Different Rules for IPC.

[Nuclear]

After playing Axis and Allies for hours.  I came to hate the fact that a side can produce an infinite amount of units yet, the world consists of a finitate amount of resources.  Hence I devised a new system to counter this problem, which actually stops stacking and prevents build ups.

Idea 1: Triple the IPC amount of every place.  Each unit requires 1 IPC maintance at the start of a player's turn.  Hence if a person only makes 24 IPCs, they can only have 24 units.  Conquered land only provides 1/3 of face IPC value.

Idea 2: Each place is given stats such as, a number.  This is the number of a certain type of units that the space provides to the player.  For example:  Place X can support 3 Infantry Units and 1 Armor.  Place Y can support 1 Fighter and 4 Infantry.  The player's biggest force can only be 7 Infantry, 1 Armor, and 1 Fighter.

Now idea 2 in my opinion is the best idea.  It actually requires that a player must manage his or her resources and that things are not unlimited.  Of course you need to set aside perhaps 5 open slots that perhaps allow a player to have 5 units of their choosing in addition to the maximum amounts they can have.  But in general I think this idea makes the game more realistic and fun, and someone cannot just build up 30 Battleships or a huge infantry stack of 30 and march in.  Makes managing your resources more of a concern and makes you have a diverse army.

[tekkyy]

Idea 1 is not as good also because it slows gameplay a lot.
The more you have the slower you build. Plus conquered land generate 1/3 income which means 66% income leaks from the game.
It might actually generate more stalemate kind of gameplay.

Idea 2 is workable. It could be improved with a simple point system. Simpler and less specific unit type specifying would be good.

Idea 1 might be workable too. No need to triple IPC amounts. Just charge 1 IPC upkeep for every 5 units or something. Maintenance costs are not really in the same order of magnitude as build costs regarding realism.

[Cmdr Jennifer]

I'd actually come to the conclusion that the best way to go would be that a nation collects income for the land they own at the start of their turn (less any economic damage incurred between their last mobilization phase and their new collection phase).

This means that no one could collect for the same land in any game turn that someone else already collected for it.  This would result in less IPC in the banks of the nations then total land value, which would make sense given that war torn areas do not produce as well as peaceful areas!


So yes.  Germany may get Egypt on Round 1, but if England liberates it, Germany never gets to collect for it. (Neither does England if Germany takes it back on Round 2.)

[Imperious Leader]

oh you mean like AARHE?

[Cmdr Jennifer]

oh you mean like AARHE?

Rule book for AARHE is so long I have yet to find time to read it through.

[Imperious Leader]

yes but its got the same exact idea!

Read like one page at a time whenever time permits will give you alot of substantive ideas.

Its long but the ideas are written in very easy format, so you don't really need to reread the same point over again.

Your ideas are in it among others. You helped make it what it is.

Tekkyy is working on Triple A programming for it.

[Nuclear]

I'd actually come to the conclusion that the best way to go would be that a nation collects income for the land they own at the start of their turn (less any economic damage incurred between their last mobilization phase and their new collection phase).

This means that no one could collect for the same land in any game turn that someone else already collected for it.  This would result in less IPC in the banks of the nations then total land value, which would make sense given that war torn areas do not produce as well as peaceful areas!


So yes.  Germany may get Egypt on Round 1, but if England liberates it, Germany never gets to collect for it. (Neither does England if Germany takes it back on Round 2.)

That does not elimate the problem of someone being able to just stack up units.  Resources should not be unlimited in that since.  For example, a player who can have at most 10 tanks, due to the areas he or she controls, would make that person manage their resources more.

[Cmdr Jennifer]

Stacks will be smaller if nations cannot each collect for the same territories


And I'll look into it over the holidays.  Sooner if TripleA runs it.

[tekkyy]

Collecting income at start of turn is not directly about stacking.
But it is directly about finite resource.
All this extra income injected into the game.

Sorry AARHE's TripleA project is abandoned due to reasons internal to TripleA. Support for any house rules in TripleA will also be a problem.

[Imperious Leader]

 

[templeton]

Each unit requires 1 IPC maintance at the start of a player's turn. 

I'm experimenting with something similar... logistics;

To conduct attacks you need supply tokens - and luckily the Bulge game made plenty! I'm also looking at what penatlies come from not having supply in defence - perhaps tanks defend at '2' - and planes need to expend 1 supply per area that they interecept from, otherwise no defensive support.

Still playing with cost - 1IPC per supply, or 1IPC per five supply?

Should it be one supply per area - or one supply per 5 units?

Or what about supply is only needed to make artillery give infantry the '2' attack rating, or allows planes to make tanks attack a '4' on the one to one basis mentioned in the Blitzkrieg NA.

Or will they just slow the game down... I sort of wanted to make building up supply tokens part of preparing for a large offensive, and move away from everyone attacking with every area each turn - so that you get some forced concentration of aim - it's too expensive to attack everywhere and see what opportunities open up.


Still toying with this, and will demo it over Christmas with some friends... we just want to use the trucks and supply tokens and have the problems associated with the historical problems of not being able sustain both Patton's and Monty's advance!

Supplies can be drawn from adjacent areas, can be moved on trucks or ships counting as one land unit... necessary for amphibious assaults, naval interception, defensive air support - conducting strategic bombing raid.


I'm open to suggestions.... (or slap downs! )

[Cmdr Jennifer]

I could see lack of supply effecting tanks and planes.  Planes would defend like bombers if no supplies are available and tanks like infantry.  Perhaps figure supplies out like this:

Land value of territories you own with industrial complexes = number of units you can supply (infantry need no supplies, they can rape, murder and pillage as they see fit to supply themselves!)

For every battle you win, where an enemy mechanized unit is destroyed (includes mechanized infantry) you get one extra supply unit.  No penalty for losing such engagements.

[templeton]

infantry need no supplies

I was thinking that they can't attack - and that they defend on a '1' without supplies...

The Allies ran out of steam as they couldn't attack fast enough to keep up with the Germans - or perhaps they can attack, but supporting artillery don't work and tanks don't work. Should help the Japanese stay in the game.

Or perhaps prohibit Allied troops from attacking without supplies - I'm still looking into this, thanks for the ideas!

[Nuclear]

Infantry still need supplies.  It is called Jeeps, Trucks, food, clothing, and such.  The soldiers just did not march accross the land.  They had vechicals to move.

[Cmdr Jennifer]

Mechanized infantry would need supplies to use their two territory move ability.  Normal infantry remain normal.  They can get food from plundering cities, they can get ammunition from plundering enemies, etc.  Even their jeeps and 2.5 ton trucks could be fueled by plunder, they just wouldn't be moving as fast.