AARHE: Phase 1: Income

[Imperious Leader]

Hey those are great! simple... duke what do you think?

[theduke]

So we haven't sorted out how to model convoy at sea yet.
But these two should be easy and less controversial.

1. Isolation
(When Russian cities when surrounded by German forces, all they have and can raise is infantry.)
When an inland territory is completed surrounded by hostile territories it may not transport IPC outside nor spend IPC from outside. Unspent IPCs are forfeited.

2. Interruption of production
(Fighting were not done at  US homeland in WWII. US production goes uninterrupted.)
Collect one less IPC from each of your territories attacked by enemies since your last turn.

Do we need this russian isolation rule? I don't think so, because when they are surrounded they should buy mostly inf anyway. the purchasing costs already take care of this, we don't need an explicit rule here IMO.

What about territories surrounded by SZs and territories? I think this "surrounded by hostiles" idea could be a good start but needs to be fine tuned.

What's with this uninterrupted US production? How is the game affected with/without fighting on US soil?

I don't like automatically subtracting 1 no matter the size of the attacking force. Attacker could possibly exploit this. This could be a good start though.

[tekkyy]

My text in brackets is meant to be background/justification and is not part of the rule.

So its just a general Isolation rule applying to other nations besides Russia too.
Similar for production interruption.

I hope its clear now.

Good point about size of attacking force. I reckon at least "two (ARM+ART)" or "one FTR"?
Armour and artillery not infantry are used for razing operations. And invading planes causes air sirens telling all civilians to hide.
That was my logic.

[tekkyy]

So any idea of what size/length a battle before income is affected?

How about the condition being 1 or more enemy FTRs doing bombing (when dogfighting is over) or combat cycles exceed 2?

Another thing is if this should interrupt income this way a new occupier of a territory after a long battle should also receive reduced income?

[Imperious Leader]

I know for a fact that at Stalingrad they kept making tanks even while the battle for the city was raging... The Soviets simple never stopped working on turing the economy for war. I think only some fraction of a territories value can be compromised from a direct land attack.. even if it fails some loss inb production should occur, but again  it has to be simple.

[tekkyy]

IPC compromisable
A quarter of territory's' IPC income rounded to nearest IPC.

Condition
3 or more cycles of combat (exclude dogfighting).

Multiple attacks
As soon as one attack meets condition, further attacks til the next income collection for the territory have no effect.

[Imperious Leader]

can you make an example with items 1 and 3?   i dont follow your idea.

[tekkyy]

Germany/Berlin has income of 10 IPC. One quarter is 2.5 rounded off to 3 IPC. (I should say round-off not round-up or round-down or round-to-nearest...)
So Germany/Berlin loses 3 IPCs if it suffers an attack with 3 or more cycles of combat excluding dogfighting-only cycles.

German holds Germany/Berlin. If Russia attacked Germany/Berlin and meet the condition thus reduced Germany/Berlin's income, further attacks by UK and US do not cause further industrial interruption damage. However if Russia withdrew from its attack after 2nd round than attacks by UK or US has a chance to cause industrial interruption damage.

********************************************

What we are modeling is only a factor of income can be affected, and multiple small attacks in the same round do not stack.

Alternatively we could have each attack causing 1 IPC reduction on its own, total of attacks do not exceed the 1/4 compromisable income.

[Imperious Leader]

OK... yes some income from an adjacent land attack from the enemy should "cost" you some IPC but the problem becomes one where like in invasions you only need to land ONE infantry or attack with one infantry to cost the enemy say 3 IPC. this is a trick that results from these rules. I feel they should not be addressed at this time, but we can come back to it after phase two. Can you repost everything we agree on phase one? WE need to move forward with this.

[tekkyy]

but the problem becomes one where like in invasions you only need to land ONE infantry or attack with one infantry to cost the enemy say 3 IPC. this is a trick that results from these rules.

No you can't pull that one off.
theduke saw that already at the beginning.

You need "3 or more combat cycles excluding dogfighting".
So you need a sizable attacking force with respect to defending force.

[Imperious Leader]

Well better is for every free shore shot, 4 infantry have to land.

[tekkyy]

 
Shore shot?
Are we talking about shore bombardment?

[Imperious Leader]

Thats the most common way to gain the freebie... you attack France with 3 battleships and like 2-3 men and a plane or two, killing 5 germans because you planned to really send a few boys to gain France on the cheap. Thats the most common cheapo attack. Now you wont land less than 8-12 infantry to overcome 4-6 germans, because you wont get into those situations where you take France with one infantry.. either France Falls with overwhelming odds or the Allies dont try it unless they are gonna be forced to to save the game from defeat.

[tekkyy]

Ok I replied in the land combat thread.

[Imperious Leader]

got it.