To prevent strange situation of double-benefit or double-punishment in terms of income/economy/commerce we could switch to modelling on a global
rather than local
"Local" includes models like "Connected IPCs" resistance to convoy raid which can be unrealistic. Destroyed IPC are destroyed. Blocked sea ports are blocked. There is no two ways about it.IPC FLOW
1. To store the IPC it must be able to go to your capital.
2. To spend the IPC it must be able to go to the IC, from capital for stored IPC or from territory for newly produced IPC.
Imperious Leader had something like it too for another game.
Each island that is held or captured for receiving IP or as a port/airfield must be in and next to an adjacent sea zone that is controlled by a friendly player. Control includes all islands or land as well as a sea zone free of enemy ships. That is to say your conquests must be “supplied” by a “chain” of supporting territories or no planes or ships can land/dock there (land units can however hold the island) or you do not receive any economic benefit (IP) from these conquests.
Reason: How can is it possible to receive income from New Guinea when enemy controls the sea zone?CONVOY PATHS
On the SZ idea i could easily add convoy boxes if thats what is needed. It could solve some other issues for the ability to interdict (sink income) from lend lease and otherwise destroy a nations economy. I figure that 1/3 of UK's income is based on sea trade so they have 30 IPC start and thats 10 IPC in sea produced income= about 3 boxes... Japan would be about 2 boxes, While Italy stands at 1 box (in medd). Soviets should have two boxes (lend lease) to archangel and persia. USA would be about 3 boxes. Each box is worth 1-3 IPC roll one d6 1-2=1 IPC, 3-4=2 IPC 5-6=3 IPC lost for each attacked box.
We are using something like that for our lend-lease incomes.GAME SEQUENCE
We collect income before combat to prevent 5 nations collecting income from 1 territory in the same round
Discuss this in the main thread if anything.