Territory Income Bonus: for Classic, Revised, 1941/42.2 etc

  • '17 '16

    Maybe it can be halved to keep the duration of the game almost the same.
    Give .5 IPC rounding down for all controled territory.
    And  1 IPC for a Victory City
    Is it that important to count it another time than income phase?
    Why not add the bonus after the regular Income phase?

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    well the main reason to avoid fractions is that this is a base 1 game. There is no 50 cent ipc piece. So what would you do in the situation where a nation has 3 territories etc. Round up? Round down? I find it easier to just avoid that problem altogether by working with base 1.

    I also can’t see a reason to hold the money down like that by halving it. The board has a natural balance built in, which this house rule takes advantage of. And it produces numbers in that range. And that range leads to pretty fun gameplay. The money is not as crazy as you’d think. Once the time comes to actually buy units with that extra money you discover pretty quickly that you’re still limited in what sorts of builds you can pull off. Plus the situation at the start of the game is subject to change as well, depending on what people do, so these value balance further as the game progresses.

    I think the longer game duration has more to do with the psychological effect of more toys (units) you have to play with, and the natural conservatism that A&A favors to the built in inf push mechanics, but you could end the game sooner by throwing everything into the fight. I have just found that most of my games play deeper into the endgame.

    Is it that important to count it another time than income phase?

    Yes I think it is important to separate the bonus from the normal collect income phase for this reason: doing it at the same time adds complexity to the simple counting/adding process. If it is a separate phase you are only counting one thing at a time, instead of counting 2 things at one time. Do you see what I mean?
    What might seem to you in the abstract as “counting twice” is actually easier to do than adding this number during collect income phase. In the collect income phase you are counting the printed numbers on the mapboard (or adding/subtracting from the starting income number). In the bonus phase you are counting the total number of all territories controlled 1 per. If you try to do both these mental math processes at the same time it introduces unnecessary confusion and becomes impractical. I know because I tried it that way first, and we would lose track. This way is much easier.
    It provides a nice clean division. Once at the start of the turn, once at the end.
    You can still drink beer and do this, I promise :)

    Also, doing it at a separate time (which just happens to be at the start of the turn) has additional benefits. There is the advantage to gaining territory and holding it for the round, which has some cool/positive effects on the gameplay hinted at above. It also gives Russia that 35 ipcs at the start, since the bonus happens at the beginning of the first turn. And that is hugely balancing since Russia has the initiative in the standard games.

    I do recommend the paper money as well. It makes all the difference. If you have AA50 or one of the older boards, or even monopoly. I deeply lament the loss of paper money, I truly believe it is part of the game. Counters do not satisfy me in the least.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    what does it represent in terms of the game’s fictitious economic system?  In the OOB rules, each territory generates IPCs at a prescribed value which reflects how much economic importance (population, industrial base, raw materials, etc.) the territory has in the game’s behind-the-scenes economic model.  So each territory’s OOB IPC value represents the full economic output of which it is capable, and this value gets collected in full by whoever owns that territory.  In other words, in the OOB rules, ownership of territory affects who gets that territory’s IPCs but not the number of IPCs itself. What would be the rationale, therefore, for the number of IPCs increasing simply by virtue of the fact that the territory has a certain ownership status at a certain point of the game?  Does this added value just appear out of nowhere?  Or does it reflect some tangible factor which raises the territory’s gross domestic product (to borrow the term that economists would probably use for IPCs)?

    First the goal of the house rule is to increase the full economic output capable, to increase the totals across the board, but to do so in a way which is not overly distorting with game balance.

