement mix in? Or leader purchases?

[Torpid]

Some data.

Each entry presented with pop/income - upkeep. (18/264 - 0 meaning 18 pop and 264 income, which is the baseline of "0 upkeep")

3x GM - 18/264 - 0
3x GM + Sent - 33/238 - 26 (which is the full upkeep of a sentinel)
2.5x GM (I'm taking losses) + Sent - 30/264 - 0 (As I took GM losses, the upkeep dropped down till my pop hit 30. I suspect there is some "deep math" being done here)
2x GM + 2x Sent - 42/238 - 26 (only being charged for 1 sent, I should have added another GM and seen what happened at 46 pop)
1x GM, 2x Sent - 37/248 - 16 (this I do not understand. I was under the impression order doesn't matter, but shouldn't this be more expensive then 3x GM + Sent?)

I'm more confused then before.

Edit:
I wonder if the unit order is updated only when making purchases?
How does reinforcement mix in? Or leader purchases?

Okay so it all seems to make sense under this approach until you get to the final bit:

2x GM + 1 sent, you get charged nothing as it is 27 pop. Bam, you get the next sent and now your pop is 42 so you need to be charged the most expensive 12 pop. A single sentinel has the highest upkeep so that is charged first, but in doing so that pays for '15' pop of upkeep, so now you are on 27 'unpaid pop', so you pay no more.

I would expect with the 2x GM + 2x sent example if you add another GM and thus hit 46 pop you will end up being charged for two sentinels.

But why are you being charged 16 in the last instance...? Also, how are you 37 pop? 15+15+6=36? A guardsmen is only 2 upkeep anyway though so it can't be order of units because 6 GM takes you down to 30 unpaid pop and that costs you 12. NOT 16. So I really do not understand what is going on here. Sure your numbers are correct?

How would reinforcement and/or leader purchases be different from anything else? Just treat every unit with upkeep as individual models and don't think of them in terms of units. A leader is just another model to be charged upkeep on. Some have more pop than others. It's just like adding a sentinel? Reinforcements are just more models, you know as it is that you pay less upkeep on non-full squads because you are charged on a per-model basis not a per-squad basis.

[Cyris]

Okay so it all seems to make sense under this approach until you get to the final bit:

Before going on, I wanna emphasis something that baffled me:

2.5x GM (I'm taking losses) + Sent - 30/264 - 0 (As I took GM losses, the upkeep dropped down till my pop hit 30. I suspect there is some "deep math" being done here)

Starting from 3GM + Sent, each GM model that was killed reduced my upkeep, until it hit the above numbers. Upkeep went down at 32 and 31 pop. This goes wildly against my understanding of the unit ordering, and against what you explained as well. My understanding is/was that since the 25.5 upkeep sent is what has pushed my pop past 30, I get fully changed for it as the most expensive unit. That implies that it doesn't matter if I have 33, 32, or 31 pop - I'll still be paying 25.5. But it does matter. Why? No idea. I suspect the timings of when upkeep is calculated matter, but I'll do some more data collection later.

As for the 37, it's gotta be a typo. here's some fresh data, collected in the listed sequence:

1 GM - 6/264
1 GM, 1 sent - 21/264
1 GM, 2 sent - 36/238 - 26 (really 25.5. Start taking GM losses now)
5/6 GM, 2 sent - 35/240 - 24 (This already makes no sense. The 2nd sent still should be the model that pushes us past 30, and in the previous data point it was indeed charging us full upkeep.)
1/6 GM, 2 sent - 31/248 - 16 (I kept losing models one at a time, and upkeep went down by 2 per GM lost untillll)
DED GM, 2 sent - 30/264 - 0 (Upkeep dropped by 16 for 1 lost GM. A couple of reasons this might have happened: Game reorders/recalculates when a squad is wiped. Game reduces upkeep by the per model value each time a model dies, ignoring tax hierarchy.)