    How about this. If the printed number represents the aggregate of all production capacity possible in a given territory at a given point in the game, then the bonus could represent that territory being integrated with the rest of a Nation’s territories and logistics network . This is a baseline value since each territory is at 1. The printed IPCs are still distributed the same way they always are during the normal collect income phase at the end of the turn. The bonus represents whatever kind of “collective industrial benefit” you want to imagine that comes from holding these possessions integrated at the start of the turn. Keeping it at 1 universally keeps it simple. You don’t have to redraw the map or redesign the system, just add the simple thing on top of it. I think this takes the behind the scenes economic model up to higher level, increasing the totals by about a third, which is comfortable. It’s not super high, but it makes a difference.

  • Customizer

    If you wanted a way to increase the amount of IPCs that each country can spend you could come up with a bunch of new National Objectives for each country. Depending on just how much more income you wanted to add to the game, you could make them as easy or as hard as you like.
    An example of a pretty easy NO for Germany might be: +5 IPCs for Axis control of Paris.
    A little harder one might be: +5 IPCs if Germany has at least 3 submarines in the Atlantic, excluding sea zones 113, 114 and 115.
    A really hard one might be: +5 IPCs for Axis control of London.
    A nearly impossible one might be: +5 IPCs for Axis control of Washington DC.

    If you just look over the map, you could come up with all kinds of stuff to add on. Plus, they don’t necessarily have to all be 5 IPCs. You could make them more or less. I used house rule to give several new NOs to England at 3 IPCs each so they have opportunities to get a little NO cash but not overwhelming. Plus I eliminated that stupid “control all territories” NO because it was simply too hard to maintain.
    You could also justify attaining these National Objectives as a boost to morale, national prestige and propaganda value, whatever. Just an alternative to counting territories and “double-dipping”.


  • Another idea along the lines of the one just described by knp would be to identify for various territories some geographic or economic factors which could justify the allocation of bonus income – for instance, on the grounds that they serve as force multipliers.  To give an example: capturing France served as a force multiplier for Germany’s U-boat campaign against Britain because it gave Germany direct access to the Atlantic instead of having to go around Denmark and through the North Sea to get from the Baltic to the Atlantic.  Such bonuses could be country-specific, depending on the situation – applicable to some countries but not to others, depending on whether or not a particular force multiplier is of use to a specific country.  (Example: naval force multipliers would generally be of little use to a land power like Russia.)

    I agree with the first half of Black Elk’s comment that A&A is “highly abstracted and not particularly analogous to any strict historical reality”, but not really with the second half.  Just because the official A&A game is abstracted (which it is) doesn’t mean that it’s completely arbitrary or unhistorical (which it isn’t), and I’d argue that the same principle could apply to house rules.  It’s perfectly true, as Black Elk noted, that people can be as arbitrary as they want to be in devising house rules for their own personal use.  My point is simply that the more a house rule proposal rests on historically credible ground, the greater the chances that it will be seen as broadly acceptable by those members of the A&A community who like house rules which have some kind of historical foundation.  But that’s just a personal preference in my case.  Some A&A players may not have any concerns about arbitrariness or realism or historical justification, which is fine.  Customized rules are, after all, unofficial rules, and nobody is obliged to adopt rules which (for whatever reason) they don’t like.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    Yes but a bunch of new NOs are rules intensive. Force multipliers sound pretty rules intensive too. Anything that takes longer than a line to explain, and anything that takes more than a minute to track, is going to fall apart for a lot of people, and has less chance of working across multiple boards.

    I think I come from a school of players, perhaps a different one than many people here, that thinks even the basic AA game is already at the upper limit of complexity for the vast majority of people. Its really hard to teach people how to play these games already. So when I come up with a house rule, I prefer a rule which is universal in its application (the same for each player/nation and across the map) as opposed to a nuanced one.  I really don’t favor complex rules. What I am trying to do here is get money into the basic games, with an even distribution, without resorting to complex rules. Hence the very simple rule outlined above. This is because I feel that the gameplay is more enjoyable when this extra money is included. The basic production values are unchanged, which is why it is described generically as a bonus.

    NOs are highly nuanced, they are nation specific and territory specific. Just look at the gamebook page in AA50. It takes paragraphs to lay out, and then all that information has to be tracked and held in mind (and if you’re on the board you don’t have a computer to do this for you.) Also, it has been done before many times. People have binders full of house rules like that. This forum is replete with threads describing such nuanced rules, specific to certain situations. I am trying to do something somewhat different here, by making it universal rather than specific.

    I guess to CWO Marcs point, I do think that it’s somewhat arbitrary, arbitrary in the base game I mean, to have a base zero value for so many territories on the board. Basically Larry made a decision to round down to zero instead of up to 1 for the baseline. Which is fine, but it strikes me as a low economy way to do it. If you enjoy a high economy game, as I do, this house rule is a very simple way to get one, without breaking the set up or changing the mechanics/rules so substantially that it becomes a different game.

    This rule is way of getting closer to a base 1 territory value, without upsetting too much the overall production aspect of the game. I’m not saying it’s wrong at base zero, but it can work the other way, which is why I feel that it is arbitrary. If you play a few rounds with this rule in effect you will see what I am driving at. To my mind the explanation or justification is secondary to the positive gameplay effects. I mean, I guess if you want to help me here, then lets come up with a way to describe the bonus which is more inclusive to satisfy your desire for the historical connection or to fold it within a broader IPC discussion that holds for you. But the rule already works in its simple formulation, so I am reluctant to modify it too much, because then I don’t know if it would actually hold up in game.

    I guess what I like is the idea that I player could select at the outset whether they wanted to play a high or low economy game, or if you like, a long game or a short game. And this rule provides a mechanic to take it from low (normal) to high (with the bonus) without changing anything else beyond the addition of this simple phase. Does that make sense? Also, this input is all excellent. I do value such thoughtful analysis and commentary as is being provided in this thread.

  • '17 '16

    I guess what I like is the idea that I player could select at the outset whether they wanted to play a high or low economy game, or if you like, a long game or a short game. And this rule provides a mechanic to take it from low (normal) to high (with the bonus) without changing anything else beyond the addition of this simple phase.

    Your Income Bonus Phase is simple and provides a way to input a somewhat relatively balance/ or correcting the little bias toward Axis in 1942.2.

    What I’m looking for is some other ways to add a few IPCs but keep it inside +5 IPCs instead of +15 because 5 powers x15 means 75 additional IPCs per whole turn becomes a lot of infused money in the long run.

    That’s why I input the two different modes of counting the bonus:

    1. At the end of the turn, only a just conquered territory + old non-starting territories + Victory City additional.
    2. At the start of the turn, counting all the territories still possessed, + 1 for each Victory City owned and dividing sum by 2 and rounding up.
      I have the impression that option 1) can give around 3-5 IPCs/turn. While  each loosing,  Russia and Germany most likely, maybe 2 IPCs/turn from recurrent double dipping lost, because Income Phase is at the beginning of the turn.
      And that option 2) could be around 7-8 IPCs  bonus/turn.

    Don’t know if there is other simple way to modulate the bonus income.
    Do you have other good idea?

  • '17 '16

    @Black_Elk:

    First the goal of the house rule is to increase the full economic output capable, to increase the totals across the board, but to do so in a way which is not overly distorting with game balance.

    How about this. If the printed number represents the aggregate of all production capacity possible in a given territory at a given point in the game, then the bonus could represent that territory being integrated with the rest of a Nation’s territories and logistics network . This is a baseline value since each territory is at 1. The printed IPCs are still distributed the same way they always are during the normal collect income phase at the end of the turn. The bonus represents whatever kind of “collective industrial benefit” you want to imagine that comes from holding these possessions integrated at the start of the turn. Keeping it at 1 universally keeps it simple. You don’t have to redraw the map or redesign the system, just add the simple thing on top of it. I think this takes the behind the scenes economic model up to higher level, increasing the totals by about a third, which is comfortable. It’s not super high, but it makes a difference.