Now I build up again from 2x sent...
1 GM, 2 sent - 36/252 - 12 (Yep, it's official, build order, wipe order, something, is relevant here. note above that 1 gm, 2 sent was at 238, and it is now at 252. Fucking voodoo man!)
1 GM, 3 sent - 51/226 - 38 (Again here, I would have expected 52 upkeep, the cost of two sentinals. Instead, it's the cost of a full GM squad (12) and a sent (26) Next I will get a sent killed...)
1 GM, 2 sent - 36/252 - 12 (back to "normal" but still different then the initial 2 sents built...)
1 GM, 1 sent - 21/264 - 0 (Got a sent killed, gonna try spamming GM's now)
3 GM, 1 sent - 33/258 - 6 (now it seems the sent is tax free, as 6 upkeep is proper for 3 GM models. Why was it counted first in step 3? Maybe because I built it 2nd?)

I'm gonna stop here. Thoughts SUPER welcome! I'm not even gonna mess around with leaders yet, I want to be able to create rules that can predict the data above first

In short - build order matters a lot. Two identical unit compositions can have different upkeep values. So there must be something different behind the scenes.

EDIT: Shit, I should have tested this: Get my sent killed after that last step. Would my income go back to 264, or end up at 283

[Myrdal]

Let's look at an example where you DO get less then 2.55 per pop...
3 GM, 2 sarge, 1 sent - 22 pop of GM at 1.998 per pop, 2 pop of Sarge at 0.850002, 15 pop of sent at 25.5 - total upkeep: 39 pop, but I'm not actually sure how much upkeep. I should test this in game.
I'm not sure (and would love to know) because I don't know the specific order the units are counted in, and when passing the 30 pop threashold is counted.

Most expensive population first, in this case GM which cost 2/pop, followed by sent at 1.7/pop and then sarges at 0.85. Total upkeep in this example should be 18 from 9 GM pop. This was my undestanding anyway, but based on your data it may be wrong.

here's some fresh data, collected in the listed sequence:
1 GM - 6/264
1 GM, 1 sent - 21/264
1 GM, 2 sent - 36/238 - 26 (really 25.5. Start taking GM losses now)
5/6 GM, 2 sent - 35/240 - 24 (This already makes no sense. The 2nd sent still should be the model that pushes us past 30, and in the previous data point it was indeed charging us full upkeep.)
1/6 GM, 2 sent - 31/248 - 16 (I kept losing models one at a time, and upkeep went down by 2 per GM lost untillll)
DED GM, 2 sent - 30/264 - 0 (Upkeep dropped by 16 for 1 lost GM. A couple of reasons this might have happened: Game reorders/recalculates when a squad is wiped. Game reduces upkeep by the per model value each time a model dies, ignoring tax hierarchy.)

Yea, the upkeep is wrong but the behaviour is correct. Killing of GM should reduce the upkeep tax 2 at a time as it's the more expensive unit, but upkeep should start at 12 from the 6 gm models.

Now I build up again from 2x sent...
1 GM, 2 sent - 36/252 - 12 (Yep, it's official, build order, wipe order, something, is relevant here. note above that 1 gm, 2 sent was at 238, and it is now at 252. Fucking voodoo man!)
1 GM, 3 sent - 51/226 - 38 (Again here, I would have expected 52 upkeep, the cost of two sentinals. Instead, it's the cost of a full GM squad (12) and a sent (26) Next I will get a sent killed...)
1 GM, 2 sent - 36/252 - 12 (back to "normal" but still different then the initial 2 sents built...)
1 GM, 1 sent - 21/264 - 0 (Got a sent killed, gonna try spamming GM's now)
3 GM, 1 sent - 33/258 - 6 (now it seems the sent is tax free, as 6 upkeep is proper for 3 GM models. Why was it counted first in step 3? Maybe because I built it 2nd?)

Fucking voodoo magic man! Although these numbers are good.

In short - build order matters a lot. Two identical unit compositions can have different upkeep values. So there must be something different behind the scenes.

Like lots of bugs Seriously though, this is interesting data and perhaps there is another explanation.