    This  kind of rationalization about the bonus is ok I think.


  • @Black_Elk:

    What I am trying to do here is get money into the basic games, with an even distribution, without resorting to complex rules.

    Fair enough – I have no issues with this.  When the house rule objectives are put in those terms, it actually raises the possibility of achieving this in an even simpler way than has been discussed so far (unless the suggestion has in fact already been made; I admit that I haven’t followed these discussions too closely).  All that would needed are these two short house rules (or variations with different numbers, if the proposed figures sound too low or too high):

    a) All territories on the game map with printed names but no printed IPC values are considered to have an IPC value of 1.

    b) All territories with a printed IPC value are considered to be worth double that amount.

    Problem solved: more money in the game, no complicated rules to remember.  And no justification needed for such an across-the-board change that affects every rule “a)” territory uniformly and every rule “b)” territory uniformly; the rationale would simply be that Larry undervalued everything on the map and that the two house rules merely correct this error.

    If such a suggestion has already been made in one of the house rules threads, is there any particular reason why it was rejected (if that was the case)?

  • '17 '16

    Or more simply: just add+1 IPC for every territory “0” is “1”, “1” is “2”, etc. owned during the collect Income Phase.
    Almost the same results, except for a little bonus for double dips territories.
    No need to add the Income Bonus Phase.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    First to CWO Marc: What you just laid out was in fact the very first thing I tried. But the problem came in doubling all the territories that had a base value of 2 ipcs or more. :)

    It was easy enough to change the 0s to 1s, and the 1s to 2s, but doubling the 2s to 4s and the 3s to 6s, is where it gets all out of whack. This is actually what convinced me that there was some underlying weirdness to the base 0 arrangement in the first place. There is also something kind of magical about that base 3 ipc territory (worth exactly the replacement cost of a single infantry, and desireable as a potential factory location) which you kind of lose by simple doubling.

    The next idea we had was to simply add 1 to all territories across the board, effectively raising the printed production numbers by +1. This held up much better, and it comes very close to working. But again the problem was with the factories. This time it was the new factories rather than the starting ones, which become problematic. Because adding 1 directly to the production totals, makes every space at OOB 1, into 2 and thus viable for a factory. (Mainly this was a tank drive issue, esp. for Japan.) There was also an issue with the double dip, where if you added the numbers into normal production/income, you made that double dip even more extreme.

    It was at that point we tried separating the bonus cash into a separate phase, and putting it at the beginning of the turn. Using the simple count and add method. Which, much to my surprise, actually worked and rather well. So that’s why I offered it as a viable house option for high economy games on the basic boards.

    To Baron:
    The only issue I see arising from the “just conquered territory” thing, is that it requires players to track the games history. What I mean is that, at a glance, it might not be so easy to remember who conquered what and when. Especially if there is a break in the game, and you come back to it later. So if you want to do it that way, I think you’ll have a situation where people might get confused about the amount of the bonus. It could work though, it just seems a little more complicated than what I was shooting for.

    I also think 5 ipcs per Nation is a bit low to have much impact, since that doesn’t even allow for the purchase of an additional tank in games like 1942. It doesn’t really bring things from Low to High economy. But if the goal is just to lower the overall bonus, then I suppose you could borrow from a game like risk, and divide the total by 1/3 (or maybe 1/2 but I would probably favor thirds since infantry costs 3 so there is a kind of built in 1/3 to the game already), but you’d have to round down in that case not up to find the total if you wanted it.

    The only problem I have with that (aside from the additional math) is that it creates a baseline of <1 which is inherently more complicated than just 1. Anytime you work with fractions. And the total of 70 territories is not divisible by 3, so you’d always have a remainder somewhere. 1/2 might work, but again, it disproportionately advantages nations which can hold an even number of territories instead of an odd. I’m also not sure .5 ipcs would make enough of a differences in persuading someone to go for a base zero ipc territory like Caroline Islands or Iceland. Whereas 1 ipc does seem to make enough difference, or at least that has been the experience in every game we’ve tried with this rule in play.

    When the bonus gets you into double digits +10, +15 etc it changes the purchasing options in a way that +5 doesn’t. When the totals across the board go up by a third, it effects the overall unit replacement costs, which mitigates the straight-jacket of the OOB starting unit set up somewhat. With the effect that the whole game isn’t tied to it anymore. Now you can do other things, because your purchasing power is increased. Instead the game becomes more about what units are purchased each round, with less emphasis on the starting unit arrangement and the opening round battles. It doesn’t eliminate that starting unit emphasis completely, but it does provide for more flexibility as the game goes on.

  • '17 '16

    Thanks for the long reply post.
    Help understand the history of this HR.
    I never thought that double dips was such a problem when all territories get +1 IPC bonus.
    Thanks sharing your experience.

    Probably one interesting aspect of your HR:

    When the bonus gets you into double digits +10, +15 etc it changes the purchasing options in a way that +5 doesn’t. When the totals across the board go up by a third, it effects the overall unit replacement costs, which mitigates the straight-jacket of the OOB starting unit set up somewhat. With the effect that the whole game isn’t tied to it anymore. Now you can do other things, because your purchasing power is increased. Instead the game becomes more about what units are purchased each round, with less emphasis on the starting unit arrangement and the opening round battles. It doesn’t eliminate that starting unit emphasis completely, but it does provide for more flexibility as the game goes on.

    You probably have a point here:

    I’m also not sure .5 ipcs would make enough of a differences in persuading someone to go for a base zero ipc territory like Caroline Islands or Iceland. Whereas 1 ipc does seem to make enough difference, or at least that has been the experience in every game we’ve tried with this rule in play.

    You defend well your HR, I could say.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    Anytime, I always enjoy discussing this stuff, and the people here always have great feedback and thoughtful responses :)

    Yeah, the double dip is interesting. On the one hand it is hard to get rid of completely, because the basic game is built in such a way that Russia, Germany and UK are all dependent upon it to maintain economic parity with each other. But at the same time if you try to up the money via the printed production value universally +1, then that same double dip starts to swing more dramatically. This is why it seemed simpler to detach a bonus from the production values, so you are adding in money without altering production, and then put it into a kind of seperate phase based on the total territory controlled count. When you stick that phase right before unit purchase, it seems to work out nicely in terms of the overall flow of the gameplay. Pretty easy to adopt, not too much additional math or too many additional things to track, but it gets that money into play. What’s cool about it I think, is that it allows the double dip to persist, but then gives this extra bonus which encourages holding territory rather than trading it. So you get a little of both in play, but it’s not overly distorting.

    For example, Germany can retain their sizeable double dip/normal income pretty easily, but they start to drop on the bonus cash as the game goes on, if they cease to expand and instead fall into the defensive ball. Russia has a similar problem, and also the inherent problem of being the nation with the least amount of land and normal money. But they do get a slight edge, since the western allies can recover their territory so it is held at the start of their turn (thus giving the bonus.) And this is in the tradition of A&A I think, where part of the western allies job to win, is to support Russia. The part that I like best though, is what this rule does to the Japanese/American game. And it’s hard to explain in words what goes on here but I think of it like this.

    With this rule in play, if Allies go full KGF and ignore all land at 0 ipcs (which has been traditional on many boards) Japan grows monster on the bonus. If Allies go full KJF and ignore all land at 0 pics, the same thing happens with Germany, they grow monster. So in a way the rule encourages the Allied split theater game. Which usually never works on any A&A board because the Allies don’t have enough money to support it, so they opt all one way. But now the Allies can get enough money to make that playstyle effective. And they are encouraged to do so especially by the Japanese position against the US/UK in full KGF, or the Sea Lion potential of Germany if they go full KJF. Again its harder to show, but the values seem to work. Or at least, if more people try, I am hopeful to get actual feedback from games. Allied wins, Axis wins, after action reports :)

  • '17 '16

    With this rule in play, if Allies go full KGF and ignore all land at 0 ipcs (which has been traditional on many boards) Japan grows monster on the bonus. If Allies go full KJF and ignore all land at 0 pics, the same thing happens with Germany, they grow monster. So in a way the rule encourages the Allied split theater game. Which usually never works on any A&A board because the Allies don’t have enough money to support it, so they opt all one way. But now the Allies can get enough money to make that playstyle effective. And they are encouraged to do so especially by the Japanese position against the US/UK in full KGF, or the Sea Lion potential of Germany if they go full KJF. Again its harder to show, but the values seem to work. Or at least, if more people try, I am hopeful to get actual feedback from games. Allied wins, Axis wins, after action reports Smiley

    Your making three hits with one stone:
    Did you ever read the thread I started based on your post in the Harris Game Design forum?
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32221.msg1207041#msg1207041

    Probably it is the solution for this problem:
    Increasing action in PTO: The Case against 0 ipc territories (Pacific Islands)

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    Oh wow, I didn’t realize there was such a robust discussion going on there. I thought my post on the Larry Boards just fell flat, didn’t know it was picked up here. I just read through those posts right now, solid feedback. :)

    I think I get a better sense now for CWOMarc’s position as well, when people try to conflate production value with things that clearly can’t be considered strictly “production.” I would say just as an aside though, that in my mind I have always regarded IPCs as generic game points. Even though they are used to model the game’s economy, I have always found it hard to be terribly strict in my interpretation of what they are supposed to represent in the story of the game. I am perfectly comfortable adapting the language of their definition, if it will get rid of the zero ipc territory phenomenon. Nothing would have pleased me more than if that acronym IPC was left undefined, or at least less defined.

    I will make these simple points, which I think argue for some flexibility here, in terms of the relationship between discrete geographic units (territories) and how they relate to production:

    In Classic Western Europe is worth 6 ipcs, and encompasses the same geography that is now split into two territories (France, and NorthWestern Europe) which taken together are worth 8 ipcs total in 1942.2

    In Revised Southern Europe is worth 6 ipcs, and encompasses the same geography that is now split into two territories (Italy, and Southern Europe) now worth a 5 ipcs total in 1942.2

    In Revised French Indo-China is worth 3, now it’s broken up into Burma, FIC and Malaya worth 4 all together.

    Okinawa used to be 1 ipc, now its worth 0 etc

    And changes like this have happened in each iteration of the game, dozens of times, all across the mapboard. There is routine movement and adjustment of ipcs values all the time, plus 1 here minus 1 there, and territories have been divided and merged countless times. This with the effect that the overall ipcs that a particular region of the map (described as a territory) produces have changed several times already. If the values were strict in the real world/historical sense, then you shouldn’t be able to just break the map apart to add more territories or alter the IPC values. It would bust the internal logic of the behind the scenes economy wouldn’t it? But that doesn’t seem to be the case, as evidenced by the frequent changes (either to the geography or the production associated with it), and the fact that we just accept these changes as given, everytime a new mapboard comes out. So if there is enough freedom to do all that, shouldn’t there be some flexibility when it comes to making all territories of the map worth at least 1?

    I mean, if it makes the game more fun, to me that seems totally doable.

  • Customizer

    Black_Elk,
    You had a couple if ideas. One was simply doubling the IPC amounts of the printed values and the other was simply adding +1 to the printed IPC values. You mentioned that the problem with one or both of them was in placing new factories; that certain territories that could not support a factory now can.
    This is easy to fix. You simply say that the doubling of IPC values or adding +1 of IPC values is ONLY for the collect income phase of the game. Placement of new factories is dependent STRICTLY on the printed IPC values. This way you get more IPCs per nation during collect income but no new factories in weird locations. Problem solved.

    Another possibility to increase everyone’s spending potential is to simply lower the costs of new units. You could cut everything in half and everyone would be able to buy a lot more stuff with the money they already have. More pieces, bigger battles, no overly complex rules, more fun.

  • '17 '16

    @knp7765:

    Black_Elk,
    You had a couple if ideas. One was simply doubling the IPC amounts of the printed values and the other was simply adding +1 to the printed IPC values. You mentioned that the problem with one or both of them was in placing new factories; that certain territories that could not support a factory now can.
    This is easy to fix. You simply say that the doubling of IPC values or adding +1 of IPC values is ONLY for the collect income phase of the game. Placement of new factories is dependent STRICTLY on the printed IPC values. This way you get more IPCs per nation during collect income but no new factories in weird locations. Problem solved.

    Another possibility to increase everyone’s spending potential is to simply lower the costs of new units. You could cut everything in half and everyone would be able to buy a lot more stuff with the money they already have. More pieces, bigger battles, no overly complex rules, more fun.

    Your first fix about IC placement is the simplest.

    However, I would like to emphasized the difference between single collect income phase at the end of the turn vs Collect Income + T.I.Bonus phase at the start of the turn.

    The big difference, I think, is that strategy and approach get a more cautious dynamics in combat with T.I.Bonus.
    Generally speaking, all players care about maximizing IPC gain, but don’t necessary care about keeping the territories conquered since it doesn’t affect directly the purse.
    For example: empty territories which can be blitz back and forth changing ownership during the process is advantageous for both players.

    But the T.I.Bonus at the start become a reminder that you loose the opportunity for gaining 1 IPC for each territory conquered but abandoned to the enemy before the beginning of your next turn.
    This aspect can be a real incentive to modify the strategical management of skirmish/borders war.

    Otherwise, the single Income phase increasing the double dip effect on “swinging territories” (don’t have better expression) is still going on, but at an higher level of money: each territory exchange means an additional 1 IPC bonus worth of units bring on the board.

    In addition, reducing in half the price of units will not increase “0” value territory struggle.
    PTO islands won’t be interesting to fight for.


  • @Black_Elk:

    The next idea we had was to simply add 1 to all territories across the board, effectively raising the printed production numbers by +1. This held up much better, and it comes very close to working. But again the problem was with the factories. This time it was the new factories rather than the starting ones, which become problematic. Because adding 1 directly to the production totals, makes every space at OOB 1, into 2 and thus viable for a factory.

    If factories are the problem with an otherwise satisfactory method, then how about having a house rule that simply states “All named territories count for 1 IPC higher than their printed map value – except for the purpose of building factories, for which the printed map value continues to apply.”

    Edit: Oops, I posted this before noticing there was a page 3 to the thread, where knp basically said the same thing as I posted.

  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    For the record.  This bonus income program is heavy handed in favour of the allies.

    1. The axis empires will always consist of more “trading” territories than the allies. Meaning they will receive leas bonus income on average per turn than their allies.

    2. The axis have to expand quickly, to even reach economic parity, which is now disparged by the fact the allies will receive heavier income bonuses early.

    3. Each turn a unit is on the board it provides its side “strategic value”.  The earlier units are purchased the more game impact they have.  With bonuses heavier for the allies in the beginning, they will have more “unit opportunity”. Affect balance.

    That said - by adding more game units one can argue that the luck factor in games is reduced.  Which also compounds the problems of the axis, as they are leaa likely to get lucky.

    In the end, this could make for fun gaming, but make no mistake, its extremely uneven.

  • Customizer

    Gargantua is right. I didn’t even think about that. Just think of the UK. They have little 1 and 0 IPC territories all over the place. Sealion would be impossible because Britain would simply have too much money to spend on defense.

Suggested Topics

  • 3
  • 2
  • 11
  • 25
  • 3
  • 1
  • 4
  • 45
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

30

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts